Wildlife Mortality Along Utah’s Highways

OverviewRole of the DivisionRoadkill Data and Statewide DatabaseWildlife Crossing GuidelinesUpdate on Recent ProjectsWildlife Crossing Camera StudyFuture Needs and Priorities

Role of DWR

Work with UDOT, Universities, local conservation groups, and landowners to minimize highway mortality by:Identifying locations of high deer-vehicle

collisionsErecting sufficient wildlife crossing structures

in those locationsEvaluate the effectiveness of the crossing

structures over timeImplement new technologies to improve future

wildlife crossing structures.

Population Objective, Strategy J from Statewide

Mule Deer Management Plan

Role of DWRMajor Impact Analysis Activities

Reviewing the 5 year Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)

Participating with UDOT and their consultants to plan and implement individual projects

Providing recommendations for avoiding project impacts and/or mitigation for unavoidable impacts

Needs assessments for future mitigation Documenting the location and extent of

roadkill mule deer

Roadkill Database

In 2007, DWR and UDOT entered into an agreement for removal of wildlife carcasses within transportation ROW’s

UDOT responsible for ~1,850 miles of roadways; DWR responsible for everything else

UDOT uses contractors for carcass pickup; DWR uses existing personnel

Data collection requirements identified in agreement Roadway, milepost, species, sex,

etc.

Identifying locations of high deer-vehicle collisions

DWR gathers all carcass removal data and enters into a statewide roadkill databaseFormerly a regional assignmentCentralizing to SLO

Data is used to identify “hot spots” Biologists use data to make wildlife

mitigation recommendations to UDOT for upcoming highway projects

Roadkill DatabaseIdentifying locations of high deer-vehicle

collisions

Carcass Removal Data - Examples

US 6 2005-2009 Roadkill Deer and Elk Carcass Pickup

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

177 181 185 189 193 197 201 205 209 213 217 221 225 229 233 237

Mile Post

Number of Carcasses

Deer (n=1618) Elk (n=118)

Carcass Removal Data - Examples

US 40 2005-2009Roadkill Deer and Elk Carcass Pickup

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71 76 81Mile Post

Number of Carcasses

Deer (n=1817) Elk (n=118)

UDWR contracted with Dr. Patricia Cramer (USU) to conduct an intensive literature review of wildlife crossings research

January 2009 – Dr. Cramer submitted to DWR final report entitled “Deer and Elk Wildlife Crossing Standards and Recommendations for Utah”

These recommendations are a summary of Dr. Cramer’s report as well as data from her ongoing wildlife crossing camera study

Wildlife Crossing Guidelines

Provide Division personnel with a tool for use in transportation planning

Standardize wildlife crossing and fencing recommendations made by DWR to UDOT Based upon proven research

Internal use only

Wildlife Crossing Guidelines

Purpose

Wildlife Crossing Guidelines

Corridor and Linkage StudiesInfrastructure

CrossingsFencing and escape ramps

Research

Wildlife Mitigation Projects

US 6 (Spanish Fork to Woodside)I-70 (Cove Fort to UT/CO state line)I-80 (Mouth of Parley’s Canyon to

Echo Junction)

Corridor StudiesIdentifying and prioritizing the most

important wildlife corridors

Taken from I-70 Linkage Analysis, UDOT 2007

Corridor Studies

~20 new wildlife crossings2 retrofitted underpass crossingsHundreds of miles of wildlife fencing and escape ramps

Total Investment = $ 45,500,000

Wildlife CrossingsWildlife Mitigation Infrastructure – Since

~2005

Wildlife Mitigation Infrastructure

MP 200.7, US 6MP 200.7, US 6Tucker, US 6Tucker, US 6

Beaver Creek, US 6Colton, US 6Colton, US 6

Wildlife Mitigation Infrastructure

MP 5.3, I-70MP 5.3, I-70

Wildcat North, I-15Wildcat North, I-15

MP 5.3, I-70MP 5.3, I-70

Wildcat South, I-15Wildcat South, I-15

Wildlife Mitigation Infrastructure

Escape rampEscape ramp Electro MatElectro Mat

Cattle GuardCattle Guard Wildlife FencingWildlife Fencing

Wildlife Crossing Camera Study

Determine effectiveness of existing structures

Determine effectiveness of newly built crossings designed specifically for wildlife

Determine which type and size of crossings are most successful at passing wildlifeEmphasis on big game

Wildlife Crossing Camera Study

Photos courtesy of Dr. Patricia Cramer, USU

Wildlife Crossing Camera Study

Photos courtesy of Dr. Patricia Cramer, USU

Future Needs & Priorities

Continue and expand roadkill data collection efforts

Continue wildlife crossing camera study through 2013

Identify all critical wildlife corridors and complete needs assessments for each

Work closely with UDOT and provide wildlife recommendations for transportation projects

Work closely with the Outreach Section and UDOT to get stories of highly visible wildlife projects in the media

QUESTIONS?QUESTIONS?