MAASAI MARA WILDLIFE CONSERVANCIES

ASSOCIATION

Recommendations for Wildlife Crossings along the

Narok – Sekenani Road in the Mara Ecosystem

_______________________________________________________________

A working paper prepared for the Narok County Government

Dr. Irene Amoke

irene.amoke@gmail.com

August 2016

2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Kenya’s Vision 2030 outlines the government’s infrastructure plans with aspirations of

linking the country through a network of roads, railways, ports, airports, water and

sanitation facilities as well as telecommunications. In 2014, as part of the development blue

print, the national government announced plans to work with Narok County to tarmac the

85km road linking Narok town to the Maasai Mara National Reserve through the Sekenani

gate. Despite the Maasai Mara being Kenya’s most iconic wildlife destination, it has long

suffered from poor road access and it is widely accepted by all stakeholders that there is an

urgent need to upgrade this road. It has further been recognised that the road, if

constructed to internationally acceptable standards, stands to boost the image of the Mara

which is globally known for its epic wildebeest migration.

However, research has shown that roads and other infrastructure have the potential to

cause mortality in wildlife, severely disrupt their movement and increase the risk of local

extinctions, making it essential to recommend and implement appropriate mitigation

efforts. The Narok –Sekenani road traverses sections of the county’s former group ranches

which have during the past 10 years been subdivided into individually owned plots with

some forming part of the newly established conservancies. The land subdivision in these

former group ranches and the subsequent rise in land sales, mechanised agriculture, fencing

and the indiscriminate and unplanned mushrooming of market centres, in addition to

permanent human settlements, have already been shown as causing adverse impacts on the

ecosystem’s wildlife. Further adverse impacts are expected from the development of a

tarmacked road in this already fragile ecosystem, if mitigation measures are not

incorporated.

While infrastructural development is highly important to the county’s economy, it is

imperative that the impacts of these developments on the county’s flora and fauna are

taken into consideration, not least owing to Narok County being the home of approx. 25% of

Kenya’s wildlife. With the planned tarmacking of the Narok-Sekenani Road, it is important,

now more than ever, to understand the impact of infrastructure, specifically roads, on

wildlife.

This paper highlights the impacts of road construction on wildlife and describes how

innovative wildlife passes have been successfully utilized in different parts of the world to

mitigate the negative impacts of roads on wildlife. By locally adapting these designs

during the upgrade of the Narok-Sekenani Road, Narok County Government will be able to

meet its objective of creating access to the Mara whilst protecting the very resource

millions of tourists visit annually - its wildlife. Through this working paper, the Maasai

Mara Wildlife Conservancies Association (MMWCA) further recommends the engagement

of a consultant to undertake a comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) in

compliance with national regulations, and the identification of focal wildlife species or

3

groups that utilise the road in order to identify the most suitable locations for wildlife

crossing mitigation.

Undertake a comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) in compliance with

national regulations

The National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) was established under the

Environmental Management and Coordination Act (EMCA) No. 8 of 1999, as the

government’s principal instrument in the implementation of all policies relating to the

environment. Section 3 of the Act states that “Every person in Kenya is entitled to a clean

and healthy environment and has the duty to safeguard and enhance the environment” and

is intended to ensure that our activities do not compromise the capacity of the resource

base to meet the needs of the present generation as well as those of future generations

(Government of the Republic of Kenya 2000).

Under the 2nd Schedule of the Act (s.58 (1), (4)), it is a requirement that all proposed major

roads undertake an EIA in which all significant effects or impacts on the environment

(including ecological impacts) are considered and measured, and if likely effects are

unacceptable, design measures or other relevant mitigation measures taken to reduce or

avoid these impacts. During the EIA process, the principle of public participation is applied,

where the public are given early and effective opportunities to participate in the decision

making procedures. The Act further tasks NEMA to “propose guidelines for the integration

of standards of environmental protection into development planning and management” and

to “identify and recommend policy and legislative approaches for preventing, controlling or

mitigating specific as well as general adverse impacts on the environment.”

Site identification and construction of wildlife crossings

According to (Ostlind 2010), long-distance animal migrations around the world are

disappearing due to habitat loss, developments blocking off corridors and people killing

wildlife due to conflict. He highlights the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, which is

connected to Trappers’ Point (Figure 3) through the movement of the pronghorn. In this

ecosystem, six of eight historic big-game migration corridors were blocked and are no longer

available to the animals that once relied on them, resulting in the deer, elk, bison, and

The Maasai Mara Wildlife Conservancies Association (MMWCA) therefore requests that

the following recommendations be adequately and fully implemented in order to ensure

that both wildlife and people are not adversely affected by the proposed upgrade of the

Narok –Sekenani Road and Narok County meets international standards of road

construction, befitting to its prominent role within Kenya.

4

antelope restricted to isolated ranges where they are susceptible to harsh weather,

inbreeding, or disease.

As studies on the effects of roads on wildlife in Africa are limited, science-based evidence is

therefore imperative to mitigating the effects of roads on wildlife. Deciding where to locate

wildlife crossing structures requires adequate tools and resources to identify the most

suitable sites for these crossing structures (Clevenger and Huijser 2011). An important first

step is the identification of a focal species or group that utilise the road and recommending

the most suitable locations for wildlife crossing mitigation. Once a species is identified,

many of the resources listed in Table 1 below can be used to identify the best locations for

wildlife crossing mitigation. Bennett (2003) states that information concerning the spatial

scale of a species’ movements, its habitat requirements, diet, and other necessary resources

are important and will assist in managing habitats within any proposed linkages. Other

behavioural and ecological attributes, such as the ability to cross gaps, the level of tolerance

of disturbed habitats, the role of dispersal in the life-history, the age and sex of dispersing

individuals, and dispersal behaviour also determine the most effective type of linkage and

the ability of species to effectively use such links. He further notes that species that live in

groups or colonies generally require greater habitat area than do similar solitary-living

species and, therefore, may require broader habitat links to meet these demands for living

space. Linkages that encompass the requirements of the most ‘extinction prone’ species

will, in most cases, also be effective for the majority of more common species. For linkages

to be effective in maintaining continuity of ecological processes, the requirements of the

key species involved in such processes must be met.

Key words: Development, Impacts, Infrastructure, Maasai Mara National Reserve,

Migration, Mitigation, Narok County Government, Overpasses, Policy, Roads, Underpasses,

Vision 2030, Wildlife passes

5

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... 2

Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 6

Impacts of Roads on Wildlife ............................................................................................ 6

The Greater Mara Ecosystem: A Background ..................................................................... 7

The Proposed Upgrade of the Narok – Sekenani Road ....................................................... 9

Potential Cumulative Impacts of Tarmacking the Narok-Sekenani Road .......................... 10

Positive Impacts .............................................................................................................. 10

Negative Impacts ............................................................................................................. 11

Mitigation Recommendations to Manage Adverse Impacts of Roads on Wildlife ............. 11

Wildlife Crossings ............................................................................................................ 12

Case Studies ................................................................................................................... 14

Case Study 1: Banff National Park – Alberta, Canada ....................................................... 14

Case Study 2: Mount Kenya Elephant corridor (underpass) - Kenya ................................. 14

Case Study 3: Trapper's Point Wildlife Overpass – Wyoming, USA ................................... 15

Case Study 4: Natuurbrug Zanderij Crailo - The Netherlands ............................................ 16

Case Study 5: Eco-Link@BKE, Singapore .......................................................................... 17

References ..................................................................................................................... 20

List of figures & tables

Figures

Figure 1: Map of the Mara – Serengeti Ecosystem showing location of the Mara Ecosystem .............. 8

Figure 2: Map showing Mara conservancies in relation to the location of the Narok-Sekenani Road 10

Figure 3: Wildlife overpass in Banff National Park. Joel Sartore (Amusing Planet 2015) .................... 14

Figure 4: Elephants using the Mt. Kenya underpass. Associated Press (Amusing Planet 2011) .......... 15

Figure 5: Development of Trapper's Point Wildlife Overpass (Contech Engineered Solutions 2013) .. 16

Figure 6: The extent of Natuurbrug Zanderij Crailo in Netherlands. Atlas Obscura (Josh 2015) ......... 16

Figure 7: Aerial view of Eco-Link@BKE (National Parks Board, 2014) .................................................. 17

Tables

Table 1: Recommended resources to successfully identify potential wildlife crossings. Adapted from

(Clevenger and Huijser 2011) ................................................................................................................ 19

6

Introduction

Kenya’s development agenda is based on Vision 2030, the country’s long-term national

planning strategy which states the main goals of the Economic, Social and Political pillars

that underpin it (Government of the Republic of Kenya 2007). Through this document, the

government has outlined its infrastructure plans with aspirations of being firmly

interconnected through a network of roads, railways, ports, airports, water and sanitation

facilities, and telecommunications. With regards to infrastructure, the agenda notes that “by

2030, it will become impossible to refer to any region of the country as “remote”. Investment

in the nation’s infrastructure has been given the highest priority according to the plan.

Similar to Vision 2030, Hopcraft, Bigurube et al. (2015) explain that national progress in

developing countries is dependent on the development of infrastructure such as effective

transportation networks. He further points out that the development trajectory in

developing countries is contingent on maintaining healthy ecosystems that are capable of

providing ecological services such as clean water, stable fertile agricultural soils and sources

of revenue (for instance, through tourism) to the citizens.

Following the proposed tarmacking of the Narok-Sekenani, this paper seeks to highlight the

impacts of infrastructural developments, especially roads, on wildlife. It further proposes

ways in which the Narok County Government can mitigate these impacts by illustrating how

wildlife overpasses and underpasses have been successfully employed in different parts of

the world to mitigate the adverse impacts of roads on wildlife

Impacts of Roads on Wildlife

Across the world, roads, railways and other linear infrastructure are pervasive components

of most landscapes. Combined with the effect of vehicles, they have the potential to cause

mortality in wildlife, severely disrupt animal movement and increase the risk of local

extinction. (Rodney van der Ree, Grift et al. 2007). Clevenger and Huijser (2011) reiterate

this by describing the impact of roads on wildlife populations as a significant and growing

problem worldwide, noting that many roads and highways cut across landscapes,

intersecting ecosystems and impacting on local habitats. The result is that terrestrial and

aquatic flows such as wildlife movements and distributions, subsurface and surface

hydrology and wind erosion may be blocked or altered.

The increasing development of roads across wild ecosystems and their perceived impacts on

wildlife has seen the emergence road ecology, a discipline that studies the interactions

between roads and the environment. Over the last ten years since its emergence, it has

strived to understand surface transportation infrastructure and its impacts on wildlife and

motorist safety, aquatic resources, habitat connectivity, and many other environmental

values (Clevenger and Huijser 2011). Road ecologists assert that roads can be ecologically

catastrophic, indirectly impacting wildlife through; habitat destruction and degradation,

7

spread of exotic species like weeds, genetic isolation and the creation of unstable meta-

populations by fragmenting habitat patches which may result in the restriction of animal

movements leading to the functional isolation of populations. More directly, roads can

cause pollution, noise, animal avoidance, act as barriers to animal movement and cause the

direct mortality of millions of animals as a result of collisions with the vehicles that travel on

them (Rodney van der Ree, Grift et al. 2007, Clevenger and Huijser 2011, Ogden 2012,

Hopcraft, Bigurube et al. 2015, Kioko, Kiffner et al. 2015).

A case study of the Serengeti highway in Tanzania (Hopcraft, Bigurube et al. 2015) highlights

the need for careful planning in the development of new roads and infrastructure so as not

to jeopardize the country’s sources of foreign revenue from tourism. The Serengeti is one of

the best studied ecosystems in the world and is known for the annual migration of 1.38

million wildebeest and 250,000 zebra which move in a seasonal pattern between Tanzania

and Kenya. This mass migration drives virtually every other ecological component in the

ecosystem, from the diversity of plants and insects, forests and predator-prey interactions.

It also provides water, soil nutrients as well as a vibrant tourism industry for the nation. The

formerly proposed highway has been described as bisecting the migration and cutting the

ecosystem in half. According to Thirgood, Mosser et al. (2004), a loss of part of the

wildebeest’s migration route, even if only used for short periods, could leave the population

at risk. In their paper, Hopcraft, Bigurube et al. (2015) describe a preliminary assessment of

a road through Serengeti aimed at a capacity of 3,000 vehicles and transport trucks per day

(equivalent to 125 vehicles per hour) which would seriously place at risk the exclusive

product Tanzania as a country currently markets in the Serengeti. Additionally, the

competitive international trade that a highway of this magnitude would bring poses a

distinct risk for the traditional lifestyle of Maasai people, especially if adequate land use

planning and laws are not already in place to protect them.

The Greater Mara Ecosystem: A Background

The Mara Ecosystem lies between 0°45’ and 2°00’ S and 34°45’ and 36°00’ E at an altitude of

1,617 meters above sea level in South Western Kenya (Ogutu, Piepho et al. 2010). It covers

an area of 6,650 km², comprising of the 1,510 km² Maasai Mara National Reserve (MMNR),

the Loita, Siana and Mara plains (Khaemba and Stein 2000, Walpole, Nabaala et al. 2004),

which make up the former group ranches that have recently been converted to community

conservancies. These conservancies and plains covering an estimated 3,000km2 act as

wildlife dispersal areas for the MMNR (Khaemba and Stein 2000, Walpole, Nabaala et al.

2004), supporting higher wildlife densities than the MMNR at certain times of the year

(Ottichilo, De Leeuw et al. 2000).The Mara Ecosystem is bordered to the west by the Mara

River and the Siria escarpment, which separates the reserve from the Trans Mara Plateau,

on the east by the Loita Plateau and by the Kenya-Tanzania border on the southwest

(Thompson, Serneels et al. 2009) (Figure 1).

8

The Mara is home to a wide range of wildlife species, supporting the greatest densities of

both wild and domestic herbivores in Kenya (Ogutu, Owen-Smith et al. 2011), with an

estimated herbivore density of nearly 240/km² and a biomass of just under 30 tonnes /km²

(BirdLife International 2010). It is famous for its concentration of migratory herbivores,

providing dry season range for approximately 1.5 million migratory wildebeest

(Connochaetes taurinus), one hundred thousand zebra (Equus burchelli) and large numbers

of other grazers, browsers and their predators (Ojwang', Said et al. 2006, Ogutu, Owen-

Smith et al. 2011). The Mara also hosts the ‘big five’ which are a major tourist attraction;

Cape buffalo (Syncerus caffer), elephant (Loxodonta africana), leopard (Panthera pardus),

lion (Panthera leo) and black rhinoceros (Diceros bicornis (Walpole, Karanja et al. 2003). The

Mara has been named as the only region in Kenya that supports an ecologically viable lion

population and one of the only remaining indigenous black rhino populations. BirdLife

International (2010) classifies it as an Important Bird Area (IBA) hosting over 500 bird

species, including 53 birds of prey.

Source: (Homewood, Lambin et al. 2001)

Figure 1: Map of the Mara – Serengeti Ecosystem showing location of the Mara Ecosystem

9

The most commonly used access road to the Maasai Mara National Reserve from Narok

town is the 85 Km Narok-Sekenani Road, currently classified as ‘earthen’. To get to the

reserve, this road traverses sections of the former group ranches which have recently been

subdivided into individually owned plots with some forming newly formed conservancies

(Figures 1 & 2). The land subdivision in these former group ranches and subsequent rise in

land sales, mechanised agriculture, fencing and the indiscriminate and unplanned

mushrooming of market centres and permanent human settlements have already been

shown to have adverse impacts on the ecosystem’s wildlife.

The Proposed Upgrade of the Narok – Sekenani Road

Narok County has a recorded road network of approximately 2,798.4 Km, with 260 Km

classified as bitumen, 840 Km gravel surface and 1,698.4 Km earthen. However due to the

county’s bad terrain, most of these roads, including access roads to Maasai Mara National

Reserve, are unreliable especially during rainy seasons when most of them are rendered

impassable. The county’s poor road network has hindered access to social amenities,

resulted in high cost of transport thereby affecting the performance of the various economic

activities and hampered full realization of the county‘s potential in agriculture,

manufacturing as well as both foreign and domestic tourism. It has been noted that the

main contributing factor to the poor state of roads in the County is inadequate funding for

construction, rehabilitation and maintenance of both classified and unclassified roads. In

order to improve the road network, there is need to open-up new roads, rehabilitate and

carry out frequent maintenance of roads to all weather condition (County Government of

Narok 2013).

In 2014, the national government announced that it would work with Narok County to

tarmac the 85 Km road linking Narok town to the Maasai Mara National Reserve through

the Sekenani gate (Figure 2). This is in a bid to improve roads to the Mara, which brings an

estimated income of KES 3 billion per year, and is the leading revenue resource for Narok

and an economic pillar to achieving the country’s Vision 2030 (Government of the Republic

of Kenya 2007, Sayagie 2014). According to the principal secretary for infrastructure, the

road will be constructed to internationally acceptable standards and stands to boost the

image of the Mara which is globally recognised for its epic wildebeest migration from

Serengeti to Kenya (Sayagie 2014).

10

Figure 2: Map showing Mara conservancies in relation to the location of the Narok-Sekenani Road

Potential Cumulative Impacts of Tarmacking the Narok-Sekenani Road

Positive Impacts

It is perceived that with the tarmacking of the Narok- Sekenani, the communities around the

Mara will see significant benefit through the following means:

1) Improved accessibility to the domestic tourism market: By tarmacking the Narok-

Sekenani road, which is the most used road to the Mara, transport links between the

Mara and other towns in the country will be greatly improved. This is expected to

lead to a marked increase in the number of local (domestic) tourists visiting the

Mara. This in turn could lead to increased employment opportunities in the tourism

and associated sectors across the Mara, ultimately improving local livelihoods.

2) Improved service delivery: By tarmacking the Narok-Sekenani road, it is anticipated

that access to much needed services like healthcare, education and finance could

improve due to developed transport links.

Narok- Sekenani Road

11

Negative Impacts

The construction of a tarmacked road, earmarked to be a highway, in this highly fragile

ecosystem poses a great threat to the county’s wildlife and consequently, its tourism

industry through:

1) Reduction in the number of migrating ungulates: The Narok-Sekenani Road traverses

several wildlife hotspots including the migratory path of the local Mara-Loita migration,

an east-west movement of 35,000 wildebeest, zebra and gazelles between the Loita

plains and the Mara conservancies. It is widely believed that any negative impact on the

Mara’s ungulate population will result in a knock on impact on the ecosystem’s predator

population.

2) Loss of tourism revenue at local (community), county and national levels: The Maasai

Mara National Reserve, Kenya’s highest earning protected area is estimated to collect

collecting between KES 3.3 billion annually (Narok County Council and Trans Mara

County Council, 2012). Any adverse impacts from the road to the Mara’s wildlife

population has the potential to significantly reduce this income, leading to a loss of

livelihood to the communities that directly benefit from tourism, the County

Government that relies on this income and the highly significant numbers of jobs

created through the Mara’s tourism sector.

Mitigation Recommendations to Manage Adverse Impacts of Roads on

Wildlife

With the growing realisation of the impacts of infrastructure developments on migrating

wildlife species, there has been an upsurge in new techniques to identify remaining wildlife

movement paths with the hope of informing conservation and management decisions

(Seidler, Long et al. 2015). Numerous studies of the oil and gas industries have made it clear

that migratory wildlife are detrimentally affected by the habitat loss and disturbance

associated with these developments (Seidler, Long et al. 2015). Understanding migration

patterns before developments are planned or approved would aid in protecting these

migrations. It is therefore important that the extents of these impacts are critically analyzed

and necessary information is provided to relevant authorities for mitigation and improved

planning.

While the economic benefits of roads are widely known and appreciated, their negative

impacts especially to wildlife are rarely considered and few attempts are made to find

workable solutions for these opposing objectives (Clevenger and Huijser 2011). According to

Ogden (2012), avoiding road construction to begin with or restoring disused roads to natural

habitats in order to save wildlife corridors is the top priority from an ecological perspective.

However, “One size and strategy does not fit all” and researchers have identified important

12

factors that can inform the design of effective mitigation structures such as wildlife

crossings (discussed below). These include location, size, shape and openness of proposed

structures in addition to habitat cover, fencing, and surrounding environmental conditions

such as moisture, temperature, light, and substrate.

Wildlife Crossings

Research carried out in North America show that roads are a serious obstacle to maintaining

population connectivity (the degree to which a landscape facilitates or hinders free wildlife

movement) and a threat to the long-term survival of some regionally important wildlife

populations such as Pronghorn antelope. As a result of human-safety issues, the highly

visible nature of road-kill carcasses and the potential conservation implications, agencies

responsible for road construction and management have attempted to reduce the number

of road kills by preventing animals from accessing roads and facilitating crossing by

constructing tunnels, culverts and overpasses. There has been considerable effort to

document the use of these crossing structures by wildlife, and studies have been conducted

in Europe, North America and Australia (Rodney van der Ree, Grift et al. 2007, Clevenger

and Huijser 2011).

Wildlife crossing are permanent structures embedded within a dynamic landscape and are

intended to increase permeability of roads or other linear infrastructure by facilitating the

safe passage of animals over or under it. They increase habitat connectivity across roads and

reduce wildlife–vehicle collisions. In addition, they play an integral role in protecting and

maintaining the health of animal populations, allowing them to roam great distances and

prevent in-breeding that can lead to disease and possible extinction. Like landscape

corridors, the conservation value of wildlife crossing structures are gaining attention as

applied measures to help adapt changes in species ranges and animal distributions to

climate change. Wildlife crossing structures may be purpose built for wildlife or may

primarily serve other functions such as water drainage or access by humans (Rodney van der

Ree, Grift et al. 2007, Clevenger and Huijser 2011, Christy 2014).

The first wildlife crossings were constructed in France during the 1950s. Since then, a

number of other European countries including the Netherlands, Switzerland and Germany

have constructed various crossing structures to reduce the impact caused by roads on

wildlife (Amusing Planet 2015). With the lifespan of wildlife crossing structures around 70–

80 years, the location and design of these crossings need to accommodate the changing

dynamics of habitat and climatic conditions and their wildlife populations over time

(Clevenger and Huijser 2011). Over the years, the design of wildlife crossings have evolved in

their design structures and according to Animal Road Crossing (2015), the time has come for

new solutions. New solutions to wildlife crossing infrastructure are needed to reduce the

costs and to tailor each type of crossing to the specific species in various landscape contexts

(Marie-Lister 2012). It has been proposed that in general, wildlife crossings should be:

13

a) considered as early as possible in the transportation planning process so as to avoid

the more costly problem of retrofitting or rebuilding;

b) cost-effective in terms of materials, construction and maintenance;

c) ecologically responsive to current and anticipated conditions;

d) safe for humans and wildlife alike;

e) flexible or modular for possible use in other locations;

f) adaptive, to facilitate mobility of wildlife under dynamic ecosystem conditions;

g) sustainable in terms of materials and energy use, and responsive to climate change;

h) educational, revelatory and communicative to the public; and

i) beautiful, engaging and remarkable

Adapted from (Animal Road Crossing 2015)

The two common types of wildlife crossings are:

1) Above-grade (wildlife overpasses): These are structures that allow passage above

transportation infrastructure. Wildlife overpasses have been constructed in Europe,

the U.S., and Canada, with the most effective ranging in width from 50 m wide on

each end narrowing to 8-35 m in the centre, to structures up to 200 m wide. Wildlife

overpasses appear to accommodate more species of wildlife than underpasses as

they are less confining, quieter, maintain ambient conditions of rainfall, temperature

and light, and can serve both as passage ways for wildlife and intermediate habitat

for small animals such as reptiles, amphibians and small mammals (Jackson and

Griffin 2000).

2) Below-grade (wildlife underpasses): These are structures that allow passage below

transportation infrastructure or obstacles. According to Bennett (2003), underpasses

have been shown to assist movements of large wide-ranging species such as Cougars

or Panthers in California and Florida, USA. They are also used to facilitate

movements, or to reduce the road toll, for species as diverse as Badgers in Britain

and the Netherlands, Mountain Pygmy-possum in Australia and Common Toads and

other amphibians in numerous European countries.

14

Case Studies

Case Study 1: Banff National Park – Alberta, Canada

With a total of 44 wildlife crossing structures (6 overpasses and 38 underpasses), and 82 km

of highway fencing (see figure 3 below), Banff National Park in Canada has the most wildlife

crossing structures and highway enclosure fencing in a single location, making it the host of

the most recognizable wildlife crossings in the world (Parks Canada 2014). To reduce to

effect of the four-lane Trans-Canada Highway, these wildlife crossings were built to ensure

habitat connectivity and protect motorists. They help sustain healthy wildlife populations by

allowing animals to cross under or over the highway and are used regularly by bears, moose,

deer, wolves, elk, and many other species. According to Strother (2013), bear populations

have been found to remain strong in the park, despite the fact that a major highway divides

their habitat. In addition, fences were installed on both sides of the twinned highway to

keep large animals from accessing the highway right-of-way.

After construction, tracking animal movement at the newly constructed wildlife crossings

was made a top priority. Such work has been on-going in the park since 1996; the longest

on-going wildlife crossing research and monitoring program in the world (Parks Canada

2014, Amusing Planet 2015).

Figure 3: Wildlife overpass in Banff National Park. Joel Sartore (Amusing Planet 2015)

Case Study 2: Mount Kenya Elephant corridor (underpass) - Kenya

As a result of the Kenya’s booming human population, incidences of human-wildlife conflict

across the country have increased. In the Mount Kenya-Laikipia landscape, elephant

migration routes are becoming increasingly unsafe. As a result, many elephant herds were

15

recorded as staying on in Lewa for longer periods of time, rather than migrating through the

Conservancy, causing an ecological strain on its resources (Lewa Wildlife Conservancy 2015).

To mitigate this conflict, a 15-foot-high tunnel (underpass) was constructed under a busy

motorway that divided the elephants’ traditional migratory routes. This underpass, the first

of its kind in Africa, was designed to give the elephants safe passage from the north-west

side of Mount Kenya to the Ngare Ndare Forest Reserve and Lewa Conservancy in a pattern

similar to historical migration routes- linking up to 7,000 elephants. Since its construction,

elephants have been recorded moving up and down the corridor on a daily basis in numbers

that have surpassed expectations (Amusing Planet 2011, Tusk Trust 2015).

Figure 4: Elephants using the Mt. Kenya underpass. Associated Press (Amusing Planet 2011)

Case Study 3: Trapper's Point Wildlife Overpass – Wyoming, USA

As the centre of one of the world’s largest intact long-distance animal migrations, Trappers’

Point in Wyoming has attracted human visitors for thousands of years. The abundance of

hardy forage and the sparse snowpack make this an important winter range for as many as

100,000 ungulates, including about 59,000 antelope, the largest gathering of pronghorn on

Earth. At 170 miles one way, the journey of the Teton pronghorn antelope is the second

longest recorded land animal migration in the Western Hemisphere, after caribou in the

Arctic (Ostlind 2010). A decade long study of these pronghorn antelope, found that it’s

habitat and 6,000-year-old migration route across Wyoming had been severely affected by

factors including development, natural resource extraction and an increase in traffic along

U.S. Highway 191 in the area of Trapper’s Point (Contech Engineered Solutions 2013).

In order to allow pronghorn antelope as well as mule deer, elk and moose safe passage

across busy U.S. Highway 191, the Wyoming Department of Transportation installed

concrete arch structures spanning the highway (see fig x below) to serve highway traffic

below and wildlife corridors above. In the year following construction in 2012, at least

36,071 mule deer and pronghorn were recorded as having moved through the new

crossings and reducing wildlife-vehicle crashes by 80% (Travsky 2014).

16

Figure 5: Development of Trapper's Point Wildlife Overpass (Contech Engineered Solutions 2013)

Case Study 4: Natuurbrug Zanderij Crailo - The Netherlands

The Netherlands contains over 600 man-made wildlife corridors, including overpasses and

underpasses along busy highways. Completed in 2006, Natuurbrug Zanderij Crailo, roughly

translated as “sand quarry natural bridge”, is the world’s longest overpass at 50 m wide and

over 800 m long. The overpass leads animals safely across the N524 roadway and nearby

railways to the surrounding wooded areas, spanning over a railway line, business park, river,

roadway, and sports complex and forms part of a larger protected area within the country,

the Veluwe, which consists of 1,000 square kilometres of forest and other natural habitats.

Species known to use these corridors include roe deer, red deer, wild boar, and the

endangered European badger (Josh 2015). According to NeoSystek (2015), monitoring is

currently underway to examine the effectiveness of this innovative project combining

wildlife protection with urban development.

Figure 6: The extent of Natuurbrug Zanderij Crailo in Netherlands. Atlas Obscura (Josh 2015)

17

Case Study 5: Eco-Link@BKE, Singapore

Constructed over a period of two years from 2011, the $16 million 62m ecological bridge

(Eco-Link) spans the six-lane Bukit Timah Expressway (BKE). Built specifically for animals, it is

the first purpose-built bridge for wildlife in South-east Asia and connects the 163ha Bukit

Timah Nature Reserve to the 2,000ha Central Catchment Nature Reserve which is

Singapore’s largest nature reserve. Home to 40% of the country’s flora and fauna, Bukit

Timah Nature Reserve was officially declared an ASEAN Heritage Park on 18 October 2011.

Together with Sungei Buloh Wetland Reserve, it is now part of the prestigious regional

network of 30 protected areas, forming the complete spectrum of representative

ecosystems in ASEAN. It is also protected by the Parks & Trees Act 2005 for the conservation

of Singapore’s native biodiversity (National Parks Board, 2016). The eco-link was

constructed to link the two nature reserves which had been connected until 1986 when the

BKE was built (Min & Pazos, 2015), with its main purpose being to restore the ecological

connection between two nature reserves, allowing wildlife to expand their habitat, genetic

pool and survival chances (National Parks Board, 2016).

In order to monitor the effectiveness of the eco-link which houses over 3,000 native plants,

eight camera traps with motion sensors have been set up in both nature reserves. These

cameras are triggered when animals move past them and together with numerous surveys,

have so far recorded more than 15 species of mammals and birds using the green corridor.

These include the common palm civet, several rare and geographically restricted mammals

such as the Lesser Mousedeer, the critically endangered Sunda pangolin and new species of

grasshoppers and crickets. Understory forest birds, such as barbets and bulbuls, have also

been observed in the vicinity of the Eco-Link@BKE. These species are vulnerable to local

extinction and would rarely traverse the expressway in the absence of an ecological bridge.

Figure 7: Aerial view of Eco-Link@BKE (National Parks Board, 2014)

18

Policy Harmonisation at County Level

Under the Kenyan Constitution (Laws of Kenya 2010), provision of roads is a function of both

National Government under the Fourth Schedule Part 1(18)(a,b,c) and County Government,

under the Fourth Schedule Part 2(5)(a,b,c). Narok County has a poor and dilapidated

physical infrastructure, mostly as a result of inadequate funding and sufficient technical

staff, poor terrain, encroachment of road reserve as well as lack of knowledge amongst the

community on the importance of roads.

In order to comply with both the country’s constitution and vision 2030 objective of

improving and increasing infrastructure in the country, Narok County Government should

ensure that there are adequate transport links to the Mara, its highest income earner.

According to its five year “Integrated Development Plan” (County Government of Narok

2013), the County intends to:

1. Ensure the provision and maintenance of quality roads, especially the main road

network

2. Mobilize and improve resources for opening up of new roads in order to increase

accessibility to the rural areas

3. Develop and enhance road maintenance management capabilities of both public and

private sector under the new Kenya Roads Board (KRB)

4. Operationalize road agents under the KRB and provide effective supervision.

5. Facilitate efficient and better road policy

6. Instil professionalism in the roads sector by training casual contractors and technical

staff in the district and ensuring that only competent contractors are awarded

contracts in the county.

Additionally, on its website (Narok County Government 2015), the county under its

department of public works, roads and transport is tasked with:

1. Implementation of policies on road works, quality standards, materials, mechanical

and transport services for county roads;

2. Undertaking performance and technical audits on road construction and

maintenance for county roads

19

Table 1: Recommended resources to successfully identify potential wildlife crossings. Adapted from (Clevenger and Huijser 2011)

Resource Purpose Source

Aerial photos Can be used to help identify vegetation types and human developments in potential crossing site Government agencies (KWS,

DRSRS), Narok County,

Remotely sensed imagery

Land cover-

vegetation maps

These maps help identify general vegetation types. Land cover maps are more general and include physical (built

areas) and biological information.

Government agencies (KWS,

DRSRS), satellite imagery

Land use maps Important to understand compatibility of adjacent land use in the present and future. Wildlife crossings will only

be as effective as the management strategies developed around them that incorporate all the key landscape

elements (humans, terrain, natural resources and transportation).

National and County

governments

Topographic maps Wildlife crossings should be placed where movement corridors for the focal species are associated with

dominant topographic features (riparian areas, ridgelines, etc.). Sections of roadway can be ignored where

terrain (steep slopes) and land cover (built areas) are unsuitable for wildlife and their movement

National and County

governments

Landownership

maps

Maps that identify adjacent land use management such as public/crown lands, designated reserves, municipal

and private lands are needed for planning corridors and crossings.

Narok County Government

Wildlife habitat

maps

Identify key habitat types for the species for which they are prepared.

Wildlife researchers

GIS based Wildlife

movement model

data

Landscape-scale GIS-based models can identify key habitat linkages, evaluate habitat fragmentation resulting

from human activities, and discover areas where highways are permeable to wildlife movement. Models that

simulate movements of wildlife tend to use “resource selection functions” that map habitat quality.

Wildlife researchers, NGOs

Wildlife ecology

field data

Supplemental data in form of telemetry points or population surveys can help guide the location selection for

connectivity and crossing structures.

Government agencies (KWS &

DRSRS), Researchers, Wildlife

NGOs

Wildlife road-kill

data

Location-specific data on wildlife species killed on roads, either through carcass collections or collision reports.

Can be used to identify road-kill hotspots, but do not provide information on where wildlife is successfully

crossing the roadway.

Wildlife NGOs, researchers

Road network data Road network showing road types.

National and local

government, Google maps

Local knowledge

(through public

participation)

Long-term area residents can provide valuable information about where and how wildlife moves across

landscapes, especially where crossing locations are limited. Citizen science programs, now formalised, encourage

active participation by the local community in wildlife movement and road mortality data collection.

Community leaders,

community focused NGOs

20

References

Amusing Planet (2011). "Africa’s First Elephant Underpass." Retrieved December 15th, 2015,

from http://www.amusingplanet.com/2011/01/africas-first-elephant-underpass.html.

Amusing Planet (2015). "Wildlife crossings around the world." Retrieved December 11th,

2015, from http://www.amusingplanet.com/2012/07/wildlife-crossings-around-world.html.

Animal Road Crossing (2015). "What's been done about roadkill, and why isn't it enough? ."

New Solutions. Retrieved December 11th, 2015, from http://arc-solutions.org/new-

solutions/.

Bennett, A. F. ( 2003). Linkages in the Landscape: The Role of Corridors and Connectivity in

Wildlife Conservation. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK, IUCN Publications

Services Unit, UK.

BirdLife International (2010). "Important Bird Areas factsheet: Masai Mara. Downloaded

from http://www.birdlife.org on 24/11/2010." from http://www.birdlife.org.

BirdLife International (2010). "Important Bird Areas factsheet: Masai Mara. Downloaded

from http://www.birdlife.orgon 24/11/2010." from http://www.birdlife.org.

Christy, A. (2014). "Wildlife Crossings Are Win Win. The question is When When? Wildlife

Crossings Save Human and Animal Lives." Retrieved December 2nd, 2015, from

https://medium.com/@grantstories/.

Clevenger, A. P. and M. P. Huijser (2011). Wildlife crossing structure handbook: Design and

Evaluation in North America. Lakewood.

Contech Engineered Solutions (2013). WYDOT Highway 191 - Trapper’s Point: Wildlife

Overpass Crossing. Wyoming, Wyoming Department of Transportation: 2.

County Government of Narok (2013). Narok County Integrated Development Plan (CIDP) :

2013-2017. Narok, County Government of Narok: 223.

Government of the Republic of Kenya (2000). ACT NO. 8 of 1999 - Environmental

Management and Co-ordination Act M. o. E. N. Resources. Kenya, Government of Kenya: 79.

Government of the Republic of Kenya (2007). Kenya Vision 2030- Popular version. Ministry

of Planning and National Development. Nairobi, GoK.

Homewood, K., et al. (2001). "Long-term changes in Serengeti-Mara wildebeest and land

cover: Pastoralism, population or policies." PNAS 98(22): 12544 - 12549.

21

Hopcraft, J. G., et al. (2015). "Balancing Conservation with National Development: A Socio-

Economic Case Study of the Alternatives to the Serengeti Road." PLoS ONE 10(7):

Hopcraft, J. G. C., et al. (2015). "Balancing conservation with national development: A Socio-

Economic case study of the alternatives to the Serengeti Road." PLoS ONE 10(7): 16.

Hui Min, C. and R. Pazos (2015) "Eco-Link@BKE: Safe passage for creatures over busy

highway". Straits Times. Retrieved on 11th March 2016, from

http://graphics.straitstimes.com/STI/STIMEDIA/Interactives/2015/11/feature-ecolink-BKE-

national-parks/index.html

Jackson, S. D. and C. R. Griffin (2000). A Strategy for Mitigating Highway Impacts on wildlife.

Wildlife and Highways: Seeking Solutions to an Ecological and Socio-economic Dilemma. T.

A. Messmer and B. West. University of Massachusetts, Amherst, The Wildlife Society: 143-

159.

Josh (2015). "Natuurbrug Zanderij Crailo." Atlas Obscura. Retrieved December 20th, 2015,

from http://www.atlasobscura.com/places/natuurbrug-zanderij-crailoo.

Khaemba, W. M. and A. Stein (2000). "Use of GIS for a spatial and temporal analysis of

Kenyan wildlife with generalised linear modelling." International Journal of Geographical

Information Science 14(8): 833-853.

Kioko, J., et al. (2015). "Wildlife roadkill patterns on a major highway in Northern Tanzania."

Wildlife roadkill patterns on a major highway in northern Tanzania 50(1): 17-22.

Laws of Kenya (2010). The Constitution of Kenya Office of the Attorney General. Nairobi,

National Council for Law Reporting with the Authority of the Attorney-General.

Lewa Wildlife Conservancy (2015). "The Elephant Underpass." Conservation. Retrieved

December 15th, 2015, from http://www.lewa.org/wildlife-security/the-elephant-

underpass/.

Marie-Lister, N. (2012). "Reconciling Mobility: Redesigning the Road, Reweaving Landscape."

Minding Nature 5(1).

Narok County Government (2015). "Narok County Website." Retrieved December 20th,

2015, from http://www.narok.go.ke/.

22

National Parks Board (2016). "Bukit Timah Nature Reserve." Retrieved on 22 February 2016,

from https://www.nparks.gov.sg/gardens-parks-and-nature/parks-and-nature-

reserves/bukit-timah-nature-reserve#basicInfo

NeoSystek (2015). Call it Animal Bridge, Eco Bridge or Natural Bridge. Neo Systek. 2015.

Ogden, L. E. (2012). "Road Ecology: Reconnecting a Fragmented Landscape." BioScience

62(1): 100-100.

Ogutu, J., et al. (2011). "Continuing wildlife population declines and range contraction in the

Mara region of Kenya during 1977-2009." Journal of Zoology: 1-11.

Ogutu, J. O., et al. (2010). "Large herbivore responses to water and settlements in

savannas." Ecological Monographs 80(2): 241-266.

Ojwang', G., et al. (2006). Dry season census of large herbivores in the Mara Ecosystem and

adjoining areas (2000 and 2002). Nairobi, Department of Resource Surveys and Remote

Sensing: 24.

Ostlind, E. (2010). "The Trappers’ Point Antelope Trail – A Precarious Wildlife Corridor."

Retrieved December 16th 2015, from http://www.wyofile.com/the-trappers-point-

antelope-trail-a-precarious-wildlife-corridor/.

Ottichilo, W. K., et al. (2000). "Population trends of large non-migratory wild herbivores and

livestock intheMasai Mara ecosystem, Kenya, between1977 and1997." African Journal of

Ecology 38: 202-216.

Parks Canada (2014). "Banff National Park." Retrieved December 15th, 2015, from

http://www.pc.gc.ca/.

Rodney van der Ree, et al. (2007). Overcoming the barrier effect of roads - How effective are

mitigation strategies: An international review of the use and effectiveness of underpasses

and overpasses designed to increase the permeability of roads for wildlife. International

Conference on Ecology and Transporation. North Carolina State University, Raleigh NC.

Sayagie, G. (2014). Road to Mara set for Sh1bn upgrade. Daily Nation. Nairobi, Nation Media

Group.

Seidler, R. G., et al. (2015). "Identifying impediments to long-distance mammal migrations."

Conserv Biol 29(1): 99-109.

23

Strother, M. (2013). "Why did the moose cross the highway? Because we built it an

overpass." Retrieved December 15th, 2015, from http://www.dialogdesign.ca/open-

dialog/animal-overpasses-in-banff-national-park-proven-to-work/.

Thirgood, S., et al. (2004). "Can parks protect migratory ungulates? The case of the

Serengeti wildebeest." Animal Conservation 7(2): 113-120.

Thompson, M., et al. (2009). Maasai Mara - Land privatization and wildlife decline: Can

conservation pay its way? Staying Maasai? Livelihoods, conservation and development in

East Africa rangelands. K. Homewood, P. Kristjanson and P. Chevenix Trench. New York,

Springer: 77 - 111.

Travsky, A. (2014). Wildlife bridges offer deer, antelope safe passage over highways.

Wyoming Tribune Eagle. Wyoming.

Tusk Trust (2015). "Mount Kenya Elephant Corridor Project." Mt Kenya Trust. Retrieved

December 15th, 2015, from http://www.tusk.org/mount-kenya-trust.

Walpole, M., et al. (2004). "Status of the Mara Woodlands in Kenya." African Journal of

Ecology 42(3): 180-188.

Walpole, M. J., et al. (2003). Wildlife and People: Conflict and Conservation in Masai Mara,

Kenya. IIED Wildlife and Development Series. London, International Institute for

Environment and Development: 68.