EVALUATION OF AN EVALUATION OF AN ANIMAL ANIMAL‐ACTIVATED HIGHWAY CROSSWALK ACTIVATED HIGHWAY CROSSWALK INTEGRATED WITH RETROFIT FENCING INTEGRATED WITH RETROFIT FENCING Jeff Gagnon Norris Dodd Sue Boe Kari Ogren Kari Ogren Scott Sprague Ray Schweinsburg Arizona Game and Fish Department
95
Embed
EVALUATION OF AN ANIMAL ACTIVATED HIGHWAY …(Electric and Barbed Wire) 2.4 m ROW Fence and ROW Extensions (Barbed wire) 2.4 m Wire Mesh Ungulate‐Proof Fence 2.4 m Wire Mesh Ungulate‐Proof
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
EVALUATION OF AN EVALUATION OF AN ANIMALANIMAL‐‐ACTIVATED HIGHWAY CROSSWALKACTIVATED HIGHWAY CROSSWALK
INTEGRATED WITH RETROFIT FENCINGINTEGRATED WITH RETROFIT FENCING
Jeff Gagnon
Norris Dodd Sue BoeKari OgrenKari OgrenScott SpragueRay Schweinsburg
Arizona Game and Fish Department
PRESENTATION OBJECTIVES
•Discuss Why We Need Wildlife Crossings, Fencing and Detection Systems.
The Problem – Motorist Safety and Habitat FragmentationThe Solution – Wildlife Crossings and FencingWildlife Detection Systems as an Alternative
•Describe the Preacher Canyon crosswalk and fencingDescribe the Preacher Canyon crosswalk and fencing project components.
•Present results of 3+ years research evaluation including motorist and wildlife response.
•Discuss Constraints of Wildlife Detection Systems.
Human Safety #1
Cost of Wildlife-Vehicle Collisions toCost of Wildlife Vehicle Collisions to Society
Huijser et al. 2007 – Report to Congress
Cost of Wildlife-Vehicle Collisions to Society
….If No One is Sued
Booth VS State of Arizona = >$4,000,000!
WiWiSummer Summer
Maintain Connectivity #2
Winter Winter RangeRange
RangeRangeHH22OO
FOODFOOD 22FOODFOOD
FOODFOOD
HH22OO
FOODFOOD
COVERCOVERCOVERCOVERCOVERCOVER
HABITAT FRAGMENTATIONHABITAT FRAGMENTATION
WiWiSummer Summer
Maintain Connectivity #2
Winter Winter RangeRange
RangeRangeHH22OO
FOODFOOD 22FOODFOOD
FOODFOODMIGRATIONMIGRATION
HH22OO
FOODFOODMIGRATION MIGRATION ROUTEROUTE
COVERCOVERCOVERCOVERCOVERCOVER
HABITAT FRAGMENTATIONHABITAT FRAGMENTATION
We Already Know How to Address These Issues
STATE ROUTE 260 ‐ ArizonaExisting 2‐lane highway Reconstructed 4‐lane highway
Reconstruction raises issues of highway safety with increased standard (e.g., speed) and maintenance of wildlife permeability across highway
STATE ROUTE 260 PROJECTWildlife UnderpassesWildlife Underpasses(11 of 17 completed)
Wildlife Underpasses (11)Bridges (6)
STATE ROUTE 260 PROJECTWildlife UnderpassesWildlife Underpasses(11 of 17 completed)
Wildlife Underpasses (11)Bridges (6)
STATE ROUTE 260 PROJECTWildlife UnderpassesWildlife Underpasses(11 of 17 completed)
Wildlife Underpasses (11)Bridges (6)
STATE ROUTE 260 PROJECTWildlife UnderpassesWildlife Underpasses(11 of 17 completed)
Wildlife Underpasses (11)Bridges (6)
Christopher Creek Section2004 ELK‐VEHICLE COLLISIONS (Before Fencing)2004 ELK VEHICLE COLLISIONS (Before Fencing)
51 collisions51 collisions
(11.3/km)
Christopher Creek Section2005 ELK‐VEHICLE COLLISIONS (After Fencing)2005 ELK VEHICLE COLLISIONS (After Fencing)
8 collisions8 collisions
(1.7/km)
84% reduction in collisions
CHRISTOPHER CREEK SECTIONP d P t F i Wildlif U f U dPre- and Post-Fencing Wildlife Use of Underpasses
400
450
300
350
400
/ dee
r
Completion
150
200
250
al e
lk / Completion
of Fencing
50
100
150
Tota
0
Mar-0
4May
-04
Jul-0
4Sep
-04
Nov-04
Jan-
05Mar
-05
May-05
M Ma J Se No Ja M Ma
WILDLIFE UNDERPASS VIDEO MONITORINGState Route 260
801 total animals of 8 species were recorded at the crosswalk by video surveillance
Groups (≥1) hi
Times signs i d
Times signs i d f
No sign i i
Percentage
crosswalk by video surveillance
Species
approaching w/in 50’ roadway
activated before 50ft of roadway
activated after 50ftof
roadway
activation (false
negatives)
Percentage of time signs activated
Elk 168 137 28 3 97%
White‐tailed 65 59 5 1 97%White tailedDeer
65 59 5 1 97%
Total 233 196 33 4 97%
Modifying Driver Behavior – How Did We Do?
MOTORIST RESPONSE TO WARNING SIGNAGE
(From Huijser et al. 2006)
MOTORIST RESPONSE TO WARNING SIGNAGE
(From Huijser et al. 2006)
ASSESSING MOTORIST SPEED RESPONSE
•Installed permanent traffic countersp
•Conducted 256 paired 15‐min samples
C d d ith d ith t•Compared average speeds with and without signs activated to assess motorist response
b•Compared average speeds by year to assess motorist habituation
•22,064 total vehicles counted
Installing Piezo Strip traffic counter at crosswalk
35 Average with signsAverage with signs
MOTORIST RESPONSE TO SIGNAGE ‐ SPEED
30
35
signs offi
Average with signs off = 53.2 mph (85.8 km/hr)
Average with signs on = 44.3 mph (71.3 km/hr)
20
25
nute
Inte
rval
s signs on
15
mbe
r of 1
5-M
in
5
10
Num
036 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64
Average Speed (MPH)
A significant 17% reduction in average speed occurred when signs were activated (t = 1.97, df = 256, P < 0.001)
ASSESSING MOTORIST ALERTNESS RESPONSE
•Hid and counted vehicles approaching crosswalk and assessed if motorists applied brakesand assessed if motorists applied brakes
•Conducted 286 paired 15‐min samples with and ith t i i ti t dwithout warning signs activated
•Compared the proportion of braking vehicles with and without signs activated
•8,089 total vehicles counted
MOTORIST RESPONSE TO SIGNS ‐ ALERTNESS
Warning sign Vehicles d
Proportion b kstatus counted braking
N t ti t d ( ff) 3 941 0 08Not activated (off) 3,941 0.08
Activated (on) 4,157 0.68
Odds of motorists exhibiting a braking response were 21:1 with warning signs activated compared to when they were not activated
( 2 3206 df 1 P 0 001)(χ2=3206, df = 1, P < 0.001)
There was no difference between years (2007 and 2008)
ELK‐VEHICLE COLLISIONS WITH FENCING AND CROSSWALKPreacher Canyon Sectiony
97% reduction inelk‐vehicle collisions
(not including 2009 with no collisions))
ELK‐VEHICLE COLLISIONS WITH FENCING AND CROSSWALKPreacher Canyon Sectiony
97% reduction inelk‐vehicle
There was NO significant change in elk‐vehicle collisions on the adjacent Lion Springs Section– thus there was no “displacement” in collisions from the Preacher Canyon Section
collisions
(not including 2009 with no collisions)
in collisions from the Preacher Canyon Section
)
Cost of Wildlife-Vehicle Collisions to Society
Elk-Vehicle Collisions =
Society
Huijser et al. 2007 – Report to Congress
Cost of Wildlife-Vehicle Collisions to Society
Elk-Vehicle Collisions =
Society
Huijser et al. 2007 – Report to Congress
Cost of Wildlife-Vehicle Collisions to Society
Elk-Vehicle Collisions = $18,561/ Collision
Society
Huijser et al. 2007 – Report to Congress
Cost of Wildlife-Vehicle Collisions to Society
Elk-Vehicle Collisions = $18,561/ Collision
Society
$220,00/ Year on Average in Study Area
Huijser et al. 2007 – Report to Congress
Modifying Wildlife Behavior – How Did We Do?
CROSSWALK VIDEO CAMERA SURVEILLANCE
Independent Infrared Video Camera Systems
Pole-mounted camerasTriggersTriggers
InfraredIlluminators Recording
Devices
What Happened Once Animals Approached the Road?
8’ fence
Detection Zone
8 fence
Detection Zone
8’ fence
What Happened Once Animals Approached the Road?
8’ fence
Detection Zone
8 fence
?Detection Zone
8’ fence
Elk (N=523)E t Hi h R WEnter Highway R-W at Detection Zone
Elk (N=523)E t Hi h R WEnter Highway R-W at Detection Zone
Successful Crossing32%
CROSSWALK CROSSINGS BY TIME AND TRAFFIC VOLUMEBY TIME AND TRAFFIC VOLUME
CROSSWALK CROSSINGS BY TIME AND TRAFFIC VOLUMEBY TIME AND TRAFFIC VOLUME
86% of crossings occurred when traffic volumes averaged 32 vehicles/ hour
Traffic volumes averaged 308 vehicles/hour over 24 hours for the same time period
PROBABILITY OF CROSSWALK CROSSING BY TRAFFIC VOLUME
0.14
BY TRAFFIC VOLUME
0.1
0.12
Cro
ssin
g
elkdeer
Elk
0 06
0.08
Succ
esfu
l C Elk
0.04
0.06
obab
ility
of
White‐tailed deer
0
0.02Pro White tailed deer
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Vehicles / minute
Elk (N=523)E t Hi h R WEnter Highway R-W at Detection Zone
Successful Crossing Unsuccessful Crossing32% 68%
Elk (N=523)E t Hi h R WEnter Highway R-W at Detection Zone
Successful Crossing Unsuccessful Crossing32% 68%
Left R-W viaLeft R W via same path
48%
Unsuccessful Crossings
8’ fence
Detection Zone
8 fence
Detection Zone
8’ fence
Unsuccessful Crossings
8’ fence
Detection Zone
8 fence
Detection Zone
8’ fence
Elk (N=523)E t Hi h R WEnter Highway R-W at Detection Zone
Successful Crossing Unsuccessful Crossing32% 68%
Left R-W via Entered R-W viaLeft R W via same path
48%
Entered R W via Gap in Fence
20%
Wildlife Entering R‐W Via Gap at Roadway
8’ fence
Detection Zone
8 fence
Detection ZoneDangerous Situation –Motorists Can Encounter
8’ fence
Wildlife Without Warning
8 fence
Wildlife Entering R‐W Via Gap at Roadway
8’ fence
Detection Zone
8 fence
Detection ZoneDangerous Situation –Motorists Can Encounter
8’ fence
Wildlife Without Warning
8 fence
Wildlife Entering R‐W Via Gap at Roadway
8’ fence
Detection Zone
8 fence
Detection ZoneDangerous Situation –Motorists Can Encounter
Gagnon, J. W., N. L. Dodd, S. Sprague, K. Ogren, g , , , p g , g ,and R. E. Schweinsburg. 2010. Preacher Canyon wildlife fence and crosswalk enhancement project evaluation- State Route 260. Finalproject evaluation State Route 260. Final project report submitted to Arizona Department of Transportation, Phoenix, Arizona, USA.
…..OR Google “Arizona CElk Crosswalk”
More information on the Project Components: Visit the ElectroBraid Booth