The Road RIPoRTeR

spring equinox 2013. Volume 18 no. 1

BIg CyPRess FaCIng BIg ThReaTs

By Bethanie Walder

...and we dont mean hurricanes...

InsIde
A Look Down the Trail, by Bethanie Walder. Page 2 Big Cypress Facing Big Threats, by Bethanie Walder. Pages 3-6 Legal Notes: Big Cypress Gains Long Term Protection, by Sarah Peters. Pages 7-8 Field Notes: Lolo Road Surveys, by Adam Switalski. Pages 9-11. Biblio Notes: Impact of Culverts on Fish Habitats, by Ben Wolfson. Pages 12-16 Policy Primer: Breaking Up Gridlock, by Monique DiGiorgio, Renee Callahan, and Rob Ament. Pages 17-18

Photos copyright Marcel Huijser.

Visit us online: wildlandscpr.org

A Look Down the trAiL

a new approach

ts a new year, and weve decided to take a new approach to The Road-RIPorter, as youll see as you peruse this issue. First, we decided to drop publication from four times a year to three. Its a lot of work to put together The RIPorter, and we dont want to skimp on quality, so we decided to reduce the quantity just slightly. The RIPorter will now be issued in January (usually), May and September every year approximately four months apart instead of three months apart. Well still issue The Dirt every month, so youll continue to get regular news about roads and off-road vehicles in a very timely manner.

P.O. Box 7516 Missoula, MT 59807 (406) 543-9551 www.wildlandscpr.org

We also decided to make some content changes. We spent some time last fall reviewing The RIPorters greatest hits and it turns out that most of you, our readers, are focused on the resource-based articles. So we decided to shake things up a bit. From now on, The RIPorter will contain between 4-6 articles per issue. Well continue to feature an important current issue as our cover story, and when possible well try to tie that cover story to at least one other article in The RIPorter (clearly evidenced by this RIPorter featuring a story about Big Cypress National Preserve on the Cover and as the Legal Notes). Well also include at least three other resource articles, depending on whats most relevant and pressing as were putting the newsletter together. We hope to always or almost always include Bibliography Notes, since this is the hands-down most accessed resource we publish. Well also include some combination of Policy Primers, Legal Notes and Field Notes in each issue. And, as needed, well include DePaving the Way. So what happens to everything else? Ideally, well be featuring an Odes to Roads essay 2-3 times per year on our website, and promoting it through The Dirt and other mechanisms. Similarly, we are completely revamping Get with the Program and well be posting such updates to our website on the Successes page, at least twice a year, if not more. Finally, well continue to keep you posted about news and events at Wildlands CPR via our website. As you can see, we will continue to provide all of the same information as before, were just moving the pieces of the puzzle around a bit to make things work better for our members/readers. We hope you like the new RIPorter, and were interested in your feedback, so please let us know what you think.

Wildlands CPR revives and protects wild places by promoting watershed restoration that improves fish and wildlife habitat, provides clean water, and enhances community economies. We focus on reclaiming ecologically damaging, unneeded roads and stopping off-road vehicle abuse on public lands.

Director Bethanie Walder

Science Program Director Adam Switalski

Legal Liaison/Staff Attorney Sarah Peters Policy Specialist Adam Rissien Washington/Oregon Field Coordinator Marlies Wierenga Development and Outreach Coordinator Grace Brogan Journal Editor Dan Funsch Board of Directors Susan Jane Brown, Dave Heller, Marion Hourdequin, Crystal Mario, Kathi Nickel, Brett Paben, Jack Tuholske

Photo by Dan Funsch.

2013 Wildlands CPR

The Road-RIPoRTeR, sPRIng equInox 2013

bIg cypress facIng bIg threats

By Bethanie Walder

ortoises, panthers and crocodiles wood storks, snail kites, and Roseate spoon-bills cypress strands and sawgrass wetlands. These plants and animals survive, and even thrive, in Big Cypress National Preserve and Everglades National Park. But their future is not entirely certain, especially within Big Cypress, where another large animal thrives: the off-road vehicle. Big Cypress is an extraordinary place. Often thought of as a desolate swamp, it boasts incredible biodiversity and stunning beauty. It also provides important habitat for endangered species like the Florida panther, which nearly disappeared in the late 1900s. While panther numbers have increased, their path to recovery is still blocked by two things: human encroachment and roads (which fragment habitat and lead to wildlife-vehicle collisions). Big Cypress could provide an important answer to both of those threats the Preserve provides core, largely undeveloped habitat for the panther and other important wildlife, and this large expanse of land with only limited road mileage reduces the likelihood that panthers will become roadkill. But the importance of Big Cypress goes far beyond panthers. Established by Congress in 1974, Big Cypress National Preserve was set aside to protect the western watershed of the Everglades from continued large-scale development in South Florida. It was one of the first two National Preserves in the country, managed within the National Park Service. National Preserves differ from National Parks in several ways perhaps most importantly in Big Cypress by allowing hunting, which is prohibited in National Parks. In addition, the Miccosukee and Seminole people retained rights to use the entirety of the land for hunting and camping, while the Preserve regulations also recognized many private hunting camp in-holdings for non-native people. And to top it off, the Preserves enabling legislation specifically authorized permanent off-road vehicle access. While off-road vehicle use has been allowed in the Big Cypress, such use began spinning out of control as ORV technology advanced, allowing vehicles to access nearly every nook and cranny within the Preserve. Off-road vehicles eventually scarred this fragile wetland ecosystem with more than 20,000 miles of usercreated trails. Shortly after Wildlands CPR was founded in 1994, we began working with the Florida Biodiversity Project and other local and regional activists to protect the Preserve from such excessive off-road vehicle use and damage. Over the years, together weve achieved numerous legal victories including the most recent decision in late 2012 that will help keep the open off-road vehicle trail mileage down to a more reasonable and less-impactful level (see Legal Notes this issue). Working to protect Big Cypress for nearly 20 years illustrates important conservation lessons. We know from experience that activists must stay engaged and work hard to ensure that legal victories are implemented effectively, that public land managers dont backslide based on external pressure, and that new threats are quickly and effectively addressed.

Photo copyright Marcel Huijser.

continued on next page

Significant soil compaction and pooling in an area where the route goes through a wet meadow; according to the ORV management plan for the area, routes are not supposed to be designated through wet meadows, but this route was designated through one. Photo copyright Marcel Huijser.

The Road-RIPoRTeR, sPRIng equInox 2013

bIg cypress

, contd

staying engaged

In 1994, our first year, Wildlands CPR partnered with the Florida Biodiversity Project to fight the significant environmental impacts of proposed and completed highway expansions in the area. We subsequently joined the first lawsuit to address offroad vehicle impacts in the Preserve; it focused on the impacts of off-road vehicles on the fragile wetland ecosystem. The Preserves go-anywhere policy led to more than 20,000 miles of user-created routes across Big Cypress, destroying hydrologic flow, increasing the spread of non-native weeds, and impacting many threatened and endangered species. The violations were too significant to ignore and the Preserve settled the suit and agreed to develop a comprehensive off-road vehicle management plan. Local activists remained heavily engaged in the planning process, Wildlands CPR continued to provide technical support as needed, and the Preserve finally adopted a far-reaching ORV Management Plan in 2000. In that plan, the Preserve agreed to designate 400 miles of primary routes for ORV use, along with a discrete number of secondary routes to access hunting camps and other specific destinations. This was and remains an enormous victory. But victories can be short-lived. Off-road vehicle users challenged the plan, so Wildlands CPR and our partners intervened and helped defend it. Several years went by, but eventually the court ruled in our favor.

A gate ostensibly prohibiting off-road vehicle access is easily skirted. Photo copyright Marcel Huijser.

preventing backsliding

Though the Court affirmed the plan, ORV recreationists continued to push back for more access. They pressured Preserve managers incessantly to open more secondary routes for ORV use. They also pressed to have ORV use added to the Bear Island Unit of the Preserve, and the Park Service agreed. The Bear Island Unit is considered one of the most ecologically sensitive areas of the park, and provides important habitat for Florida panthers. Yet in response to ORV pressure, the Preserve designated 23 miles of ORV routes in the area, including routes through wet meadows that were supposed to be protected. So in 2007, we once again pooled our limited resources to protect Bear Island and to address the question of secondary trail designations. During the next five years the Preserve continued to designate new secondary routes. But finally, in late 2012, the Court issued a decision that many of these routes were illegally designated! As explained in this issues Legal Notes, the Preserve did not designate that use in accordance with the law, including their own ORV management plan.

Soil compaction from off-road vehicle use leads to pooling of water. Photo copyright Marcel Huijser.

continued on next page

The Road-RIPoRTeR, sPRIng equInox 2013

bIg cypress

, contd

Educational signage is sometime insufficient to prevent resource damage. Photo copyright Marcel Huijser.

Addressing new threats

For nearly twenty years weve worked with a fairly consistent group of partners to protect and defend the stunning cypress strands, majestic Florida panthers and invaluable clean water supplies of Big Cypress from the damaging effects of off-road vehicle recreation. Weve been largely successful in these efforts, with a long track record of legal victories and on-the-ground engagement to secure those victories and ensure they are well-implemented. But new threats continually arise from a variety of directions. The Preserve is trying to determine the fate of 146,000 acres of Addition Lands that were added to Big Cypress in 1988. Conservationists and many members of the public want the lands managed and formally designated as Wilderness. ORV users want motorized routes designated throughout. And for now, the Park Service is leaning towards the ORV users, and away from Wilderness. This issue is currently in litigation by our partners. And there are other significant and grave threats to this unique and wild area. New energy development, transmission lines, and extensive urban sprawl are all pressing at the edges of Big Cypress and the Everglades, making each win outlined above just a small piece of an ever-changing puzzle. For example, the Preserve does not own underground mineral and oil rights, and several new resource extraction threats have arisen in recent years, both at the edges of the preserve and deep inside its boundaries. Such development could have devastating effects on hydrologic values of the Preserve, while also further degrading already scarce panther habitat. As another related example, in February 2013, a pro-

posed new interchange on I-75 was finally abandoned (hopefully permanently). That interchange was proposed not far from the preserves western edge. New road construction such as this only increases the likelihood of additional growth into the wildland/urban interface, thus diminishing the value of those lands for panthers, water regulation, etc. Wildlands CPR focuses on the ORV threats, but between them, our local partners are working to address many of the other challenges facing the area.

Conclusion

When we started working to protect Big Cypress we could not have predicted we would still be deeply involved nearly two decades later. Our partnerships with local organizations like Florida Biodiversity Project and Southwest Florida Wildlands Association have resulted in important legal victories that have dramatically reduced the impacts of off-road vehicles in this extraordinary swamp. Other colleagues are working to mitigate the impacts of nearby highways. And as each new threat rises, so too does an effort to defeat that threat. Weve been incredibly successful protecting this area from off-road vehicles so far. But if the last two decades are indicative of the future, we still have much work ahead of us to ensure that Big Cypress and the myriad species that live within it and depend upon it remains healthy and productive for generations to come.

continued on next page

The Road-RIPoRTeR, sPRIng equInox 2013

bIg cypress

, contd

a panther predIcament
In addition to off-road vehicles, rapid suburban/exurban sprawl is seriously threatening the recovery of the Florida panther. That sprawl requires significant road construction and expansion. Two-lane roads are widened to four lanes, new roads are built, and all of it through what should be critical habitat for the panther. In 2012 alone 25 Florida panthers died after being struck by cars on Florida roads. Considering that there are only about 100 adult panthers in Florida, this number is staggering. And 2013 got off to an equally bad start, with two roadkilled panthers found on New Years Day. The US Fish and Wildlife Service has never designated critical habitat for the panther. Three pending lawsuits are trying to address this issue, as critical habitat designations could significantly improve the panthers future. Roads are a leading cause of panther mortality, while the associated houses, stores and services are destroying panthers chances for establishing new home territories, mating and producing young. As the population has rebounded, it has surpassed the available protected habitat, with young males dispersing and looking for territory. Big Cypress and the Everglades just arent big enough. State and federal wildlife officials are implementing some highway mitigation measures to reduce roadkill but both funding and political will are limited. Only time will tell how the Florida panther will survive amid all of these pressures, but we, and other conservationists, will be fighting to give it the best chance possible.

Tracks reveal the presence of Big Cypress predators: Florida panther (above) and black bear. Photos copyright Marcel Huijser.

The Road-RIPoRTeR, sPRIng equInox 2013

LegAL notes
bIg cypress gaIns Long-term protectIon from off road VehIcLe abuse
By Sarah Peters, Wildlands CPR Legal Liaison/Staff Attorney

n 2007, the National Park Service (NPS) reopened approximately 23 miles of trails to motorized use in the Bear Island Unit of Big Cypress, the most sensitive ecological area in the Preserve, and the area where panthers are most likely to be found. Those trails had been expressly closed by the 2000 ORV management plan, and the NPS reopened them with no explanation as to why the agency was reversing course. Wildlands CPR and other conservation groups brought a lawsuit challenging NPSs decision to reopen the trails. During the course of the lawsuit, it became clear that NPS reopened those trails simply because ORV users were urging that they be opened, and regardless of the on-the-ground environmental impacts of that decision. In July 2012, a federal court once again ruled in favor of protecting Big Cypress from motorized abuse. Defenders of Wildlife v. Salazar, --- F.Supp.2d ----, 2012 WL 2812309 (M.D. Fla. July 10, 2012). The judge determined that NPSs trail reopening violated several environmental laws, including the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the ORV Executive Orders. In a nutshell, the court found that NPS is bound by its ORV management plan, and that it cannot change its management direction mid-stream without first going through the necessary environmental reviews to confirm that changing course will not impair the Preserves resources.

Decision Details

Plaintiffs raised six main legal claims in their challenge to the 2007 NPS decision. The first was a breach of contract claim, alleging violation of a settlement order from previous litigation. Because of the specificity of that claim to these particular facts, we will not discuss this claim in detail in this article, except to say that the judge found the settlement agreement enforceable against the NPS, and that the NPS had violated the agreement. Second, the plaintiffs raised several violations of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for failure to complete a formal analysis of the re-opening of the trail system. NPS conducted no formal review of its decision to re-open these trails to motorized use and there was no public comment allowed on the decision. NPS argued that neither was required because the 2000 management plan had instituted an adaptive management policy whereby trails could be opened or closed based on subsequent evaluation of the trail system.

Thanks to the Courts ruling, Big Cypress will get a respite from ORV activity on secondary trails in the Bear Island Unit. Photo copyright Marcel Huijser.

continued on next page

The Road-RIPoRTeR, sPRIng equInox 2013

Legal notes, contd

The court ruled that:

The court found that the decision to designate these trails as open was qualitatively analyzed as an alternative in the 2000 management plan NEPA documents. However, the resulting decision based upon the findings of that analysis was that the trails were unsustainable and that they should be closed to motorized access.

NPS has failed to articulate whether or how it applied the minimization criteria to the 2007 decision. The use of ORVs will necessarily affect the soil, vegetation, wildlife, wildlife habitat and resources of a particular area. NPS has failed to cite to substantive The court then found that the evidence in the record which NPS was required to perform demonstrates that the decision a supplemental NEPA analysis to reopen trails was made prior to re-opening the trails with the objective of minimizin the Bear Island Unit to moing impacts. The Court finds torized use, and that it could the decision to reopen the not simply rely on the analysis In a major victory for Big Cypress, the Court reversed the NPS decision to trails was therefore arbitrary completed in 2000 to make this open unsustainable trails to motorized use. Photo copyright Marcel Huijser. and capricious. See Idaho decision. It also found that the Conservation League, 766 F. piecemeal analysis completed Supp. 2d at 1071-74 (finding before re-opening the trails was that agencys failure to idennot sufficient to meet the requirements of impair recreational use of the Preserve. tify whether or how it applied minimization NEPA. The NPS was required to identify Opinion p. 64. Again, the court, after a criteria violated executive orders 11,644 what better data became available be- brief discussion, found that the administra- and 11,989). Opinion p. 67-68 (emphasis tween 2000 and 2007 to support chang- tive record did not reflect a rational basis added). ing management direction. Opinion p. 62. for NPSs 2007 decision to re-open the And it must establish a rational connection trails, and, therefore, it was arbitrary and The final two elements of plaintiffs litigation dealt with the NPSs and Fish and Wildlife between the facts found and the choice capricious. made which was clearly not done here. Services compliance with the Endangered Id. The court also addressed the adaptive The fourth claim alleged violations of the Species Act (ESA). Again, the court found management approach contemplated in the ORV Executive Orders 11644 and 11989 that the lack of scientific evidence and anal2000 management plan, and determined for failure to minimize damage from trail ysis to support the decision to re-open trails that the field work completed by NPS before designations in the Bear Island Unit. The was determinative and that, therefore, the re-opening the trail system was not sufficient court found that the executive orders out- NPS and FWS had failed to adequately to meet the requirements of the manage- line objective standards by which the Court comply with the ESA. ment plan. can judge NPSs actions and that these standards were not met. Opinion p. 66. The NPSs failure to explain its deviation from that 2000 decision, when there was The standards the court held the NPS deci- This outcome is a huge victory for the Preno information in the record that the situa- sion up to, as outlined in the Executive Or- serve and its wildlife. The decision means that NPS cannot abandon its resource-protion on the ground had changed for this trail ders, were: tective 2000 ORV management plan. The system, was critical to the judges subsequent decision to rule the 2007 re-opening (1) Areas and trails shall be located to mini- 23 miles of illegally-opened ORV trails in of the trails arbitrary and capricious. mize damage to soil, watershed, veg- a critical area have now been indefinitely etation, or other resources of the public closed to ORV use, and the agency will finally have to grapple with the very real The third claim raised by plaintiffs was a lands. violation of the Big Cypress enabling legis- (2) Areas and trails shall be located to mini- question of how it manages ORV use in ecolation, the NPS Organic Act, and the 2000 mize harassment of wildlife or significant logically sensitive areas. management plan because of substantial disruption of wildlife habitats. 37 Fed. and irreversible impacts on the soils, hydrolReg. 2877 3(a)(1),(2). ogy, and wildlife of the Preserve and will

Conclusion

The Road-RIPoRTeR, sPRIng equInox 2013

FieLD notes
LoLo road surVeys reVeaL grIzzLIes, threatened pLants, and opportunItIes for restoratIon
By Adam Switalski

his is the third year of Wildlands CPRs cost-share agreement with the Lolo National Forest (MT) to conduct road reconnaissance surveys. Working closely with the Lolo Transportation Engineers, Randy Gage and Alan Christian, Wildlands CPR is surveying closed and abandoned Forest Service roads to identify potential problems and opportunities for restoration. This past summer we surveyed two project areas in the Southwest Crown of the Continent region, just northeast of Missoula. This is a wild place with a full complement of native species including a healthy grizzly bear population and the aquatic equivalent of megafauna, the massive, native, bull trout. However, the area also has a long history of logging and just as massive road building. Kagan Kaszuba and Jason Blakney made up our two-person field crew this year, and they tirelessly walked roads last summer searching for weeds, wildlife sign, and hydrologic hazards such as erosion, failed culverts, or road-triggered landslides. Over the course of the summer, they covered more than 100 miles of roads and identified several problem roads about which we reported back to the Forest Service. Adam Switalski, Wildlands CPRs Science Program Director, was the project supervisor, and Adam Rissien, our Policy Specialist, administered the financial agreement.

Findings

morrell Trail project Area

Jason and Kagan spent the majority of the summer in the Morrell Trail Project Area just to the east of the town of Seeley Lake at the headwaters of the famous (A River Runs Through It) Blackfoot River. The project they monitored will be implemented in 2015 and will include thinning, prescribed fire, and road decommissioning. The crew surveyed a total of 80 miles of roads and several jammer complexes (where roads were built every 200 yards up the hillside) in this project area. For these jammer systems, they typically walked the drainages and generalized the condition of the whole system based upon just a few roads. For example, they would survey the jammer road lowest on the hillside and assume all roads/crossings above to be similar. If a drainage with water was crossed, they would follow the draw up the hillslope and record the condition of the road where it intersected the seep. So there were even more miles of roads surveyed in this area than they actually walked.

Our Science Program Director supervised this years crew Jason Blakney and Kagan Kaszuba.

continued on next page

The Road-RIPoRTeR, sPRIng equInox 2013

field notes, contd

morrell Trail project Area

Project areas that we surveyed were located on the Seeley Lake District of the Lolo National Forest and included the Morrell Trail and Coopers Lake. We walked over 100 miles of roads and set GPS data points for all the culverts and other features.

Jason and Kagan identified erosional hazards including culverts, cutslope/fillslope failures, and roadbed erosion. The culverts they came upon were often partially plugged, and/or had erosion at the inlet or outlet. There were also plugged culverts leading to diverted streams on a few road segments. While this project had many road-related problems, we found very few restored roads. The two exceptions were in the Blind Canyon Creek and in the upper Morrell Creek watersheds where some waterbars were installed and culverts removed. However, the Blind Canyon Creek road was not entirely decommissioned and there was a diverted stream crossing a mile from the entrance, contributing sediment into the stream. Additionally, boulders that once closed this road to motorized use were removed and we recorded tracks of an off-road vehicle (ORV) illegally using the decommissioned road. We reported these issues to the Forest Service as potential restoration sites. In addition to hydrologic hazards, we also recorded what plants were present, and what animals were using the roads. While we did find two large populations of a sensitive native plant, Howells gumweed (Grindelia howellii; see photo), we also recorded common noxious weeds as well as some new invaders - meadow hawkweed complex, and yellow toadflax. Wildlife sign was commonly encountered in this project area on most surveyed roads including deer, elk, moose, coyote, wolves, black bear, and the threatened grizzly bear. Finally, we recorded ORV use and found low to moderate levels of use throughout the project area.

Howells gumweed is a Threatened plant in Montana. Our field crew found two populations of the species in the Morrell Tail project area.

Examples of some of the findings from our road surveys. This includes (from top to bottom): 1) plugged culvert, 2) ineffective road closure device, 3) fill-slope failure. Wildlands CPR photos.

continued on next page

10

The Road-RIPoRTeR, sPRIng equInox 2013

field notes, contd

Cooper Dry project Area

The crew also surveyed a project area further east in the headwaters of the North Fork of the Blackfoot River. Before the snow began to fall, they were able to survey another 30 miles of roads as well as a couple more jammer road systems. We found more roads were treated in this area including the construction of waterbars, as well as fully recontoured roads, scarified roads, and restored stream crossings. On roads where there was no treatment, we identified many erosional hazards. Wildlife sign was commonly encountered on most surveyed roads in the project area and we found low to moderate levels of ORV use throughout the project area.

A restored stream crossing in the Cooper Dry project area. Wildlands CPR photo.

sites identified for restoration

Much to our satisfaction, our survey work led directly to on-the-ground restoration. For example, the crew found two different streams being diverted by plugged culverts. Water was rushing down the roads, eroding away at the roadbed and putting large amounts of sediment into the streams sediment that can smother fish eggs and greatly reduce populations. The streams are both important tributaries for bull trout, a federally listed threatened species. We reported the site location to the Forest Service, took photos, and described the problem on data sheets. The Forest was not aware of the problems, but is now planning to restore the stream crossings next spring! Without our survey work, sediment would likely have continued to be deposited into the creeks, negatively impacting bull trout habitat downstream.

Our work has also led to restoration on Butte Creek near the town of Lolo, MT. When we surveyed the area in 2010 we found there was extensive ORV use, including a user created trail that traveled up a steep ridge all the way to Mormon Peak. This trail was causing extensive erosion, as well as disturbance to wildlife including an elk herd that winters in the area. We reported this to the Forest Service and the user-created trail was decommissioned through scarifying the roadbed, and recontouring and fencing the entrance. Two years later, the decommissioning appeared to effectively block traffic and vegetation is quickly recovering (see photos).

Before and 2 years following road decommissioning Wildlands CPRs road surveys in 2010 identified this site for restoration. Wildlands CPR photos.

Conclusion

Next year we will move west on the forest and begin surveying the Rice Richmond Project Area, just outside the town of Seeley Lake. As we continue to identify problem roads and opportunities for restoration, its our hope that were helping the Lolo National Forest create a smaller, more sustainable road system. Adam Switalski is Wildlands CPRs Science Program Director

The Road-RIPoRTeR, sPRIng equInox 2013

11

BiBLiogrAphy notes
Bibliography Notes summarizes and highlights some of the scientific literature in our 20,000 citation bibliography on the physical and ecological effects of roads and off-road vehicles. We offer bibliographic searches to help activists access important biological research relevant to roads.

down the draIn: Impact of cuLVerts on fIsh habItats

By Ben Wolfson

ulverts are perhaps the most ubiquitous design feature used in road construction. Placed beneath roads to allow water to flow through, they can either have little impact on fish movements and habitat, or they can be extremely detrimental. The improper design or placement of culverts hinders fish migration in two main ways: culverts that are perched above the steam channel are impossible for fish to reach; while collapsed or blocked culverts restrict fish passage. When this happens, fish are cut off from the places they spawn, forage, find safety from predators, or access to seasonal habitats. And, in turn, when small populations are fragmented this limits genetic variability and can lead to local extinction through natural or human impacts, or hybridization that produces sterile offspring. The areas around culverts can erode too, which causes sediment to fill up interstitial space between cobbles, reducing the quality of fish habitats. Still, there are ways to manage culverts before and after construction to avoid these effects. This article will review recent research examining the impacts of road culverts on fish habitats, and how managers can limit ill effects.

Culverts as Barriers

One of the primary impacts of culverts is that they create a barrier to fish. Surveys of 2900 culverts in Montana, northern Idaho and eastern North and South Dakota found that 84% of the culverts impeded passage of juvenile cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii spp.) during some time period throughout the year (Hendrickson et al. 2008). The study specifically addressed failed culverts as a problem for constricting stream channels. Not all culverts are bad, however, and a properly designed culvert allows for unrestricted fish movement. For example, research in Georgia found that the bottomless box culvert allowed upstream and downstream movement for benthic and water column fish (Norman et al. 2009). Other types of culverts have been found to limit or not allow movement at all. One study showed significantly less movement through box and pipe culverts as opposed to upstream movement without barriers (Benton et al. 2008). A study on Great Plain streams found that low-water crossings (concrete slabs vented by

This perched culvert on the Flathead National Forest (Montana) makes fish passage nearly impossible. Photo by Adam Switalski.

continued on next page

12

The Road-RIPoRTeR, sPRIng equInox 2013

biblio notes, contd

culverts) reduced fish passage more than box culverts (Bouska and Paukert 2009) for Cyprinids low-water crossings had higher mean bottom velocities and slopes eight times greater than box culverts. In an artificial stream with high and low discharge trials, culverts more square than narrow allowed passage for leopard darters (Percina pantherina), a threatened species (Schaefer et al. 2003). In the trial and assumed in the field, wider culverts increased velocities less than narrow culverts. Perched culverts are out of reach and prevent upstream movement entirely. In a study of the movement of small-bodied fish in Georgia, perched culverts only allowed water column fish movement during high flow events (Norman et al. 2009). Perched culverts stopped spoonhead sculpin (Cottus ricei), sucker (Catostomus spp.), and minnow (family Cyprinidae) movements in Alberta streams; perched height was significant in that it could prevent the migratory movements of a species like burbot (Lota lota) that are weaker swimmers (Macpherson et al. 2012). Some culverts are built with only adult fish in mind while hydraulics can affect juvenile fish movement differently. Kane et al. (2000) found that juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in Alaska couldnt make it through culverts unless they were resting in a corrugation and moving along the sidewall. The increased water velocity in a culvert can be taxing fish were found to swim in different spots of the water column to conserve energy. Another study used a test culvert with corrugations to create a reduced velocity zone on the right side of the culvert, while

A failed culvert on the Clearwater NF (Idaho). Photo by Bill Haskins.

the left side had high velocity and high turbulence (Richmond et al. 2007). Juvenile salmonids exited through the right; the conclusion was that fish passage is dependent on hydraulics and the ability of fish to adjust. Lastly, an artificial perched culvert with limited flow was made to test the jumping behavior of juvenile coho salmon (Mueller et al. 2008). A zero and 12-cm drop showed fish using swimming behavior, while 20 to 26-cm drops showed jumping behavior. Success rate fell dramatically at 20 to 26-cm drops; 20-cms yielded a 20% rate of entering a culvert and 26-cms yielded only 2%. At 32-cm, the rate was zero. Several factors such as fatigue, lack of orientational cues, and speculated learning supposedly prompted fish to not jump after failed attempts.

This failed culvert on the Kootenai NF (Montana) was on a road slated for removal. Photo by Adam Switalski.

continued on next page

The Road-RIPoRTeR, sPRIng equInox 2013

13

biblio notes, contd

sediment

Culverts constrict streamflow, increase the velocity of streams, and cause sedimentation and scouring at outlets (Macpherson et al. 2012). Lachance et al. (2008) studied five streams after culvert installation, and found sediment accumulation was lowest upstream with accumulation highest directly below the culvert. Sediment downstream was always higher than upstream, and would slightly decrease but wouldnt return to upstream levels. Overall, sediment accumulation was the lowest a few weeks post-installation, peaked after one year, and decreased after two to three years. Culverts are often removed to restore fish passage, but there is also the risk of a short-term sediment pulse. For example, culvert removal in Idaho and Washington streams had sediment concentrations peak within a few hours (three of eleven sites had concentrations exceeding 6,000 mg/L) and dropped with time (Foltz et al. 2008). It was expected that streams without straw This culvert has been nearly buried by erosion. Wildlands CPR photo. bales for mitigation would peak concentrations between 28,400 and 2,060 mg/L with an expected value of 13,000 mg/L. Sediment yield was between 170 and 3 kg with an expected value of 67 kg, thus mitigating the loss of sediment by an order of magnitude.

Hybridization

Culverts associated with roads can provide an access point for the introduction of non-native species, which can result in hybridization. In addition, fish stocking goals may be inconsistent with genetic preservation (Neville and Dunham 2011). Trapped fish can go locally extinct or reproduce with other species, creating nonviable hybrids. For example, Pseudorasbora parva and P. pumila in Japan are isolated in ponds (Konishi and Takata 2004). The invasive P. parva was accidentally introduced from transplanting carp and can replace P. pumila in these isolated populations. Hybridization between the two minnow species creates sterile offspring. Yet, if the culverts in these ponds had a lower slope and more water, the ponds would connect to larger hybrid zones. Some culverts can be placed to block out unwanted fish and create passage for others. For example, cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii) are threatened by either invasion from rainbow trout and brook trout, or isolation that increases likelihood of local extinction (Fausch et al. 2009). For cutthroat in the North Fork Coeur dAlene River in northern Idaho it was suggested to use large barriers in planned areas to block invasion and that other culverts could be removed to grow isolated networks to improve both ecological and economic values.

continued on next page

Water flows beneath, rather than through, this ineffective culvert. Wildlands CPR photo.

14

The Road-RIPoRTeR, sPRIng equInox 2013

biblio notes, contd

management

Removing or replacing culverts can be expensive if strategy and priorities are not established. One study estimated replacing 20 priority culverts in West Virginia would cost between $600,000$800,000 (Poplar-Jeffers et al. 2008) and would restore 50% of brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) reproductive habitat, while restoring all the crossings would costs millions. (Note: brook trout in West Virginia are native and are the state fish.) High priority culverts were identified with a measure called weighted potential recruitment area (WPRA), which estimates habitat loss by length of a stream and the recruitment value above each culvert. After culverts are installed, they must be monitored to ensure they maintain their design characteristics over time. However, management often doesnt include monitoring due to cost. Culverts in the Puget Sound region of Washington State were evaluated under the permit of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlifes (WDFW) hydraulic project approval, which sets fish passage standards. The results showed 23 of 77 total culverts (30%) were barriers. Culverts of no-slope (14 of 31) were 45% of the barrier cases. It was suggested that more training is given to WDFW biologists and that more time is used in assessing pre-construction stream conditions and post-construction conditions before equipment is moved (Price et al. 2010). Failed culverts can cause road damage, erode the stream bed, and negatively affect species. Management by agencies and land-owners must address fish habitat needs, risk of culvert failure, and available funding. The assessment of culverts themselves allows for the formation of a plan to replace culverts, train personnel, and move forward with a strategic method of executing plans to achieve goals.

A new, properly sized and sloped culvert allows for safe fish passage. Wildlands CPR photo.

Conclusion

Culverts can have a wide variety of effects on stream habitats. If culverts are not appropriately designed, installed and managed, they can prevent fish movement, increase sediment in streams, and contribute to extinction in local populations. Problem culverts should be considered for decommissioning but if not possible, they can be built to regulation standards to prevent destruction of habitats. However, its critical that culverts are observed over time and that the value of economics and ecology are in equal balance.
Culvert upgrades are an important part of mitigating the effects of forest roads. Wildlands CPR photo.

Ben Wolfson is a University of Montana wildlife biology undergraduate student.

references on next page

The Road-RIPoRTeR, sPRIng equInox 2013

15

biblio notes, contd

LIterature cIted
Benton, P., W. Ensign, and B. Freeman. 2008. The Effect of Road Crossings on Fish Movements in Small Etowah Basin Streams, Southeastern Naturalist 7:2, 301-310 Bouska,W. and C. Paukert. 2009. Road Crossing Designs and Their Impact on Fish Assemblages of Great Plains Streams, Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 139, 214-222 Fausch, K., B. Rieman, J. Dunham, M. Young, and D. Peterson. 2009. Invasion versus Isolation: TradeOffs in Managing Native Salmonids with Barriers to Upstream Movement, Conservation Biology 23:4, 859-870 Foltz, R., K. Yanosek, and T. Brown. 2008. Sediment Concentration and Turbidity Changes During Culvert Removals, Journal of Environmental Management 87, 329-340 Hendrickson, S., K. Walker, S. Jacobson, and F. Bower. 2008. Assessment of Aquatic Organism Passage at Road/Stream Crossings for the Northern Region of the USDA Forest Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Region Kane, D., C. Behlke, R. Gieck, and R. McLean. 2000. Juvenile Fish Passage Through Culverts In Alaska: A Field Study, Alaska Department of Transportation Konishi, M. and K. Takata. 2004. Impact of Asymmetrical Hybridization Followed by Sterile F1 Hybrids on Species Replacement in Pseudorasbora, Conservation Genetics 5, 463-474 Lachance, S., M. Dub, R. Dostie, and P. Brub. 2008. Temporal and Spatial Quantification of FineSediment Accumulation Downstream of Culverts in Brook Trout Habitat, Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 137:6, 1826-1838 MacPherson L., M. Sullivan, A. Foote, and C. Stevens. 2012. Effects of Culverts on Stream Fish Assemblages in the Alberta Foothills, North American Journal of Fisheries Management 32:3, 480-490 Mueller, R., S. Southard, C. May, W., Pearson, and V. Cullinan. 2008. Juvenile Coho Salmon Leaping Ability and Behavior in an Experimental Culvert Test Bed, Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 137:4, 941-950 Neville, H. and J. Dunham. 2011. Patterns of Hybridization of Nonnative Cutthroat Trout and Hatchery Rainbow Trout with Native Redband Trout in the Boise River, Idaho, North American Journal of Fisheries Management 31, 1163-1176 Norman J., M. Hagler, M. Freeman, and B. Freeman. 2009. Application of a Multistate Model to Estimate Culvert Effects on Movement of Small Fishes, Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 138:4, 826-838 Poplar-Jeffers, I., J. Petty, J. Anderson, S. Kite, M. Strager, and R. Fortney. 2009. Culvert Replacement and Stream Habitat Restoration: Implications from Brook Trout Management in an Appalachian Watershed, U.S.A., Restoration Ecology 17:3, 404-413 Price, D., T. Quinn, and R. Barnard. 2010. Fish Passage Effectiveness of Recently Constructed Road Crossing Culverts in the Puget Sound Region of Washington State, North American Journal of Fisheries Management 30:5, 1110-1125 Richmond, M., Z. Deng, G. Guensch, H. Tritico, and W. Pearson. 2007. Mean Flow and Turbulence Characteristics of a Full-Scale Spiral Corrugated Culvert with Implications for Fish Passage, Ecological Engineering 35, 381-392 Schaefer, J., E. Marsh-Matthews, D. Spooner, K. Gido, and W. Matthews. 2003. Effects of Barriers and Thermal Refugia on Local Movement of the Threatened Leopard Darter, Percina Pantherina, Environmental Biology of Fishes 66, 391-400

16

The Road-RIPoRTeR, sPRIng equInox 2013

poLicy primer
breakIng up the grIdLock: map-21
Prepared for Wildlands CPR by Monique DiGiorgio, Renee Callahan, and Rob Ament

he term gridlock is defined as a state of severe road congestion arising when continuous queues of vehicles block an entire network of intersecting streets, bringing traffic in all directions to a complete standstill. The term can also be used to describe a standstill in Congress, which seems to reflect the current sentiment about the United States Congress, because our highest levels of government are having a difficult time getting beyond their differences to pass critical national legislation. Interestingly enough, one place where Congress has broken the gridlock is by enacting MAP-21, a reauthorization of the federal transportation bill that funds the nations transportation infrastructure. Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) was signed into law by President Obama on July 6, 2012. Funding surface transportation programs at over $105 billion for fiscal years (FY) 2013 and 2014, MAP-21 is the first highway authorization enacted since 2005. A watershed event, MAP-21 is the first national transportation law to weave throughout its programs authority for state, federal and tribal managers, and researchers to reduce the number of motorist collisions with wildlife and improve connectivity among habitats disrupted by roads. Groups such as the Center for Large Landscape Conservation and the Western Environmental Law Center, which are both members of Montanans for Safe Wildlife Passage, were instrumental in ensuring that wildlife-vehicle collision provisions abounded in MAP-21, giving states the ability to invest in wildlife crossings to keep Montanas people and wildlife safe. Some highlights of the new provisions in MAP-21 include new funding for wildlife mitigation measures, development of programmatic mitigation provisions, and federal lands and access transportation programs. The overarching theme in the new legislation is a performance-based program that measures a states success in achieving its goals, including improving safety, maintaining infrastructure condition, reducing traffic congestion, and protecting the environment, among other things. The law requires the Secretary of Transportation to establish performance measures for states to assess: (1) serious injuries and

Gridlock of a different sort. Photo copyright Marcel Huijser.

MAP-21 recognizes that we can and must do more to prevent vehiclewildlife collisions. Photo copyright Marcel Huijser.

continued on next page

The Road-RIPoRTeR, sPRIng equInox 2013

17

policy primer, contd

fatalities per vehicle mile traveled; and (2) the total number of serious injuries and fatalities. Within a year after these safety performance measures are established, states will be required to set safety performance targets, with the goal of ultimately reducing serious injuries and fatalities on their roads. Montanans for Safe Wildlife Passage is working to craft a performance metric to aid states in effectively identifying and addressing wildlifevehicle collision hot spots, with the goal of ultimately reducing these collisions while improving habitat connectivity.

Why do we care in montana about mAp-21?

In Europe, wildlife crossing structures like this one have long been incorporated into road design. MAP-21 now gives states the ability to implement measures such as this. Photo copyright Marcel Huijser.

Wildlife-vehicle collisions are ubiquitous in Montana. Get behind the wheel, and you should be watching out for wildlife. However, wildlife collision hotspots often occur where wildlife migration corridors, as well as daily movement areas, intersect with roadways. Collisions with wildlife are not only a safety hazard for people and wildlife; they can have serious impacts on wildlife populations, especially those that are in low numbers, such as lynx and wolverine. Montana is the last best place for wildlife, especially wide-ranging carnivores. The field of Road Ecology has given us tried and true solutions for mitigating the effects of wildlife-vehicle collisions. If there was ever a state to boldly implement actions such as wildlife crossings, underpasses and overpasses, it is Montana. In fact, Montana Department of Transportation staff and biologists are some of the best advocates for habitat connectivity in the West (in our opinion!). We now need a strong citizen base to support their efforts to improve connectivity and invest Montanas transportation dollars toward mitigation measures aimed at reducing collisions with wildlife.

montanans for safe Wildlife passage

Crossing structures can be designed to accommodate animals large or small. Photo copyright Marcel Huijser.

A new coalition of organizations that advocates for innovative solutions to maintain habitat connectivity and provide safe passage for Montanas people, fish, and wildlife, Montanans for Safe Wildlife Passage is now becoming a great source of information and implementation in Montana. Visit them at http:// www.montanans4wildlife.org/ where you can view motion-triggered camera photos that give you a sneak peek at Montanas wildlife using underpasses and overpasses along US 93 and around the West. The website also hosts reams of road ecology research, recent news and articles on wildlife crossings, and more information about the coalitions work.

continued on next page

18

The Road-RIPoRTeR, sPRIng equInox 2013

policy primer, contd

WIldlIFe and TRansPoRTaTIon TImelIne

Congress passes and President Bush signs the previous transportation Act, SAFETEA-LU, in 2005. SAFETEA-LU requires a National Wildlife-Vehicle Collision Reduction Study and Report to Congress, completed in 2007-2008. NGOs petition for a new rule on Wildlife-Vehicle Collisions in 2009, petition filed by Western Environmental Law Center (WELC). Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) responds to WELC petition, including an important memo to the field from the FHWA safety office as part of its response in 2010. NGOs focus on new Act and advocate for wildlife provisions. Montanans for Safe Wildlife Passage forms in July 2011. New transportation Act, MAP-21, is passed in July 2012 with new provisions aimed at reducing WildlifeVehicle Collisions and other wildlife language that SAFETEA-LU was silent on.

monTanans FoR saFe WIldlIFe Passage memBeRs

Jackie Corday, Citizen Activist, Common Ground Conservation, Center for Large Landscape Conservation, Western Environmental Law Center, Future West, Peoples Way Partnership, Wildlands CPR, Montana Smart Growth Coalition, Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative, Craighead Institute.

FuRTheR ReadIng
Montanans for Safe Wildlife Passage: http://www.montanans4wildlife.org/ MAP-21 Provisions Summary: http://www.montanans4wildlife.org/about-us/map-21-federal-transportationlegislation/ Conserve Montana: Surviving a Deer-Car Collision at 75 MPH and Preventing the Next One: http://www. conservemontana.org/content/surviving-a-deer-car-collision-at-75-miles-per-hourand-preventing-the-next-one/ cnm3B7FAA75FF409D2DB

Monique DiGiorgio works as a Conservation Advisor for the Western Environmental Law Center (WELC) and is the Principal at Common Ground Conservation. Renee Callahan is the Senior Policy Officer at the Center for Large Landscape Conservation. Rob Ament works as a Senior Conservationist at the Center for Large Landscape Conservation.

The Road-RIPoRTeR, sPRIng equInox 2013

19

Its never too early to start thinking about springtime! Photo by Dan Funsch.

20

The Road-RIPoRTeR, sPRIng equInox 2013