1. Seeking Safe Passage:
Integrating Fish & Wildlife Considerations into Caltrans Decisions and Processes
Need to plug DOTP’s connectivity forums January 2016 at beginning and end
Caltrans Planning Horizons
HQ Office of Biological Studies
Sacramento, California
October 28, 2015

2. What is a wildlife crossing?
Corridors vs. crossings
Corridor = Regional vs. Crossing = Structural
Habitat linkages including fish passage
Habitat connectivity
Examples
Structures
Valleys
Ridgelines
Game trails
Spawning habitat availability
Crossings have been considered to be 1) areas of concentrated animal movements that intercept roads as well as 2) structures that facilitate animal movements
Habitat linkages: many vertebrates require more than one habitat type for daily, seasonal, or life-cycle needs
Examples:
amphibians aestivation sites in uplands, breed in ponds
deer move from wooded or other areas that provide shelter and concealment to more open grassy and shrubby areas to feed in evening and morning
Connectivity
most vertebrates require large areas to breed with unrelated individuals and young of most species disperse after breeding

3. Wildlife Crossing and Fish Passage Features
The following types of crossing features aid in connecting wildlife linkages:
Signs and animal detection or driver warning systems
Gaps and scuppers in median barriers
Undercrossing - Span bridges
Culverts – steel drainage pipes or concrete box culverts
Wildlife paths/shelves under bridges that convey water
Overpass - Land bridges
Wildlife exclusion and lateral escape measures
Directional fencing – keep animals off the highway
Electric mats or wildlife guards (similar to cattle guard concept for at-grade crossings)
Escape ramps (jump outs) & one-way gates – let animals escape if they do get in
Decommissioning interchange structures

4. Wildlife Crossing Enhancements
Fencing
Escape ramps
Lighting – day-lighting culverts
Signs
Vegetation
Add or remove from ROW
Animal detection systems
Land enhancements
Land use considerations

5. Wildlife Crossing Structures

6. Major Regulations Federal State
Endangered Species Act – Section 7
National Environmental Policy Act
23 CFR 777 – Mitigation of Impacts to Wetland and Natural Lands
MAP-21: Early Coordination Important
State
California Endangered Species Act (CESA)
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Fish & Game Code
Fish Passage - SB 857 (Sec 3. Article 3.5 Streets & Highways Code)
Caltrans is required to address and remediate anadromous fish passage barriers for all projects
Currently 520 barriers on Caltrans’ highway system
6001: early approach in Systems Planning necessary to identify mitigation needs and funding; long range planning for RTP’s.

7. Regulatory Context – Why is it important to Caltrans?
MAP–21 planning and data integration sections, streamlining project delivery 1305
FHWA’s Eco-logical Framework, 9 Steps
RTP Guidelines – more regional context, how are MPO/RTPAs considering?
2015 Strategic Management Plan and new Sustainability Goal – ‘planet’ initiative to integrate natural resource considerations
CEQA Appendix G
We need to able to answer this question during CEQA Environmental Review:
“Will your project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?”
1305 encourages programmatic approaches and early coordination with partner agencies to conduct streamlined environmental reviews.
Eco-logical Framework: organizes current methods for addressing natural resource identification, avoidance, minimization and mitigation into a systematic, step-wise process that starts at the beginning of the transportation planning process.

8. What we need to think about….
Wildlife Species Groups – special status, migratory species, other focal species
Special-Status Habitats
Information and data sources – Nat’l Wetland Inventory, CHP data, ADT, Connectivity mapping
Identifying wildlife corridors – GIS, Local knowledge, Linkage Mapping
Fish Passage Barriers present? – Passage Assessment Database, District Coordinators
Groups: special status or focal species
Special Habitats:
designated critical habitats
wetlands (Clean Water Act, other regulations)
riparian areas
Information and Data Sources
internet resources
books, Average Daily Travel – may inform impacts and mitigation in the future
Identifying Wildlife Crossings
GIS, literature, and expert opinion-based models
books, CEHC, local/grass roots knowledge.

9. Baseline Assessment: Conceptual Steps
Select focal species or habitats
Evaluate landscape-level connectivity: California Essential Habitat Connectivity
Project-level crossing issues – Design Team
Develop baseline for Wildlife Movement
Review of existing information – TASAS, CDFW
Input from Field Maintenance
Identify need for additional information
Field surveys, Design Team, Locals, ADT

10. Data Considerations How much time do I have to gather data?
What variables do I need to measure?
How large and how many samples do I need?
Do I have enough information to make a decision?
Don’t get into data consideration too much. Consider timeline and delivery of projects.

11. Data Interpretation Areas of high connectivity
Adjacent important conservation areas – high priority
Separation of seasonally-used habitats
salamanders, deer
Identify limitations of baseline data
Data limitations: prior studies unknown or unavailable. Limitations on access, time, or seasonal effects.
Become familiar with your focal species.
South Coast Wildlands, 2008

12. Project Impact Assessment
Potential direct and indirect impacts
Impacts on existing and potential wildlife crossing
Cumulative Effects
Temporary construction-related impacts

13. Mitigation Options Avoid Minimize Compensate Crossing enhancements
Project redesign
Minimize
Crossing enhancements – bridge, culvert retrofits, high water benches for med/large wildlife, multi design benefits
Compensate
Crossing enhancements
Monitoring, maintenance, and adaptive management

14. Mitigation Options What are Caltrans management options?
Improve existing structures
Modify existing structures
Add new crossing structures
Species-appropriate
Size, life history, openness ratio
Cost effective
Safety index
consider hot spot and cost benefit analysis

15. Best Practices for Multi-purpose Design
Early coordination with functional units, stakeholders
Future projects and structures
Existing water conveyance features used by wildlife or fish (what goes on under the highway)
Incorporate best practices and maintenance measures
keep the culverts clear, wildlife like openness
Retrofit existing structures to benefit aquatic and terrestrial passage
Fix it First, for multi-environmental/biological purpose designs
Replace small culverts with box culverts or small bridges
Smart use of fencing
Do not want to exacerbate the barrier effect
Success Strategies
What are site constraints, geotechnical, slope, or land use constraints to crossing or fish passage design
Are there stormwater conveyance features proposed, design

16. Mitigation Goals Increased public safety
Reduction in animal-vehicle related mortality
Increase habitat connectivity/reduction in habitat fragmentation, barrier effects
Improved permeability of a crossing structure
Increased genetic exchange
Do your goals and mitigation match the impacts? Ungulates = Safety, etc. Chapter 6 of CEHC.

17. Opportunities to Partner
Terrestrial wildlife species connectivity - Caltrans, CDFW
Advance Mitigation
Fish Passage Forum
Local Stewardship Teams

18. Results Safety for drivers Reduced animal-vehicle collisions
More wildlife = improved habitat sustainability and livability
Protection of special-status species and their habitats
Habitat linkage and improved habitat conditions
Reduced public controversy and increased awareness
Identify future needs
A subject where you will have to put your thinking cap on. You will have to go into a world of the unknown. Not just a canned subject. Can be very tough and rewarding at the same time. Involves multi-scaled and large experiments. Difficulties can be developing your project in-line with other land use challenges and decisions. Inspire the group to accomplish greater connectivity. Regional issue that we can’t work alone on.

19. The Planning Piece: Where Fish & Wildlife Resources Fit With Transportation Decisions
Photo credits: Courtesy Caltrans Districts and Partners - D7, NPS; D5 and Pathways for Wildlife
Outline:
Fish & wildlife data various system planning and project decision levels
System Planning map demonstration examples
District photos and case studies showing best design practices for connectivity success

20. Natural Resources in System Planning
Route Deficiencies and Existing Assets:
-Reliability
-Multimodal integration
-culverts, bridges
-Bike/pedestrian access
Key Natural Resources:
-Wildlife habitat corridors
-Fish Passage
-Recovery Plans, listed species
-NCCP/HCPs
-Land ownership
- Adjacent land uses
-Zoning
-General Plan designations
Land Use Values:
INTEGRATED AND INFORMED CORRIDOR CONCEPT
At regional or corridor scale, what is value of looking at natural resources at a similar scale? What are we trying to accomplish.
Opportunity at an early stage to inform the corridor concept with high level natural resource considerations along a route.
Opportunities for alignment of priorities (transp and NR) with local and regional planning partners (RTPAs, MPOs)
Proactively guide project and investment decisions along a hwy corridor .
2) These types of concepts and ideas are being discussed at depth in the TCR System Planning (TCR and DSMP) Charter team.
Group championed by District Office of system and adv planning (staff and managers level) and HQ DOTP to bring system planning into alignment with new M, V, and goals
3) Integrated corridor concept has few key goals:
GOAL: address a transportation need and environmental need at same time
GOAL: Make connection between system planning and PID, to inform programming and project decisions
4) If looking at specifically at Hab Conn along a transportation route, key Qs to ask:
What are the route or system needs? What are the existing facilities (stormwater, bridges, culverts, pavement) and their condition
What are the regionally important natural resources/land cover within or adjacent to our ROW?
What are major lands uses and ownership along the route, are they compatible?   

21. Sustainable Corridor Planning
Caltrans 2015 Strategic Management Plan Goal 3: Sustainability, Livability, and Economy:
“Make long-lasting, smart mobility decisions that improve the environment, support a vibrant economy, and build communities, not sprawl.”
People− fostering community health and vitality
Planet − preserving and restoring environmental and ecological systems
Prosperity − promoting economic development
Habitat Connectivity and Wildlife Corridor Planning supports people, planet, and prosperity objectives by:
Enhancing public space and recreational values
Improving driver safety
-April 215 we adopted new SMP and revised, modernized goal on S, L, and Economy
-Elevates our role in Enviro Stewardship and NR considerations
-There is a livability and community planning component with habitat connectivity planning
-Think of in terms of identifying greenbelts (connecting open space, parklands) than preserving wildlife movement. Ex) – enhance public space, recreational values, improve health and safety, reduce Wildlife Vehicle Collision conflicts, improve reliability
-Enhancing community values for people as well (livability) not just ‘planet’ objectives under sustainability

22. Sustainable Corridors: FHWA’s Integrated Eco-Logical Framework (IEF)
An Ecosystem Approach
to Developing
Infrastructure Projects
Nine-step, voluntary framework for partners to collaborate, share data, and prioritize areas of ecological significance
Infrastructure planning – transportation, oil and gas development, renewable energy
Wildlife connectivity and many other data sets are inputs into Eco-logical
Framework for aligning conservation and transportation priorities at varying scales
-Federal Highways has an endorsed methodology for doing this type of integrated planning – IEF.
-Developed for infrastructure planning – oil, gas, and transportation, renewable energy
Graphic on right sums it up well, an integrated planning approach that helps us ID key partners and stakeholders, ID and discuss “greenprinting” priorities, and “blueprinting” priorities and forum to discuss long-term vision at statewide or corridor-level scale.
-CT and regional partners (local gov’t transp agencies) can align route-level priorities
See FHWA link ay bottom
Other -Integrated Ecological Framework (IEF)
Step 1: ID key stakeholders and establish partnerships
Step 2: ID conservation priorities
Step 3: ID transportation needs
Step 4: Framework for Regional prioritization

23. Important Sources– Transportation Corridor or Regional-level Planning
Natural Resources and Protected Areas:
California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Areas of Conservation Emphasis (ACE)
Regional Conservation Plans (NCCP/HCPs)
California State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP)
California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project and finer-scaled regional assessments
Passage Assessment Database (PAD) –
California Protected Areas Database (CPAD) – calands.org
Most of the above can be found on CDFW’s website,
There are resources available for making higher-level natural system planning (check and promote consistency of TCR with…)
ACE – CDFW data set to guide conservation planning. Represents species and habitat values at large acreage/hexagon scale.
biodiversity, rarity context including sensitive habitats. For project delivery, it represents most resources that are subject to some sort of regulatory protection (listed species, wetlands, rare habitats)
SWAP – eco regions with conservation targets
CEHC and regional assessments – habitat modeling projects and critical linkage areas
PAD – fish passage barriers DB maintained by CDFW
CPAD - The California Protected Areas Database (CPAD) contains data on lands owned in fee by governments, non-profits and some private entities that are protected for open space purposes. Data includes all such areas in California, from small urban parks to large national parks and forests, mostly aligned to assessor parcel boundaries

24. Important Sources – Project-level Planning (Advance)
In addition to those already mentioned, the following are important sources for guiding decisions at the Project Initiation Document (PID) and scoping phase:
Preliminary Environmental Analysis Report (PEAR) Tool - GIS
California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB)
Wildlife camera monitoring and movement studies
Animal Vehicle Collision data
Project or site level info and studies – what are data gaps and what else is needed during project scoping? Add’l bio and wildlife surveys needed for proper project scoping
-Any of previous data sources, refs would be appropriate to use at project-level stage and vice versa ex) if AVC data is available for a route, by all means looking at it at TCR stage is encouraged.
-wildlife camera monitoring or radiocollar studies give more regional and site level info about type of species present and moving through area.
AVC data:
(District IMMS and TASAS data, UCD CROS dataset)
AVC (road mortality and accident data):
Integrated Maintenance Management System
Traffic Accident Surveillance and Analysis System
UCD CROS; CA roadkill observation system – citizen science based data set

25. Transportation Concept Report: Inter-regional Route SR 299 in Trinity County
Key Natural Resources- Trinity River, listed salmon species, Essential Connectivity Area, NLBs, fish barriers Land Use, Ownership – Shasta Trinity USFS lands, private Route Needs, Vision – Improve safety, accessibility, reliability; storm damage repair, slide repair Existing assets – bridges, culverts
Critical inter-regional connection between Redding and north coast cities (between Districts 1 and 2), town of Weaverville and Junction City in this segment.
-Generally compatible land ownership with publically managed USFS lands.
-Lots of undersized culverts along 299
Where may there be opps to integrate SR 299 needs with an enviro need?
Where/how can we integrate and inform route concept with NR considerations?
Improved connectivity between 2 NLBs w/ Culvert or FP repair, rehab – increase size or design span bridge with Collision reduction and safety projects (eg. bikes are allowed along extent of 299 and more shoulder widening, more passing lanes and turnouts needed)
wildlife enhancements like directional fencing or electric mats, jump-outs with
Shoulder, safety projects -
Improve WQ, reduce sedimentation and runoff - Bridge scour, slope failure repair, or culvert projects - reducing sediment/runoff into Trinity River and smaller streams, ecosystem functions
Green infrastructure – WQ improvements, treatment areas with SW bioswales or permeable pavements, traffic calming work in towns and bike/ped access = LIVABILITY

26. Best Design Practices and Wildlife Enhancements
The following are types of improvements that can be made to existing facilities to improve wildlife passage by facilitating movement:
Remove obstacles, clear site distance through culverts
Raised wildlife shelf or path for high-water flows
Minimize riprap or rock slope protection (RSP)
Relatively flat, natural substrate bottom
Replace steep slopes with natural 2:1 slopes (reduce intimidation)
Many species of wildlife are already using culverts and bridges that were not originally designed for fish or wildlife passage.
Promoting wildlife passage doesn’t have to be new, expensively engineered structure. There are lots of simple design modifications or retrofits to existing structures and routine maintenance solutions that will make it easier for wildlife to see and use a structure (facilitate movement, reduce intimidation). Need good coordination and communication between functional groups = more awareness
Work and coordinate often with your Division of Maintenance important
Next few slides show pictures of these from district projects and studies…..

27. Best Design Practices and Wildlife Enhancements
Wildlife shelves, paths
Vegetation trimming, improve site distance
Examples of best design practices or solutions:
Left photos) South Yuba Bridge over I-80 in Placer County. Highwater bench under hwy bridge for perennial river, for fluctuating water level and wildlife passage – deer use it during spring runoff season during high flows, can still get under the freeway and pass over the river/hwy to get resources.
Center and right photo, pre and post) Maintain good clearance, opening to culverts for wildlife passage via minor vegetation clearing; demonstrates the importance of site distance and visibility at culvert ends; coordination with Div of Maintenance important.
Photos from Hwy 17 in Santa Clara County are good planning and partnering example to highlight.
In 2014, voters in the Bay Area passed a local Measure to issue bond funding over 20 – 30 years for specific capitol projects
Hwy 17 id’ed by Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, to receive some of that funding for a wildlife crossing and a pedestrian bridge
In 2011/12, Midpen partnered with many others (Peninsula Open Space Trust, the Land Trust of Santa Cruz County, Pathways for Wildlife, Districts 4 (SLO) and D5 (Oakland), county parks, the RTPA (Santa Clara VTA), Land Trust of Santa Cruz County, CDFW, etc) to begin data collection and coordinate on wildlife crossing need and best location.
UCSC Puma project and radio-collaring study to track mtn lion movements along Hwy 17 and neighboring properties to determine preservation needs and importantlyroadkill carcass data & habitat modeling – Bay Area Critical Linkages, camera monitoring, and telemetry data to find out where animals are crossing , the appropriate location for wildlife improvements.
Photo: Before and after. Lexington Culvert Highway 17, minor vegetation clearing improves visibility
Photo: South Yuba bridge over I-80,
Placer County

28. Best Design Practices and Wildlife Enhancements
More examples of facilitating movement, without building new expensive structures:
A lot of data collection and partnering between similar parties in this part of the state to proactivity determine mitigation solutions and a plan prior to road projects. The Nature Conservancy and PFW, CT Districts 4 and 5 Envir Planning and Stewardship Branches and many other similar stakeholders as the Hwy 17 group are partnering in this area of the Pajaro Floodplain on data collection.
Left photo: importance of culvert opening and veg management. After minor trimming of invasive, bobcat and coyotes were found using the box culverts.
Middle picture shows importance of natural bottom substrate, allows for easy movement and footing by mammals
3) Culvert at TNC’s Red Fern Property – this is an old photo, the culvert now overgrown with veg and debris. Important of removing obstacles, trimming vegetation, remove debris from culvert opening = improved line of sight and site distance
Photo: Hwy 101 at Tick Creek Culvert in the Pajaro Floodplain. Partnering between The Nature Conservancy, Pathways for Wildlife and many others.
Photo: The Nature Conservancy, Red Fern Property near Hwy 152. Importance of clearing debris, removing obstacles.
Photo: Bobcat using a culvert under Hwy 152,
The Nature Conservancy Gonzales Property.

29. Thank you!!
Contact information: Amy Golden, , Jim Henke, ,
Closing: Jan 2016 Wildlife Connectivity Forums, transportation planning focus but with integration of topic with other functional groups like design, PM. If your interested in attending, contact your district training coordinator.