Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Tristan Lowery
MRP Candidate – August 2015
The University at Albany,
State University of New York
Department of Geography and Planning
Planning Approaches to Mitigation Habitat Fragmentation by Transportation Networks: A
Case Study of Technical Solutions for the Albany Pine Bush, New York
Page | 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ..................................................................................................................................................................... 4
Abstract ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 5
I. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................... 7
Review of Literature ............................................................................................................................................................. 11
Introduction to Road Ecology ...................................................................................................................................... 11
Road ecology and planning ........................................................................................................................................... 13
Habitat loss and fragmentation .................................................................................................................................. 14
Traffic features and road ecology effects ................................................................................................................ 16
Vehicle collisions and road mortality ....................................................................................................................... 17
Roads as conduits for dispersal .................................................................................................................................. 18
Potential ecological benefits of roads ....................................................................................................................... 18
Road Ecology Mitigation ..................................................................................................................................................... 19
Passage Solutions ............................................................................................................................................................. 19
Small wildlife crossing structures ......................................................................................................................... 20
Large wildlife crossing structures ........................................................................................................................ 21
Landscape bridges and wildlife overpasses ..................................................................................................... 22
Viaducts, causeways, and tunnels ......................................................................................................................... 23
Canopy crossings ......................................................................................................................................................... 24
Wildlife Crossing Structure Location, Assessment, and Costs ....................................................................... 25
Location ........................................................................................................................................................................... 25
Assessment ..................................................................................................................................................................... 26
Costs of wildlife crossing structures .................................................................................................................... 27
Non-Passage Mitigation ................................................................................................................................................. 28
Traffic calming .............................................................................................................................................................. 29
Ecological benefits of traffic calming ................................................................................................................... 32
Management of Roadside Habitat: Landscape Architecture Solutions ...................................................... 34
Review of Literature: Discussion ............................................................................................................................... 35
Study Area Description: Albany Pine Bush - Albany County, New York .................................................... 38
Fragmentation and Biodiversity Loss in the Albany Pine Bush .................................................................... 42
The case for mitigation in the Albany Pine Bush ............................................................................................ 43
Road avoidance and mortality in the Albany Pine Bush................................................................................... 44
Page | 3
Roads as conduits for dispersal in the Albany Pine Bush ................................................................................ 45
Road-induced effects on Albany Pine Bush management................................................................................ 46
Roads and Karner Blue Butterfly conservation ................................................................................................... 50
Potential ecological benefits of roads in the Albany Pine Bush ..................................................................... 51
Existing Conditions in Albany Pine Bush Transportation Planning ............................................................ 52
Western Avenue ........................................................................................................................................................... 52
New Karner Road ......................................................................................................................................................... 53
Other Pine Bush area traffic recommendations .............................................................................................. 54
Albany Pine Bush Case Study Recommendations .................................................................................................... 56
Recommendation № 1: Realignment/Partial Decommissioning of Old State Road ............................. 56
Recommendation № 2: Decommissioning of Gibb Road ................................................................................. 57
Recommendation № 3: Traffic calming measures on minor urban arterials .......................................... 57
Wildlife Crossing Structures in the Albany Pine Bush ................................................................................. 58
Recommendation № 4: New Karner Road Viaduct ........................................................................................... 59
Recommendation № 5: New York State Thruway Landscape Bridge ........................................................ 61
Recommendation № 6: Management of roadside habitat in the Albany Pine Bush ............................. 63
Recommendation № 7: Reduction of other road effects .................................................................................. 64
Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 65
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................................................ 66
Works Cited .............................................................................................................................................................................. 67
Page | 4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Figure 1 – Map: Case study area: the Albany Pine Bush Preserve ..................................................... 7
Figure 2 – A schematic representation of the ecological effects of roads .................................... 16
Figure 3 – A wildlife overpass the Trans-Canada Highway at Banff National Park……………22
Figure 4 – A viaduct on the A20 motorway in northern Germany………………………………….. 24
Figure 5 – Table: Specifications and costs of passage for wildlife………… ………………… ...28
Figure 6 - Schematic representation of a traffic calmed rural area ................................................ 32
Figure 7 – Table: NYSDOT traffic calming standards ........................................................................... 34
Figure 8 – Table: Mitigation method comparison ................................................................................. 37
Figure 9 – Albany Pine Bush landscape………………………………………………………………………….38
Figure 10 – Karner blue butterfly………………………………………………………………………………….42
Figure 11 – Map: Albany Pine Bush Preserve full protection recommendations. .................... 51
Figure 12 – Table: Average annual daily traffic in the Albany Pine Bush……………………….…55
Figure 13 – Table: Wildlife crossing structure suitability for the Albany Pine Bush............... 59
Figure 14 – A large viaduct on the C25 motorway in Spain .............................................................. 61
Figure 15 – Table: Albany Pine Bush Preserve full protection recommendations. .................. 62
Figure 16 – Map: Albany Pine Bush Preserve full protection recommendations………….……63
Page | 5
ABSTRACT Roads are indispensable to the functions of modern society. As ubiquitous
accessories to human development, roads facilitate safe and efficient movement across the
global landscape, allowing for great advances in social interactions, economic efficiency,
and the geographic mobility of human populations (Kulash, 1999). But as the emerging
study of road ecology has revealed, roads have significant environmental impacts,
including the destruction and fragmentation of terrestrial habitat on which a great portion
of the biodiversity on earth depends. Habitat destruction and fragmentation are intensified
by transportation activities, particularly in areas of urban development (Forman et al.,
2003). Increasing human populations and concomitant urban development will require
the construction of new transportation systems that will increase traffic density, volume,
road length, and disturbances from vehicle use and construction. As the volume and
intensity of vehicular traffic increase worldwide in concert with anticipated population
growth, the negative ecological effects of roadway networks are expected to increase.
In recent years, the emerging field of road ecology has devised a wide variety of
structural and policy solutions to counter the deleterious effects of automobile traffic on
ecological systems, but implementation by transportation planners and other practitioners
has been limited due to costs, political feasibility, public opposition, and indifference. Road
ecology solutions are complex and nuanced, generally expensive, and often generate
impacts on existing land uses. In most cases, the intervention of professional planners will
be required in order to negotiate these intricate conflicts between ecological protection
and human needs. Planners involved in this process will benefit from an inclusive overview
of road ecology concepts and potential solutions.
Page | 6
The Albany Pine Bush in eastern upstate New York is an example of a vulnerable
ecosystem highly-fragmented by transportation systems. Road-induced fragmentation
represents a severe threat to the ecological viability of this preserve, but to date, no
countermeasures have been implemented. This paper will introduce road ecology concepts
and solutions from a planning perspective in order to determine the most effective
approaches to overcome these localized impacts.
Page | 7
Figure 1 - Case Study Area. The Albany Pine Bush Preserve shown in green, with major roads and road effect zones in cyan, demonstrating the extensive
habitat fragmentation imposed by the transportation network (recreational trails are shown in yellow) (APBPC, 2010).
I. INTRODUCTION The road is a deceptively inconspicuous component of human society. On maps,
roads appear as slender filaments, meandering harmlessly across much of the terrestrial
surface. From the ground, they are easily overlooked as elements of the built environment,
lacking the dimensional stature of architecture, their existence obscured beneath and
between buildings. Roads are generally omitted from purely geographic atlases, and at
Page | 8
sufficient altitudes in flight, they disappear from view altogether, benignly subsumed into
the landscape as if they were not even there. Roads are easily forgotten, and yet they
comprise “the largest human artifact on earth” (Forman et al., 2002: xiii). The global road
network is at once humanity’s most colossal and unobtrusive artifact, sprawling over the
landscape unseen.
Road transportation is associated with a host of well-known environmental
problems, including the consumption of non-renewable resources, pollution, climate
change, and auto-oriented urban sprawl. Less familiar but equally catastrophic is the
capacity of road systems to destroy and fragment habitat, displace wildlife populations, and
disrupt ecological processes. The sheer spatial impact of transportation systems on the
biotic environment is staggering and shows no signs of abatement. Richard T.T. Forman,
perhaps the most notable writer and researcher in the emerging field of road ecology wrote
that the global transportation system represents “the sleeping giant of biological
conservation” (Forman, 2002: viii).1
The ecological impacts of road systems were greatly intensified in the past century
by the advent of the internal combustion engine, the affordability of mass-produced
vehicles, modern road construction methods, and the routinization of vehicular
transportation in increasingly automobile-dependent societies. The relative ease with
which roads were constructed in the twentieth century led to changes in social
expectations of transportation. Modern highway building techniques opened up the
countryside to the novel convenience of recreational travel, establishing scenic landmarks
1 Forman’s seminal Road Ecology: Science and Solutions was called “the Silent Spring of transportation” by David Burwell of the Surface Transportation Project, in reference to Rachel Carson’s epochal 1962 jeremiad against the effects of chemical pollution.
Page | 9
as destinations and offering stunning views of dramatic landscapes, while the impacts of
the expanding roadway network remained hidden beneath the wheels of millions of
motorists.
While roads have been subject to a great deal of geographical, social, historical, and
economic scrutiny, the ecological consequences of transportation infrastructure have been
ignored until relatively recently. The ubiquity of roads has muted an awareness of their
detrimental impacts, their massive ecological impact whitewashed by everyday necessity
and familiarity. The proliferation of transportation infrastructure has outpaced scientific
understanding of its impacts, and by the time these ecological effects were revealed, much
of the damage had already been done - seemingly irrevocably - in an onslaught of postwar
highway construction and urbanization. The situation continues to this day, largely because
of market failures to account for externalities of transportation systems.
In recent years, concerned scientists have initiated a study of roads and their
ecological impacts called “road ecology” (or more broadly “transportation ecology”) as the
profound anthropogenic impacts of transportation have grown too dire to ignore. Habitat
destruction and fragmentation are among the most serious of these impacts and are the
principal causes of an accelerated loss of global biodiversity. The primary objective of road
ecology research and practice is prevent further roadway fragmentation from occurring,
and mitigating its impacts where it currently exists. In much of the developed world, where
the deeply entrenched road networks have reached near-peak densities, this approach
requires effective but unobtrusive mitigation to restore ecological connectivity in
fragmented landscapes, without interruption to existing transportation activities. Road
ecologists have been undaunted by the seemingly impossible task of retrofitting the
Page | 10
immense global road network for ecological permeability, developing a wide array of
technical devices and policy solutions that have been adopted with increasing frequency by
transportation agencies.
In the Capital District of New York State, the habitat most vulnerable to
development and roadway fragmentation is the Albany Pine Bush, one of only twenty pine
barrens in the world. The Pine Bush is a habitat of singular global importance and provides
habitat to a number of state- and federally-listed species of special concern. However, the
Pine Bush is encircled by intense urban development and fragmented by an extensive road
network, which have compromised the ecological integrity of this vulnerable habitat. Long
viewed as an economic wasteland, the Albany Pine Bush was beset by unchecked urban
development that emanated from the nearby cities of Albany and Schenectady in the
twentieth century (Zantopp, 2000). The Pine Bush was granted some belated formal
protection by the establishment of the Albany Pine Bush Preserve in 1988, but its
ecological survival remains uncertain because of fragmentation effects. To date, no
mitigation has been implemented to alleviate the significant pressures transportation uses
place on the Pine Bush, despite an abundance of existing options and a growing body of
supporting research.
To implement effective solutions to overcome habitat fragmentation in the Albany
Pine Bush, it is necessary for planners and other practitioners to understand the ecological
justifications for such actions, the full range of structural and policy solutions currently
available, and the most practical application of these measure to existing local conditions.
To this end, and to perhaps encourage further investigation, I will compile a review of road
ecology concerns and solutions, followed by a case study on potential improvements to the
Page | 11
viability and connectivity of Albany Pine Bush habitats and wildlife populations. I will
conclude with a brief section of recommendations for local implementation, with a
summary evaluation of feasibility, locations, and possible ecological benefits.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
MODE OF RESEARCH
The ecological effects of fragmentation have been the subject of significant
ecological research (Fazey et al., 2005) and there exists an abundance of studies from
which to choose. For this paper, I created a literature review current research on road
ecology, transportation planning, and fragmentation mitigation methods. This was
accomplished by searching available indices and online databases of peer-reviewed
publications, planning documents, as well as agency, governmental, and nonprofit
organization reports (“gray literature”). Exhaustive bibliographical searches were also
helpful in navigating this subject, as were the personal websites of noted authors in these
fields.
Academic journals were found primarily through the University at Albany online
library catalog (“Minerva”), particularly the journal database search function. Google
Scholar also proved helpful. Much of my preliminary study of ecological concepts of habitat
loss and fragmentation was conducted by heavy book borrowing from the University at
Albany main and science libraries. These facilities were also useful repositories of local
information on the Albany Pine Bush (e.g., New York State Museum publications).
Of the growing body literature on restoring habitat connectivity over existing
transportation infrastructure, very little has been written with the planning professional in
mind. Searches for “planning” as it relates to habitat and connectivity generally yield
Page | 12
volumes on landscape ecology intended for scientists and conservation managers, often
with an emphasis on regional scales. The Journal of the American Planning Association has
published very little on the subject of habitat connectivity, though the international
Landscape and Urban Planning publishes articles relevant to this field regularly.
Two references in particular should be cited here for their usefulness to planners in
understanding the ecological effects of roads and in solutions to these problems: Road
Ecology: Science and Solutions (Forman et al., 2003) and recent Roads & Ecological
Infrastructure: Concepts and Applications for Small Animals (Andrews et al., eds., 2015).
In order to make the most effective argument for mitigation in the Albany Pine Bush,
I restricted myself to wherever possible to locally pertinent examples of road-induced
fragmentation: studies on the Albany Pine Bush Preserve itself, research from other pine
barrens in the northeast United States, and ecological work conducted in New York State
on fragmentation effects in general.
Finally, local planning documents were especially helpful, including comprehensive
plans of Pine Bush municipalities, transportation studies by NYSDOT and CDTC, and the
management plan of the Albany Pine Bush Preserve.
INTRODUCTION TO ROAD ECOLOGY Human activity is regarded as the primary cause of various ecological crises around
the world (Vitousek et al., 1997). Population growth, pollution, resource extraction,
overconsumption, climate change, and land-use changes are significant anthropogenic
factors in an accelerating loss of biological diversity recently identified as a mass extinction
event (Ceballos et al., 2015). The extensive transformation of the biophysical environment
to human uses is currently the most serious threat to species persistence, resulting in
Page | 13
habitat destruction and fragmentation. Habitat fragmentation is defined as the “disruption
of spatial distribution of habitat patches in a landscape” (Fahrig, 2003) and is
overwhelmingly caused by intensive, anthropogenic land uses, including urbanization,
agricultural conversion, and transportation infrastructure (Dale et al., 2000; Hooke et al.,
2012). It has been called “the most serious threat to biological diversity, and the primary
cause of the present biodiversity crisis” (Wilcox and Murphy, 1985: 884).
Transportation networks figure prominently in the current ecological crisis as
habitat destruction and fragmentation. While railroads and other forms of linear
infrastructure contribute greatly to ecological effects, modern roadways constructed to
accommodate vehicular traffic are the most serious concern due to the great volumes of
they carry ubiquitous physical presence. Road building requires the destruction of the
natural areas and they constitute significant post-construction barriers to the movement of
wildlife and other ecological processes (Coffin, 2007; Shepherd et al., 2008). Their influence
extends far beyond their paved surfaces and verges, however, generating ex situ areas of
collateral disturbance called “road effect zones” that affect an estimated 15% to 20% of the
land in the United States (Forman and Alexander, 1998).
ROAD ECOLOGY AND PLANNING For much of history, road construction was an ad hoc affair, dictated by the
topographical constraints of the landscape itself, wherein social motivations and economic
efficiency favored routes of the greatest geographic expediency (Jaarsma, 1997).
Conventional transportation planning has largely overlooked environmental impacts
(Kaiser and Godschalk, 1995; Jaarsma, 1997) However, ecological concerns have gained a
firmer footing in the professional literature and practice of planning in recent decades, as
Page | 14
environmental protection, resource management, and landscape values have become
indispensable concerns of professional planning (McHarg, 1969; Zube, 1987; Soulé, 1991;
Zipperer et al., 2000). Correspondingly, transportation agencies have become more
responsive to the ecological effects of road planning and construction, reflecting mounting
public concern for both environmental degradation (Manfredo et al, 2003), as well as
increasingly strict regulatory requirements (Forman and Alexander, 1998; Forman et al.,
2003; Trombulak and Frissell, 2000; Coffin, 2007).
The science of road ecology has emerged at the confluence of science and spatial
planning to counteract the detrimental effects of transportation infrastructure.
Coordination between ecologists and planners is necessary in order to facilitate ecological
processes and maintain biodiversity, while ensuring safe and efficient human
transportation. More and more, it is incumbent upon spatial planners, landscape architects,
and urban designers to devise solutions to mitigate the serious ecological impacts of
transportation infrastructure. Planners, transportation officials, and road ecologists now
have at their disposal a wide variety of mitigation techniques, engineering solutions, and
policies to reduce wildlife-vehicle collisions and restore habitat connectivity and wildlife
movement.
HABITAT LOSS AND FRAGMENTATION Ecological theories of population and metapopulation dynamics have established
that ecosystem viability and species persistence are dependent on the physical connections
afforded by landscape continuity (MacArthur and Wilson, 1967; Diamond, 1975; Hanski
and Gilpin, 1991; Hanski, 1999; Hanski and Ovaskainen, 2000). Habitat fragmentation
impedes normal dispersal patterns by reducing landscape connectivity, partitioning the
Page | 15
landscape into patches of diminished size and ecological value, and isolating and dividing
wildlife populations into relict populations of diminished viability, stability, and resilience.
Biotic populations isolated by habitat fragmentation are subject to lower reproduction
rates, reduced genetic exchange (Mader, 1984; Clark et al., 2010; Holderregger and Di
Giulio, 2010; Lowe and Allendorf, 2010), and population declines that can ultimately lead
to extirpation and extinction (Shaffer, 1981; Shaffer and Samson, 1985; Wilcove 1987;
Saunders et al., 1991; Bascompte and Sole, 1996; Reed, 2004). Habitat fragmentation
produces smaller, isolated populations that are subject to greater extinction risk and
increases the spatial distances and physical barriers that must be overcome for species to
supplement adjacent populations and re-colonize new habitats (Fahrig and Merriam,
1994).
The effects of habitat fragmentation on the landscape are generally intensified when
caused by transportation infrastructure (Andrews, 1990; Forman and Alexander, 1998;
Spellerberg, 1998; Trombulak and Frissell, 2000). Roads permit vehicular conveyance
through previously contiguous landscapes, while impeding perpendicular movements
across these axes. Apart from the ecological problems associated human infrastructure in
general, roads present an additional facet of mobile disturbance to ecological systems in
the form of vehicular traffic (Forman and Alexander, 1998; Jaarsma et al., 2006). Whether
persistent or intermittent in its flow, automobile traffic poses a considerable and usually
lethal collision risk to wildlife. Road density and traffic volume are the most significant
determinants of this hazard, and have increased greatly in relation to human population
growth and intensified automobile density. Higher traffic volumes decrease the probability
of successful road traversals, resulting in impermeability, habitat inaccessibility (Eigenbrod
Page | 16
et al., 2008) and decreased connectivity (Forman and Alexander 1998; Forman 2000).
Numerous studies have demonstrated the reluctance of various wildlife species groups to
traverse roadways due to these effects (Oxley, Fenton, and Carmody, 1974; Mader, 1984;
Lovallo and Anderson, 1996; DeMaynadier and Hunter, 2000; Ford and Fahrig, 2008).
Roads pose problems to long-term patterns of wildlife dispersal as well.
Anthropogenic climate change is expected to initiate widespread wildlife movements and
range shifts, and roads will pose serious threats to future dispersals if left unmitigated
(Heller and Zavaleta, 2009; Clevenger and Huijser, 2011).
Figure 2 – A schematic representation of the ecological effects of roads (Seiler, 2002).
TRAFFIC FEATURES AND ROAD ECOLOGY EFFECTS Traffic speed, volume, and road width are the most significant variables in
determining road permeability to wildlife populations. Given equal traffic volumes, barrier
effects are increased for wider road systems (with more lanes), but smaller, more
permeable roads can generate greater wildlife mortality by encouraging crossing attempts.
Page | 17
Conversely, on larger roads, traffic intensity and road width can increase to such an extent
that they constitute absolute barriers to wildlife movement. However, larger roads
typically carry greater volumes and radiate traffic-related disturbances into larger areas of
habitat, increasing their fragmentation effects. Huijser and Clevenger (2011) established
10,000 AADT as a benchmark traffic level for total roadway impermeability for a wide
range of wildlife species, though Seiler (2003) estimates that even lower volumes (~4,000
AADT) produce impermeable barriers for some smaller species. In summary, many roads
are not large or busy enough to present complete deterrents to wildlife movement (Mader,
1984), but even minor roads can constitute significant barriers to wildlife movement (Hels
and Buchwald, 2001).
VEHICLE COLLISIONS AND ROAD MORTALITY To the general public, roadkill2 is the most visible, violent, and unpleasant effect of
transportation on wildlife populations. Often these encounters are the only indication
many motorists receive that roads cause any environmental problems at all. Beginning in
the early twentieth century, the vehicular velocities made possible by the internal
combustion engine and modern road paving have combined to make collisions between
automobiles and wildlife a frequent and often deadly occurrence.
Vehicular collisions have a negative significant ecological impact by causing the
direct mortality of wildlife (Forman, 2000; Trombulak and Frissell, 2000; Glista et al. 2009;
Shepherd et al. 2008). Wildlife-vehicle collisions result in property damage (Mastro et al.,
2008) and occasionally motorist injury and death. Accidents with large mammals have the
2 Known in the professional literature by the more polite terms “wildlife mortality” or “faunal casualty”.
Page | 18
greatest potential to inflict human costs and have garnered the most attention from
transportation agencies. But studies have demonstrated that less dramatic collisions occur
with a variety of smaller animals whose demise on our roadways often goes unnoticed.
Small mammals (Clevenger et al. 2007), birds (Orlowski and Siembieda, 2005; Jacobson,
2005), reptiles (Langen et al., 2007), amphibians, and insects (Rao and Girish, 2007) are all
frequent victims in collisions so small and commonplace they often go unnoticed by
motorists. Some of these “below-the-bumper” wildlife are among the most vulnerable to
habitat fragmentation, and are already under considerable threats from other forms of
human development.
ROADS AS CONDUITS FOR DISPERSAL Road construction creates conduits for the dispersal of invasive species, feral and
domestic animals, and subsidized species that are particularly harmful in fragmented
ecological communities. Nest parasitism and over-predation of native wildlife have been
shown to increase with greater habitat fragmentation (Andren and Angelstam, 1988;
Crooks and Soulé, 1999; Askins, 1994). These threats are further enhanced as the distance
between developed areas and vulnerable habitats is diminished by the access afforded by
expanding transportation networks. Urbanization creates areas conducive to habitat
generalists, and transportation infrastructure creates inroads for their diffusion into
ecologically sensitive areas (Noss and Cooperrider, 1994).
POTENTIAL ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS OF ROADS Roads have been documented as having some ecological benefits, by providing
“unplanned” habitat for small animals in some circumstances (Bissonette and Rosa, 2009;
van der Ree and Bennett, 2003) and acting as corridors for wildlife movement. Associated
Page | 19
transportation infrastructure may provide nesting platforms for some bird species
(Forman, 2000). The verges of lightly-traveled roads adjacent appropriate habitat are most
likely to promote species diversity and abundance and also provide habitat connectivity
(Huijser and Clevenger, 2006; Reijnen and Foppen, 2006). But overall, the documented
negative impacts of roads on population abundance and diversity of species outweigh the
positive documented impacts by at least five times (Fahrig and Rytwinski 2009).
ROAD ECOLOGY MITIGATION Road ecology mitigation reduces direct wildlife mortality and lessens the effects of
habitat fragmentation and disturbance regimes. To these ends, road ecologists recommend
a variety of structural and nonstructural solutions that modify either motorist or faunal
behavior in order to avoid conflicts between traffic and wildlife. For the purpose of
discussing spatial planning approaches to road mitigation, it is most useful to categorize
these methods as passage or non-passage solutions.
PASSAGE SOLUTIONS Passage solutions include a wide array of crossing structures that allow wildlife to
traverse the linear barriers imposed by transportation infrastructure without coming into
physical contact with the road surface, effectively reducing the collision risk to nothing.
Crossings structures permit site-scale movements of wildlife perpendicular to traffic flows,
without significant interference to existing transportation operations. In addition to
permitting safe conveyance of wildlife across transportation infrastructure, wildlife
crossing structures may also provide additional ecological benefits in habitat connectivity
and permeability of ecological regimes (Downs and Horner, 2012).
Page | 20
Engineers and ecologists have designed terrestrial and aquatic crossings that can be
adapted to or ecological requirements, ranging from small amphibians to wide land bridges
large enough to span multilane highways. Passage mitigation may also include retrofitting
existing structures to allow for wildlife movement (Forman et al., 2003; van der Grift, 2005;
Clevenger and Huijser, 2011).
The use of wildlife crossings is supported by a growing body of research that only
increases with further implementation and study. A few standard models have emerged
and a transportation agencies in Europe and the United States have compiled guidelines
and toolkits guide local implementation. A full review of these structures can be found in
these publications. Determining the correct structure and placement for a particular
mitigation situation should be conducted on a case-by-case basis, but here follows a brief
overview of some common wildlife crossing structure types.
Physical factors to consider in determining the effectiveness of crossing structures
include dimensions (size and shape, relative openness, exposure, restriction, and
narrowness) and approaches (availability of cover, use of fencing or barrier walls,
facilitating movement towards structures), and environmental conditions (moisture,
temperature, light, substrate, airflow, and noise disturbances (Glista et al. 2009). For
instance, artificial lighting has been shown to be a deterrent to crossing structure use
(Glista et al. 2009). Generally, wider, higher, and larger structures achieve greater
separation from road disturbance are therefore more effective at maintaining ecological
functions (Ruediger, 2002).
SMALL WILDLIFE CROSSING STRUCTURES
Page | 21
Smaller wildlife crossing structures include amphibian tunnels, wildlife pipes
(“ecopipes” or “pipe culverts”) and wildlife culverts (“box culverts” or “ecoculverts” (Forman,
2002; Clevenger et al., 2001; Woltz et al., 2008). They have been more extensively
employed in Europe to allow below-grade passage for smaller vertebrates like amphibians,
reptiles, and small mammals, with or without accommodating water flows. Culverts are
among the least expensive wildlife crossing structures, particularly when they can be
modified from existing structures (“non-wildlife engineered structures”). Retrofitting
existing culverts often entails the installation of drift fencing, habitat modification
(especially at entrances), and the use of dry ledges (Glista et al., 2009). Below-grade
culverts, drainage infrastructure, and even larger passages originally designed for
pedestrian use can provide passage for opportunistic wildlife.
LARGE WILDLIFE CROSSING STRUCTURES
Large wildlife crossing structures include designs that replicate the functions of
smaller underpass structures on a greater scale to accommodate below-grade passage by
larger animals (typically mammals), but also include overpass designs that carry wildlife
over the road surface (Forman and Alexander, 1998). The largest of overpasses can even
accommodate natural vegetation and other microhabitat features.
Wildlife underpasses are narrow, below-grade tunnels (Forman et al., 2002), while
multi-use underpasses feature comparable dimensions with the expectancy of human co-
use, either pedestrians or vehicular traffic (Forman et al., 2003; Iuell et al., 2003).
Page | 22
Figure 3 – A wildlife overpass the Trans-Canada Highway at Banff National Park, Alberta, one of the best known locations for structural mitigation of
roadway fragmentation in North America. Source: Wikipedia
LANDSCAPE BRIDGES AND WILDLIFE OVERPASSES
Landscape bridges (also known as landscape connectors or “green bridges”) are the
largest structures designed exclusively for use by wildlife, consisting of large, vegetated
overpasses spanning road surfaces below. Because of their large size, they can provide
connectivity between road-bisected habitats. With proper implementation and
management, they can accommodate a great variety of wildlife species, including large and
small mammals, reptiles, and bats and birds (Forman et al., 2003; Clevenger and Huijser,
2011)). Mitigation can be enhanced with earth berms, sounds walls, landscaping, and
vegetation elements that provide greater protection from traffic disturbances (Clevenger
and Huijser, 2011).
Page | 23
Wildlife overpasses (also known as “ecoducts”, “wildlife bridges”, “green bridges”,
“biobridges”, and “wildlife overcrossings”) are smaller-scale versions of landscape bridges,
less wide but still designed to offer passage to large mammals over highways. Multi-use
overpasses are designed with the objective of accommodating human co-use (Clevenger and
Huijser, 2011). By maintaining consistency (temperature, light, meteorological conditions)
with the immediate area, all overpass designs generally attract a greater variety of wildlife
than below-grade passages, which may be avoided as confining and noisy (Glista et al.,
2009). Wildlife overpasses include multi-use pedestrian overpasses that may provide some
benefit to human-adapted wildlife, though they cannot be recommended for most species
(Clevenger and Huijser, 2011).
VIADUCTS, CAUSEWAYS, AND TUNNELS
Viaducts (or “flyovers” or “elevated roads”) are large bridges comprising smaller,
usually arched sections that can be constructed to carry traffic over land or water barriers.
Viaducts are commonly built for railway use or to cross large expanses of water or deep
geological depressions too steep to allow other forms of bridge construction. They aren’t
typically constructed for strictly ecological purposes, though in removing the roadbed from
the surface and allowing for passage underneath large span clearances, they could have
useful applications in this regard that should be investigated for mitigation value, in spite of
their significant construction costs (Iuell et al., 2003).
Due to their raised aspect of their physical form, viaducts offer fewer disturbances
to wildlife below and minimize land-take associated with other forms of road construction,
leaving existing ecological conditions and habitats largely intact and undisturbed (Iuell et
al., 2003). They can also be used to provide crossing infrastructure for invertebrates and
Page | 24
small vertebrates reluctant to use enclosed wildlife crossings such as underpasses. Long
viaducts with low clearance areas are typical in wetland areas, while taller structures can
clear shorter ravine and canyon crossings (Clevenger and Huijser, 2011). Sound barriers
can be implemented on viaducts, further reducing the traffic-induced disturbance effects
(Clevenger and Huijser, 2011).
Viaducts are expensive construction projects and their implementation for
ecological mitigation is more difficult to justify in situations in which their construction is
not otherwise necessitated. Equally expensive are tunnels, which permit wildlife
movement and ecological processes to take place overhead above concealed lengths of
roadway, with complete separation between vehicles and animals (Clevenger and Huijser,
2011).
Figure 4 – A viaduct on the A20 motorway in northern Germany, featuring pillar construction that removes the roadbed from habitats below . Photo by
DEGES (Iuell et al., 2003).
CANOPY CROSSINGS
Canopy crossings offer above-grade road crossings to arboreal and semi-arboreal
species, typically achieved by securing overhead ropes, cables, fabric, or mesh to trees or
Page | 25
vertical infrastructure to connect opposite sides of the right-of-way (Clevenger and Huijser,
2011). In some locations, trough-shaped runway structures have been constructed that
offer further protection from traffic disturbances to canopy-crossing wildlife (Clevenger
and Huijser, 2011).
WILDLIFE CROSSING STRUCTURE LOCATION, ASSESSMENT, AND COSTS
LOCATION Location has been called the most important factor in the effectiveness of wildlife
crossing structures (Glista et al. 2009). A great number of approaches to siting structural
mitigation have been developed, including roadkill locations (often discovered by citizen
science or transportation maintenance work), maps and GIS layers, surveys, remote
sensing, radio telemetry, motion-sensing and remote photography, migratory studies, local
knowledge of habitat suitability, genetic sampling, and physical evidence of wildlife
presence (tracks and other markings) (Forman et al., 2003; Clevenger and Huijser, 2011).
Connectivity and dispersal probabilities, habitat modeling, and least cost-corridors that
determine likelihood are examples of newer, computer-generated techniques to determine
effective connectivity points. No-data solutions include expert-based habitat models, rapid
assessment, local knowledge, and land-use compatibility.
The selection of sites for conservation planning efforts should be conducted in full
consideration of sound ecological studies. Incorporating the recommendations of ecologists
and conservation professionals into local and regional policy and practice is best conducted
on a case-by-case basis with cooperation between transportation planners, engineers, and
ecologists (van Bohemen 1998).
Page | 26
ASSESSMENT
The widespread adoption by transportation planning agencies has been slow and
hampered by questions regarding their effectiveness, especially when weighed against
their significant construction costs. Research suggests that assessments of wildlife crossing
structures often based on anecdote and opinion, rather than empirical research (Forman et
al. 2003; van der Ree et al., 2007; van der Grift, 2013) and many studies are plagued by
poor experiment construction and insufficient monitoring (limited in duration or scope). In
one of the more extensive reviews of wildlife crossing structure studies, van der Ree et al.
(2007) examined 123 cases and determined that most lacked sufficient pre-installation
data on which to base comparisons.
Roadway mitigation for ecological purposes is susceptible to the shortcomings that
plague other infrastructural projects: faulty design, improper placement, and negligent or
poorly-executed maintenance and monitoring Glista et al., 2009). Techniques to minimize
wildlife mortality on highways (for example, fencing) may conflict with measures to reduce
population fragmentation). Poorly designed or sited crossing structures can also contribute
to erosion and habitat disturbances (Forman et al., 2003).
While many studies have emphasized the quantification of “crossing events” in
assessing the success of roadway mitigation, van der Ree (2007) suggests larger-scale
population viability as a more effective gauge of effectiveness. Roadkill is an unpleasant
and highly-visible byproduct of surface transportation, but overall, its contribution to
population reduction is less substantial than other road effects like habitat destruction and
fragmentation. Many road ecologists have disputed roadkill reduction as the primary
measure of wildlife crossing structure performance, and have instead prioritized the
Page | 27
maintenance of ecological processes and population viability as foremost indicators of
mitigation success (van der Ree et al., 2007; van der Grift, 2013). Roadway mitigation can
restore population viability and reduce extinction risk even in when mitigation fails to
eliminate faunal casualties entirely. In such cases, an acceptable reduction of road impacts,
rather than outright elimination, was the outcome (van der Ree et al., 2011).
COSTS OF WILDLIFE CROSSING STRUCTURES
Like most capital projects, investment in wildlife crossing material and construction
costs, but increasingly, the expensive investment is justified by the ecological and human
safety benefits provided. In Europe, the Netherlands currently has one of the most
ambitious wildlife crossing programs in the world and has spent about 410 million Euros
on a nationwide infrastructural defragmentation program. This ambitious program
accounted for about 10% of the Dutch transportation budget in the early 2000s (van der
Grift 2013). However, in most cases, the costs of mitigation is low in comparison to other
roadway projects. Wildlife crossings are typically constructed of concrete
(overwhelmingly) or metal for structural integrity, but the use of less expensive materials
like glass-reinforced plastic, glass-laminated timber, and wood-core fiberglass is being
investigated by innovative design competitions like the Animal Road Crossing International
Wildlife Design Competition (ARC Solutions, 2015), which may reduce costs in some
circumstances (Iuell et al., 2003).
The feasibility and costs of structural mitigation will vary according to local
conditions and budgets but Table 1 provides an approximation of currently expected
outlays for some larger wildlife crossings.
Page | 28
Mitigation type Dimensions
(width x height)
Materials Costs Unit Cost
Concrete box culvert 3 x 2.5 meters Concrete: $2,800 $177,800
Metal culvert – elliptical 7 meters by 4 meters Corrugated metal: $5,400 $222,200 to $251,900
Open-span bridge (over land) ~12 meters x ~5 meters Concrete: $49,800 to $59,700 $696,400 to $992,700
Overpass 52 meters wide Concrete: $33,500 $2.2 million
Elevated Roadway 10 meters above ground Concrete spans: $62,200 $12.6 million
Figure 5 - Specifications and costs of passage for wildlife (adapted from Forman et al., 2003)
Costs based on Trans-Canada Highway upgrade project, Banff National Park, Alberta, Canada. 1997
Costs adjusted for 2015 inflation at Bureau of Labor Statistics CPI inflation calculator.3
NON-PASSAGE MITIGATION Non-passage mitigation relies on the modification of motorist behavior to increase
avoidance of wildlife collisions and reduce the effects of fragmentation. Techniques for
altering motorist behavior in areas of significant wildlife mortality or ecological sensitivity
include efforts to increase driver awareness, public education programs, law enforcement,
technical interventions to prevent motorist distraction (speed bumps and rumble strips),
increased visibility through lighting and vegetation management, and even large-scale
traffic management efforts that may influence individual decisions concerning when and
where to drive. Most of these approaches are mutually beneficial to public safety issues.
3 http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm
Page | 29
Warning signs are the most familiar method to North American motorists to raise driver
awareness of wildlife collision threats4.
Non-passage mitigation arguably represents a less intensive approach to mitigating
the ecological effects of transportation systems, but it offers costly structural solutions in
highly fragmented exurban settings. Traffic management is generally less expensive than
wildlife crossings, and their widespread use would benefit ecological protection (Glista et
al., 2009), especially over large areas with sprawling road networks in which structural
mitigation might be prohibitively costly. However, modification of motorist behavior
requires the additional challenge of altering human attitudes (Glista et al., 2009).
TRAFFIC CALMING
Road ecology research in North America demonstrates a justifiable but
disproportionate focus on collisions between vehicles and large animals. These incidents
are a serious public safety matter for transportation agencies, involving human injuries and
fatalities, property damage, monetary impacts, and service delays. Crossing structures have
been implemented in greater numbers in the western states and provinces, where
collisions with large herds of roaming ungulates and solitary carnivores constitute a
substantial threat to motorists and wildlife alike.
However, aside from coyotes (Canis latrans) and a profusion of white-tailed deer
(Odocoileus virginianus) in the Pine Bush, wildlife-vehicle collisions in the Pine Bush
generally involve much smaller fauna that pose little danger to motorists. The situation in
the Albany Pine Bush shares much more in common with road ecology approaches in
4 Other technical solutions have attempted to deter wildlife from the road with headlight reflectors, mirrors, highway lighting, ultrasonic warning whistles
and other sound devices, olfactory repellents, hazing animals from the road, lethal population control, and infrared sensors. These solutions have generally
been proposed to reduce dangerous and costly vehicular collisions with large mammals. Their effectiveness is questionable and will not be discussed here.
Page | 30
Western Europe. Urban and exurban areas with dense road networks and large human
populations generate severe ecological impacts without the high-risk of collisions that
motivate expensive structural mitigation in rural areas. Recently, Dutch ecologists have
advocated traffic calming in order to mitigate the effects of roadway fragmentation in an
industrialized landscape with significant commercial and residential development and an
established roadway network (Langevelde, 2009).
The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) defines traffic calming as “the
combination of mainly physical measures that reduce the negative effects of motor vehicle
use, alter driver behavior, and improve conditions for nonmotorized street uses” (ITE
Journal, July 19965). It generally consists of transportation policy and civil engineering
responses to discourage undesirable traffic conditions like speeding, cut-through traffic,
and excessive traffic volumes. Traffic calming measures include an inventive variety of
technical interventions (physical structures place on the road surface to reduce traffic
speed or volumes), as well as public education and law enforcement measures (APA, 2006;
American Society; AASHHTO, 2011). The planning of traffic calming programs requires
careful consideration of design and operation speeds, speed variance, access for emergency
services, and possible public frustration (due to increased travel times and distances)
(Ewing, 1999).
Jaarsma, van Langevelde, and others have published a number of studies
investigating the ecological impacts of rural road networks in the Netherlands. In addition
to fragmentation effects, excessive traffic volumes, modal incompatibility, cut-through
5 Quoted in Planning and Urban Design Standards. American Planning Association. 2006. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Hoboken, New Jersey. P. 238.
Page | 31
traffic, and high levels of speed variance are characteristic transportation problems in the
urban periphery (Jaarsma, 1997). Rural road use also contributes to noise and light
disturbances for residents, emissions, and diminished pedestrian safety (Jaarsma, 1997).
In a 2002 paper, Jaarsma and Willems propose a concept of “traffic-calmed rural
areas (TCRA) as a solution to habitat fragmentation on rural roads in the Netherlands. In
this approach, traffic volumes are shifted by downgrading lower-category roads through
calming measures, while concurrently making compensatory upgrades to high-capacity
facilities. Reorganizing the local road network by restricting lower-category roads to purely
local access functions, rather than as conduits for through-traffic, will alleviate volumes on
minor rural roads. The concentration of diffuse traffic flows onto more suitable high-
volume facilities will reducing road overloading on exurban roads , in addition to reducing
ecological disturbances and wildlife mortality rates (Jaarsma and Willems, 2002; van
Langevelde et al. 2007; van Langevelde, 2009; Langevelde et al., 2009). This process
requires sufficient road density to allow for alternative routes without inconvenient
decreases in travel times and accessibility.
Page | 32
Figure 6 - Schematic representation of a rural road network under varying degrees of traffic calming (van Langevelde and Jaarsma, 2009).
ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS OF TRAFFIC CALMING
The ecological benefits of traffic calming are unclear and require further research,
but existing studies support a few general assumptions. Higher traffic speeds are
associated with increases in wildlife-vehicle collisions (Gunson et al., 2011). Reduced
speeds also allow increased detection and reaction times for evasive driving to avoid
collisions (Huijser et al., 2007).
Jaarsma and van Langevelde have undertaken a number of studies that employ
ecological modeling to predict changes on wildlife movements in traffic-calmed areas,
based on the probability of successful road traversal (van Langevelde and Jaarsma, 2004;
Jaarsma et al. 2006) in order to predict regional species persistence (Langevelde 2009).
Traffic volume and speed are significant factors in quantifying road traversibility and rural
traffic calming is anticipated to reduce these effects (Jaarsma, 1997). Traffic-calmed rural
areas may also reduce disturbance effects by reducing traffic noise levels (Jaarsma et al.,
2006; Langevelde 2007; Langevelde 2009). Unlike wildlife crossings that may only offer
benefits to specific species at limited locations, traffic calming benefits the ecological health
Page | 33
of an entire area. Moreover, traffic calming offers non-ecological benefits, including lower
maintenance costs for transportation agencies, traffic safety improvements, greater
residential quality of life due to noise and pollution abatement, and potential increases in
mass transit use (Jaarsma, 1997; Reijnen and Foppen, 2006; Barber et al., 2010).
Other traffic reduction methods for ecological purposes include one-way streets,
limited access roadways, temporary and seasonal closures, and decommissioning of
roadway infrastructure. Temporary road closures are most effective and justifiable when
wildlife traversals are limited to certain and predicted periods of the year (e.g., during
amphibian spawning migrations or butterfly egg laying). Decommissioning of roadway
infrastructure generally entails the complete removal of paved surfaces. In certain
situations, roads may be downgraded to restricted pedestrian or cyclist uses, which
generally reduces the effects of wildlife disturbance associated with motor vehicles.
Road closure for ecological mitigation is uncommon and is typically reserved for low
volume facilities or obsolete extractive industry roads (e.g., forestry and mining roads).
Road closures in developed areas are likely to attract considerable public opposition, and
can only be accomplished with considerable community support. Road removal completely
eliminates fragmentation and, but can result in a loss of tax revenue, reduced property
values for nearby landowners, an inability to develop property, increased travel distances
and times, and the loss of the original capital project effort (Clevenger and Huijser, 2011).
Traffic calming must be implemented carefully to avoid traffic safety problems and
obstacles to emergency services. Traffic calming techniques are also associated with
greater maintenance difficulties (snow removal) and narrower road verges that may
increase potential danger to wildlife and motorists.
Page | 34
TRAFFIC CALMING
FEATURES
CATEGORY I
(NEIGHBORHOOD)
(15-25 mph)
CATEGORY II (25-35 mph) SPEED REDUCTION VOLUME
REDUCTION LOCAL STREETS OR
ROADS
ALL OTHER
STREETS OR
ROADS
VERTICAL SHIFTS
Raised crosswalks SUITABLE SUITABLE 30 mph
NOT
RECOMMENDED
>30 mph
NOT
RECOMMENDED
YES POSSIBLE
Raised intersections NO
Speed cushions NO INFORMATION
Speed humps POSSIBLE
LATERAL SHIFTS
Alternate side parking SUITABLE LIKELY POSSIBLE
Chicanes/serpentine SUITABLE SUITABLE 30 mph
NOT
RECOMMENDED
>30 mph
NOT
RECOMMENDED
YES
CONSTRICTIONS
Neckdowns, chokers SUITABLE SUITABLE NOT
RECOMMENDED
SLIGHT NO
1-way entry/exit
choker, half-closer,
semi-diverter
YES YES
Curb extensions at
intersections
SUITABLE
SLIGHT NO
Pedestrian refuge
Driveway link YES YES
Single lane slow point NOT PERMITTED
Single lane angled slow
point
Two-lane slow point NOT RECOMMENDED
Two-lane angled slow
point
NARROW PAVEMENT
WIDTHS
Pavement narrowing SUITABLE NOT
RECOMMENDED
POSSIBLE POSSIBLE
Figure 7 - The application of traffic calming features by facility category, according to current NYSDOT standards (NYSDOT, 1999).
MANAGEMENT OF ROADSIDE HABITAT: LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE SOLUTIONS
Page | 35
Roadside management remains a contentious issue in road ecology. Some advocate
intensive vegetation management in order to remove habitat and food sources that attract
wildlife to verges, and to improve motorist visibility. This is common practice for most
transportation agencies, though Forman (2004) cites the abundance of roadside vegetation
as a vehicle speed deterrent.
Jaarsma et al. (2013) argue that the outmoded landscape of the “forgiving highway”
encourages motorists to associate visual cues in the landscape with opportunities for
excessive speed. Transportation planners in Europe are instead opting for an integration of
vegetation management in the service of traffic calming in order to achieve cost-effective
improvements to traffic safety, habitat connectivity, and the visual appeal of the landscape
(Jaarsma et al. 2013). This “green” approach to traffic calming shuns the often unsightly
speed-reduction devices employed in conventional traffic calming, in favor of placing
horticultural designs, landscape architecture, and historical and cultural objects along the
road edge. The design recommendations of this proposal were outlined in a 2008 Dutch
publication by the independent research organization CROW, which describes road
paintings, signs, humps, and gates can be used to create “self-explaining roads” (Theeuwes
and Godthelp, 1995) that allow motorists to interpret the landscape and navigate the
roadway in a fashion that minimizes driving-related impacts.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE: DISCUSSION Road ecology has developed a extensive range of structural and nonstructural
solutions to counteract the deleterious effects of transportation-related habitat destruction
and fragmentation, wildlife mortality, and road-induced disturbances. Crossing structures
developed to suit various ecological needs may permit allow safe passage for some wildlife
Page | 36
individual and populations, but only the largest projects permit full-scale ecological
processes and conservation management practices to occur unimpeded. Efforts to alter
motorist behavior through traffic calming and landscaping have been proposed as
alternatives to costly physical crossing structures, but their impacts are largely unstudied,
though ecological benefits are suspected by proponents of these measures. Finally, many
road mitigation projects are difficult and expensive to put into place, requiring
collaboration between transportation planners, engineers, and ecologists, in addition to
requisite public and political support. Finally, the emerging study and practice of road
ecology is burdened by a paradoxical situation, in which implementation must be justified
by studies, but further research cannot be accomplished without active mitigation taking
place. All the while, the ongoing environmental effects of transportation systems wait for
neither, providing an increasingly grim outlook for biodiversity all over.
Implementation of defragmentation initiatives in new locations and situations is
likely to provide ecological benefits, encourage new research, and may also provide public
use benefits and quality of life improvements to residents. Due to the site-specific
requirements of roadway mitigation, new locations represent an opportunity to advance
the state of road ecology knowledge for scientists and practitioners.
Page | 37
SMALL WCS LARGE WCS ELEVATED
ROADWAY
ROUTE
REALIGNMENT/CLOSURE
TRAFFIC
CALMING
LANDSCAPING
Reduce
fragmentation
effects:
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Possible
Improve
habitat:
Yes Yes Yes Possible Possible Yes
Reduce road
mortality:
Yes
(some species)
Yes
Yes Possible Possible Possible
Improve fire
management:
No Possible Yes Possible No No
Location of
ecological
benefit
Site-scale Site-scale Site-scale Site-scale Area-wide Area-wide
Provide
social/economic
benefits
No No No Possible Yes Yes
Costs: Minor capital
project
Major capital
project
Major capital
project
Major capital project;
impacts on traffic
operations; possible
loss of revenue
Minor/major
capital project,
impacts on
traffic
operations
Minor
maintenance
project
Political
feasibility:
Probable Possible Possible Possible Possible Probable
Existing
research:
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Previous
Capital District
implementation:
Yes (Albany
County DPW,
1999)
No No (not for
environmental
mitigation)
No (not for
environmental
mitigation)
Initial attempts
(not for
environmental
mitigation)
No specific
programs for
environmental
mitigation Figure 8 - A comparison of potential mitigation efforts to mitigate roadway fragmentation in the Albany Pine Bush, based on reviewed literature.
Page | 38
CASE STUDY: ROAD MITIGATION SOLUTIONS IN THE ALBANY
PINE BUSH
Figure 9 – “[The Pine Bush] is a region full of subtle beauties because of its softly modeled little hills, its tangle of shrubbery, and its patches of pine
and hardwood trees. From the tops of the ridges the rugged Helderbergs are seen outlined against the horizon, and at the south, the foothills of the
Catskills. The character of the country is wild and unspoiled and almost nothing is necessary except to provide and maintain a few paths and roads. In
fact, the less done to it the better.” – Arnold W. Brunner in Studies for Albany (quoted in Rittner et al., 1976: 101).
STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION: ALBANY PINE BUSH - ALBANY COUNTY, NEW YORK The Albany Pine Bush is the greatest vestige of the sand plains that once covered
over forty square miles in eastern upstate New York, stretching from present-day Albany
north to Lake George (Rittner et al., 1976). It currently encompasses the 3,200-acre Albany
Pine Bush Preserve (APBPC, 2010), the 135-acre Woodlawn Preserve (WP), and a few
adjacent parcels (APBPC, 2010). The Albany Pine Bush is situated primarily in Albany
County, with the Woodlawn County in Schenectady County forming its western border. The
Page | 39
Pine Bush lies within the municipal borders of the City of Albany (2010 population:
97,856), the Town of Colonie (81,591), the Town of Guilderland (35,303), and the City of
Schenectady (66,135).
The Albany Pine Bush Preserve is owned by the State of New York and managed by
the Albany Pine Bush Commission, but other areas in the Pine Bush are under private and
municipal ownership. The Albany Pine Bush has no regulatory authority or powers of
eminent domain, but works cooperative with public and private entities, including federal,
state, municipal, and private partners, nonprofit organizations, and the public (APBPC,
2010).
For much of its postcolonial history, the Albany Pine Bush was viewed as an infertile
wasteland of little economic value on the margins of the emerging Albany-Troy-
Schenectady metropolitan area. Early native and colonial uses of the Pine Bush were
largely limited to firewood collection and fur trapping. Later, the Pine Bush was the site of
minor extractive ventures (chiefly sand for glassmaking and foundry molds), waste
disposal, and transportation in the form of early plank roads running between Albany and
Schenectady (Rittner et al., 1976). The Pine Bush survived quietly and largely intact until
the mid-twentieth century, when it found itself standing in the way of development
pressures and modern highway construction.
The construction of the New York State Thruway (Interstate 90) through the Pine
Bush in 1952 ushered in a new age of development in the area, opening up the once-
secluded area to a nearly constant state of attrition by piecemeal development for over
three decades (Zantopp, 2000). Infrastructural headway continued in the 1950s in the form
of utility lines and the Albany Landfill, making way for residential development to follow.
Page | 40
The construction of the expansive W. Averell Harriman State Office Building Campus and
SUNY Albany Uptown Campus facilities appropriated enormous tracts of Pine Bush
habitat6. The opening of the Adirondack Northway (Interstate 87) in 1960 and the
completion of the Washington Avenue Extension nine years later reinforced the
transportation-land use connection in the Pine Bush necessary for further residential and
commercial construction. Housing development in the Pine Bush escalated in the 1970s.
Crossgates Mall was pushed through in the early 1980s in spite of intense public outcry,
becoming the last major project in the Pine Bush before the establishment of the APBP in
1988. In spite of the protections afforded by its preserve status, the Albany Pine Bush
continues to suffer from incremental losses of vulnerable habitat and the ongoing effects of
exurban edge city development, urban outmigration, and automobile dependency. Zantopp
(2000) identified indifference, home rule, intermunicipal competition, and the rezoning of
residential areas for commercial uses as the primary causes of the deplorable state of land-
use conditions in the Pine Bush.
Deeply entrenched patterns of anthropogenic habitat fragmentation remain the
greatest threat to the ongoing persistence of its vulnerable ecosystems, despite significant
conservation efforts in recent decades. The Albany Pine Bush Preserve 2010 General
Management Plan identifies fragmentation as “the single greatest long-term obstacle to
achieving a viable Preserve.” Roads are the most extensive source of habitat fragmentation
in the Pine Bush, though other rights-of-way like railways and power-line cuts also
contribute detrimental effects. Furthermore, residential and commercial development has
6 “…when Edward Durrell Stone took over as architect of the State University campus, he leveled every dune and took down every tree.” Albany mayor
Erastus Corning II in 1979, as quoted in Grondahl (2007: 381).
Page | 41
permanently destroyed significant parcels of Pine Bush habitat, and has facilitated, and
expanded human infiltration in this sensitive ecosystem. The once contiguous expanse of
sand barrens is now fragmented by dozens of road, including multilane interstates (I-87, I-
90 and U.S. Route 20), three state highways (Route 155, Route 146, and Route 5), county
roads (Route 155), and a dense pockets of neighborhood streets.
The Pine Bush is a habitat of singular global importance and hosts a regionally rare
collection of plant communities that provide habitat and food sources to a number of state-
and federally-listed species of special concern (Schneider et al., 1991). The most well
known resident is the Karner blue butterfly (Lycaeides melissa samuelis), an endangered
subspecies of the Melissa blue butterfly and the focus of intensive restoration efforts
(Gebauer, 1993; USFWS, 2003). The recovery of this butterfly was a primary motivation for
the establishment of the Albany Pine Bush Preserve and Commission in 1988 for the
purpose of maintaining “ecologically-viable pitch pine-scrub oaks barrens” on which the
Karner blue and other vulnerable species depend. (APBPC, 2010). The survival of the
Karner blue butterfly and other threatened species in the Pine Bush depends on the
reduction of fragmentation effects, to which the local road network makes a significant
contribution.
Page | 42
Figure 10 – The federally-endangered Karner blue butterfly (Lycaeides melissa samuelis).
FRAGMENTATION AND BIODIVERSITY LOSS IN THE ALBANY PINE BUSH Pine barrens are particularly vulnerable to the effects of fragmentation. Suppression
of natural fire regimes and the resultant succession of pitch pine-scrub oak communities
into closed-canopy, mature forest (Forman, 1979; Clough, 1992) have contributed to the
loss of up to 50% of historically existing pine barrens in the northeast United States
(Finton, 1998). Remnant pine barrens habitats are locally isolated in New Jersey, eastern
Long Island, and Albany, and are under continual threats from urbanization. Left
unmitigated, the fragmentation effects raise the extinction risk for many threatened Pine
Bush species. According to Olson et al. (2009), increasing the size and quality of preserves
like the Albany Pine Bush by reducing fragmentation effects offers the best chance of
preserving biodiversity in the face of anthropogenic climate change.
The rapid loss of pine barrens habitat in the northeastern United States has caused
drastic population declines in a number of insect species that depend on early successional
Page | 43
plant communities (Nuzzo, 1986; USFWS, 2003). In the Albany Pine Bush, the Karner blue
butterfly is the most notable victim of habitat fragmentation. Habitat fragmentation has led
to historically recent declines in pinelands breeding birds like prairie warbler (Setophaga
discolor), brown thrasher (Toxostoma rufum), and ovenbird (Seiurus aurocapilla)
(Kerlinger and Doremus, 1981), and the extirpation of yellow-breasted chat (Icteria virens)
and golden-winged warbler (Vermivora chrysoptera) (Gifford et al., 2010). Snake species
like the northern black racer (Coluber constrictor) and eastern rat snake (Scotophis
allegheniensis) (Hunsinger, 1999) are also absent from the Pine Bush because of habitat
fragmentation.
THE CASE FOR MITIGATION IN THE ALBANY PINE BUSH
In view of its extraordinary ecological value, the advanced state of its existing
conditions, and its continued vulnerability to fragmentation effects, the Albany Pine Bush
should be a conservation priority of the highest order in New York State. The Pine Bush
represents an opportunity to incorporate mitigation methods developed by road ecologists
into a firmly entrenched transportation system in an ecologically sensitive exurban setting.
Due to the rapid and unfettered proliferation of residential, commercial, and transportation
infrastructure in the Pine Bush, retroactive implementation remains the only viable option
in mitigating and minimizing the ecological impacts of the existing road network.
All local planning documents (City of Albany, 2012; Town of Colonie, 2005 Town of
Guilderland, 2000) have identified the Albany Pine Bush as an important and ecologically-
sensitive area and have acknowledged the threat posed by landfill operations, commercial
development, and transportation systems. Furthermore, the Pine Bush is a full-time
ecological restoration operation and its staff could provide requisite assessment and
Page | 44
monitoring. In summary, aside from the imperative need to preserve its habitats for their
intrinsic ecological value, the growing body of body of research conducted there and the
prestige of its formal protection make the Albany Pine Bush an ideal location for the
implementation of road mitigation strategies.
ROAD AVOIDANCE AND MORTALITY IN THE ALBANY PINE BUSH Road avoidance has been recorded in North American studies involving Pine Bush
residents, including nesting ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus) (Ferris, 1979), wild turkey
(Meleagris gallopavo) (McDougal et al., 1991), and other birds (class Aves) (Forman and
Alexander, 1998; Francis et al., 2009). Anthropogenic disturbances can disrupt social
interaction of ecological populations, as in the reduced pairing success in ovenbirds
(Seiurus aurocapilla) due to noise pollution, a Pine Bush breeder (Habib et al., 2006).
Persistent disturbance regimes can facilitate the harmful incursion of synanthropic species
adapted to human activity, including a number of invasive species that threaten Pine Bush
ecology.
White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and eastern coyote (Canis latrans) are the
only regular Pine Bush residents that pose considerable danger to motorists, and there are
currently no studies on road mortality of wildlife in the area (APBPC, 2010). The impacts of
roads on butterfly species like the Karner blue butterfly and other “low-profile” roadkill
victims is poorly understood (McKenna et al., 2001; Skórka et al., 2013). Given the minimal
threat posed to human safety and property by wildlife-vehicle collisions in the Pine Bush,
arguments for mitigation should instead be justified by the barrier effects imposed by the
transportation network, the effects of the fragmentation it causes, and the limitations it
Page | 45
places on management techniques, particularly habitat restoration that benefits threatened
and endangered species.
ROADS AS CONDUITS FOR DISPERSAL IN THE ALBANY PINE BUSH It has been suggested that the significant invasive species problems of the Albany
Pine Bush, particularly when compared with other northeastern pine barrens, is largely
due to roadway fragmentation (Raleigh et al., 2003). DeWan (2002) suggested that seed
predation by granivorous small mammals facilitated by fragmentation may partially
explain declines of pitch pine (Pinus rigida), blue lupine (Lupinus perennis), and New Jersey
tea (Ceanothus americanus) in Pine Bush habitat edges. Soil disturbances created by
roadway construction and other rights-of-way have been shown to encourage the
appearance of invasive and intermediate-successional plant species (Jordan et al., 2003).
Invasive plants like garlic mustard (Alliaria petiole), honeysuckle (Lonicera spp.), and
barberry (Berberis spp.) are especially problematic in the Albany Pine Bush due to their
role in larval food plants on which characteristic Pine Barrens insects feed (APBP 2010).
The Pine Bush is blighted by significant stands (~400 acres) of invasive black locust
(Robinia pseudoacacia) that require expensive and labor-intensive chemical and
mechanical removal. These stands often occur along the many roadsides that fragment the
preserve and their removal requires expensive contractual work in order to be
accomplished safely, adding to the significant costs of invasive species management (APBC,
2012). The presence of black locust plays a significant role in the alteration of Pine Bush
vegetation, which is suspected in the displacement of characteristic pinelands birds by
outside species (Beachy, 2002; Beachy and Robinson, 2008).
Page | 46
In the Pine Bush, habitat fragmentation also leads to increased abundance and nest
site competition from more opportunistic edge habitat generalists like gray catbird
(Dumetella carolinensis), American robin (Turdus migratorius), Baltimore oriole (Icterus
galbula), indigo bunting (Passerina cyanea), field sparrow (Spizella pusilla), and brown-
headed cowbird (Molothrus ater). The brown-headed cowbird is a problematic nest
parasite, whose presence can contribute to further declines of characteristic pinelands
birds (Kerlinger and Doremus, 1981), particularly in the urban-wildland interface (Chace et
al, 2003). Fragmentation edge-effects are associated with bird nest losses in other North
American pine barrens due to predation by blue jays (Cyanocitta cristata), eastern
chipmunk (Tamias striatus), and other species (Askins, 1994).
The capacity of the Pine Bush to support apex predators is impaired by
fragmentation and diminished habitat area (Bogan, 2004; Gehrt, 2007) allowing the
abundance of medium-sized predators and feral organisms that may prey on vulnerable
bird and insect populations (Crooks and Soulé, 1999). A 2004 study (Kays and DeWan)
conducted in the Albany Pine Bush Preserve confirmed greater numbers of inside/outside
domestic cats (Felis catus) in smaller habitat fragments. The study correlated cat
distribution with housing density, and noted feline avoidance of larger, interior habitats.
Feral and domestic cats are a significant threat to wildlife populations, accounting for
increased mortality of amphibians, reptiles, birds, and small mammals (Loss, et al., 2013),
and their continued advance into fragmented Pine Bush habitats is a significant ecological
concern.
ROAD-INDUCED EFFECTS ON ALBANY PINE BUSH MANAGEMENT
Page | 47
Suburban development and reconfiguration of existing Pine Bush land covers are
also responsible for high densities of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) in the area.
The abundance of this large herbivore can result in overgrazing that could negatively alter
plant community composition in the Pine Bush (Augustine and Frelich, 1998; Russell et al.,
2001). Lethal management methods (e.g., hunting) to control white-tailed deer populations
in the Albany are limited by the size of Pine Bush habitat and the proximity to suburban
development, and often by significant public controversy (APBPC, 2010).
Roads form a reciprocal relationship with the development of the built environment
by creating an incentive for low-density housing development and concomitant
intensifications of land use. Road networks in suburban landscapes typically correlate with
patterns of residential and commercial development (Forman, 1995), leading to increased
road densities out of proportion with the needs of the local population (Forman and
Alexander, 1998). The conversion of rural landscapes to low-density residential
subdivisions typically overextends transportation infrastructure (a phenomenon
commonly referred to as “sprawl”), resulting in increased trip generation, distance, and
frequency, as well as distributing traffic flows over a larger temporal segment of the day.
The presence of housing development presents particular problems to the
ecological management of the Albany Pine Bush. The construction of infrastructure
associated with urban development results in the direct destruction of habitat, and
subsequently imposes barriers between any remaining habitat areas (Theobald et al.,
1997). The spatial disturbance of urbanization has a demonstrable effect in limiting of
ecological variety and abundance (Soulé, 1992; McKinney, 2002). Furthermore, residential
and commercial development, like transportation infrastructure, creates detrimental zones
Page | 48
of disturbance into the surrounding area (Marzluff, 2002). Moreover, subdivision design
fragments land ownership into smaller, privately owned parcels, which increases the
difficulty of achieving consensus and implementing consistent cooperative management in
nearby protected areas (Stevens et al., 1999; Knight, 1999).
ROAD-INDUCED LIMITS ON ALBANY PINE BUSH FIRE MANAGEMENT
Fire is an essential feature in the persistence of pine barrens ecosystems, which are
characterized by sparse savanna canopy and a stunted understory of prairie grasses, forbs,
and shrubs growing in the sandy, acidic soil below (Curtis, 1959; Bray, 1960). The
dominant arboreal species in the Pine Bush are pitch pine (Pinus rigida) and scrub oak
species like bear oak (Quercus ilicifolia) and dwarf chestnut oak (Quercus prinoides), fire-
dependent species that would be overtopped by late-successional tree communities in the
absence of this fire regime. Historically, naturally occurring and anthropogenic wildfires in
the Pine Bush initiated regular habitat renewal and plant mortality that prevented the
maturation of shrubland savannas towards later stages of ecological succession (Wolf,
2004). The practice of modern fire suppression increased significantly as the Pine Bush
area underwent conversion to residential and commercial development in the twentieth
century. The need to protect encroaching infrastructural development in the Pine Bush,
coupled with advances in fire-suppression methods and technology, has led to more
effective fire control and the loss of high-intensity fire regime that has maintained open-
canopy pine barrens ecosystems (Cryan and Dirg, 1978; Boyonoski, 1992; Clough, 1992).
Moreover, paved roads constitute effective firebreaks and the infiltration of roadway
networks into pine barrens ecosystems has interrupted fire continuity (Heyerdahl et al.,
2001) and has provided greater access for firefighting personnel (Scheller et al., 2008).
Page | 49
Consequently, the intensity and frequency of fire regimes in the Albany Pine Bush have
been severely diminished in the twentieth century.
In an effort to restore pine barrens ecology to pre-suppression conditions, the
Albany Pine Bush Preserve has instituted a prescribed burning program that replicates the
effects of naturally occurring wildfires through carefully controlled fire management7. This
policy has become a foundation of Pine Bush restoration efforts (APBPC, 2010), but
fragmentation by urban development places limitations on this intensive practice. While
some analyses of historical pine bush land cover changes at other northeast sites have
suggested that fragmentation does not significantly alter forest succession, there is
agreement that fire management practices are inhibited in suburban settings by smaller
patch sizes (Scheller et al., 2008) and the proximity to residential and transportation
infrastructure (Clendenning et al., 2005; APB, 2010; Gifford, 2006) . Controlled burns have
been used extensively in larger pine barrens (e.g. the Pine Barrens of southern New Jersey)
in the United States (Jordan et al., 2003), but the proximity to human habitation and
transportation infrastructure in the Albany Pine Bush imposes serious logistical limitations
on this potentially hazardous management method in the wildland-urban interface of the
Capital Region. A number of human safety issues, including air quality concerns, roadway
visibility, and the threat of fire escape and property damage limit the severity of controlled
burns (Jordan et al., 2003). On the other hand, responsible fire management practices can
diminish fuel load and accumulation and manage flammability in order to decrease the risk
7 The first prescribed fire in New York State was done by Don Rittner in 1976 on thirty acres of Pine Bush on the property of the University of New York
at Albany. A year after the fire, wild lupine had returned in substantial numbers and the following year a sizable Karner Blue Butterfly population was
established (Rittner et al., 2011).
Page | 50
of unplanned wildfires that pose even greater threats to human settlements and resources
(Jordan et al., 2003; Bried et al., 2015).
ROADS AND KARNER BLUE BUTTERFLY CONSERVATION The rapid loss of pine barrens habitat in the northeastern United States has caused
drastic population declines in a number of insect species that depend on early successional
plant communities, most notably the Karner blue butterfly (USFWS, 2003). The Karner blue
butterfly is dependent on the wild blue lupine (Lupinus perennis), a flower of the legume
family (Fabaceae) that requires open, sandy habitats found in pitch pine-scrub oak
communities to thrive (Cryan and Dirig, 1978; Clough, 1992; Dirig, 1994). Human-induced
habitat loss has created shortages of lupine flowers and the Karner blue butterfly is
currently restricted to a few remnant populations in the upper Great Lakes states, New
Jersey, and southern New Hampshire, in addition to the Albany-area population (Givnish et
al., 1988; Dirig 1994; Shuey 1997, Smallidge and Leopold 1997). It has been a federally-
listed endangered species since 1992 (USWFS, 2003). Without intensive habitat restoration
and management to reverse the effects of fragmentation, the Karner blue butterfly is
threatened with extinction (Clough, 1992).
Page | 51
Parcels recommended for full protection
3 9 11A 15A 17A 17B 17C 20 21 21A 21B 22 28 29 29A
PITCH PINE-SCRUB OAK HABITAT ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
KBB SUBPOPULATION. ● ● ●
POTENTIAL KBB SUBPOPULATION
HIGH LINKAGE VALUE ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
30 34 35A 35B 35C 35D 35E 35F 35G 36 42 43 44 44B 45
PITCH PINE-SCRUB OAK HABITAT ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
KBB SUBPOPULATION ●
POTENTIAL KBB SUBPOPULATION ●
HIGH LINKAGE VALUE ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
46 51 51A 52A 52B 52C 52D 53 54 55 57 61 62 70 71A
PITCH PINE-SCRUB OAK HABITAT ● ● ●
KBB SUBPOP. ●
POTENTIAL KBB SUBPOPULATION ● ●
HIGH LINKAGE VALUE ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
71B 72A 72B 73 74 75 76 77 78 82 83 84 85 86
PITCH PINE-SCRUB OAK HABITAT ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
KBB SUBPOPULATION ● ● ● ●
POTENTIAL KBB SUBPOPULATION ● ● ●
HIGH LINKAGE VALUE ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
Figure 11 Albany Pine Bush Preserve parcels recommended for full protection based on four criteria: existing pitch pine-scrub oak habitat; presence existing
Karner Blue butterfly (KBB) subpopulations; potential for KBB subpopulation; and high linkage value. Table constructed by the author from recommendations
in the management plan (APBPC, 2010).
POTENTIAL ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS OF ROADS IN THE ALBANY PINE BUSH Road verges and other rights-of-way have been proposed as potential corridor
habitats for the Karner blue butterfly. In many urbanized landscapes, roadsides may
provide superior insect habitat in comparison to the surrounding area (Munguira and
Thomas, 1992). Smallidge and Leopold (1995) found suitable blue lupine patches in both
utility and transportation corridors in the Albany Pine Bush that were uninhabited by
Karner blues. Enhancing habitat connectivity and quality in these marginal habitats
through roadside vegetation management could induce colonization in areas with
Page | 52
neighboring populations (Smallidge and Leopold, 1997), particularly when situated
between larger habitat patches (Haddad, 1999; Haddad, 2000).
EXISTING CONDITIONS IN ALBANY PINE BUSH TRANSPORTATION PLANNING The 2004 CDTC Pinebush Transportation Study Update noted that traffic volumes in
the Albany Pine Bush study area did not increase as expected with respect to “extensive
development” in the twenty-year period since its previous study (1985). The CDTC study
attributed this to a number of factors, including improvements in public transportation
(bus and shuttle bus services), increases in Thruway travel due to the convenience of
electronic toll collection (i.e., E-ZPass), higher speed limits, and decreases in commuting
due to the increasing popularity of nontraditional work arrangements (telecommuting,
schedule compression, and flextime). In response to these decreases in expected capacity
and greater concerns for quality of life, traffic-calming measures have been proposed in
recent transportation studies undertaken in the Pine Bush area.
WESTERN AVENUE
A Town of Guilderland study of the Western Avenue corridor through the
McKownville neighborhood (CDTC, 2003) identified Western Avenue, Fuller Road, and
select neighborhood streets east of Western Avenue as potential sites of traffic calming
implementation. The McKownville study discusses the possibility of “down-designing”
Western Avenue by lowering the speed limit to 30 to 35 miles per hour, and reducing
Western Avenue from four lanes to two between the Albany city line and Fuller Road. This
Western Avenue road diet calls for the reconfiguration/removal of two lanes (and the
installation of a two-way left-turn lane) according to recommendations by Burden and
Lagerway. The intended effect of this reconfiguration would be reduced crossing distances
Page | 53
for pedestrians and more available space for multimodal facilities along the existing right-
of-way. TWTLs have been credited with improved traffic flow and safety in areas of
implementation (CDTC, 2010)
However, the Western Avenue proposal failed on technical grounds, as current
traffic capacity on the facility is in excess of the volumes recommended for the safe
reduction of vehicle speeds according to NYSDOT protocol. Instead, the McKownville plan
suggested streetscaping, pedestrian-oriented design, and increased traffic regulations on
Western Avenue as alternative solutions. Western Avenue lies on the western edge of the
Albany Pine Bush, and does not constitute a significant source of fragmentation for the
existing preserve. The McKownville study was largely a proposal to improve traffic flow
and livability for residents, rather than a proposal to improve ecological functions, but the
study demonstrated the local feasibility of traffic calming proposals (CDTC, 2010). Though
TWTL was rejected for Western Avenue, the McKownville study suggested a more aesthetic
treatment for Western Avenue involving center medians, street lighting, and median
refuges for pedestrians (CDTC, 2003).
NEW KARNER ROAD
The 1985 Pine Bush Transportation study recommended doubling the capacity of
New Karner Road from two lanes to four in anticipation of increased development and
commuter traffic in the area. Peak volumes on many Pine Bush facilities have failed to meet
these projections. The proposal was roundly opposed by Save the Pine Bush on ecological
grounds, and in subsequent years, New Karner Road has exceeded capacity expectations
(>1300 vehicles per lane at P.M. peaks, at an average speed of over 24 mph in both
directions level-of service D), precluding any further proposals for expansion. CDTC has
Page | 54
abandoned plans for widening New Karner Road north and south of NY5, and also grade
separation of the Washington Avenue Extension/New Karner Road intersection, in part due
to ecological concerns in the Pine Bush.
In 1990, CDTC (CDTC, 2004) predicted that a policy of travel demand management
(TDM) could reduce peak hour trips on New Karner Road and Washington Avenue
extension by 15%. Current CDTC policy encourages TDM, as described in its draft
Congestion Management Principles. Pedestrian and bicycle travel, arterial management
Travel demand management (TDM) that encourages fewer trips, fewer vehicles in making
trips, and shifts of trips away from more congested periods of the travel day. Pedestrian
and bicycle improvements, streetscaping, and traffic calming are part of the current CDTC
policy to achieve travel demand management.
OTHER PINE BUSH AREA TRAFFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
The McKownville study (CDTC, 2003) proposed traffic calming measures on
Elmwood Street in the form of a raised island to prevent access from Western Avenue,
creating one-way traffic flow on this street. Furthermore, both the McKownville Study
(CDTC, 2003) and the Pinebush Transportation Study Update (CDTC, 2004) proposed
driveway consolidation as a means to reduce “movement conflicts” along Washington
Avenue Extension, New Karner Road, and Fuller Road. Though neither of these proposals
has been implemented to date, these general tenor of these recommendations evinces a
willingness on the part of the regional metropolitan planning organization to investigate
methods to reduce travel demand and volume on roadways within the Pine Bush area.
Page | 55
Facility Common Name Segment Functional Classification Volume
(AADT)
Year
NY 5 Central Ave Schenectady County Line to NY 155 Principal Urban Arterial 25,570 2010
NY 5 Central Ave NY 155 to I-87 Principal Urban Arterial 27,380 2010
US 20 Western Ave US 20/NY 146 Principal Urban Arterial 27,680 2007
US 20 Western Ave NY 146 to NY 155 Principal Urban Arterial 41,900 2005
US 20 Western Ave NY 155 to Crossgates Mall Principal Urban Arterial 29,310 2010
US 20 Western Ave Crossgates Mall to Fuller Rd Alternate Principal Urban Arterial 51,620 2009
US 20 Western Ave Fuller Rd Alternate to CR 156 (Fuller Rd) Principal Urban Arterial 24,520 2010
NY 155 New Karner Rd US 20 to Washington Ave Ext (NY 910D) Principal Urban Arterial 18,770 2008
NY 155 New Karner Rd Washington Ave Ext to NY 5 Principal Urban Arterial 16,370 2008
I-87 Northway NY 910F Fuller Fd Alt to Exit 1 I-90 W Urban Interstate - -
I-87 Northway Exit 1 I-90 W to I-90 E and W Urban Interstate - -
I-87 Northway I-90 E and W to Exit 2 (NY 5) Urban Interstate 119,490 2006
I-90 Thruway Exit 25 to Exit 24 (I-87) Urban Interstate 73,350 2008
I-90 East-West Arterial Thruway Exit 24 to Exit 1 (Northway) Urban Interstate 51,200 1999
I-90 East-West Arterial Exit 1 to Exit 2 (Washington Ave) Urban Interstate 103,100 2002
Albany St (Colonie) Schenectady County Line to Morris Rd ALB Minor Urban Arterial 5,500 1999
Albany St (Colonie) Morris Rd to NY 155 Minor Urban Arterial 5,500 1999
Curry Rd (Colonie) Kings Rd to Guilderland Town Line Urban Collector 4,680 2009
Curry Rd (Colonie) Guiderland Town Line to Morris Rd Urban Collector 2,730 2009
Fuller Rd (CR 156) NY 5 to Railroad Ave Principal Urban Arterial 17,000 1999
Fuller Rd (CR 156) Railroad Ave to I-90 Access Principal Urban Arterial 24,800 2002
Fuller Rd (CR 156) I-90 Access to Washington Ave Principal Urban Arterial 24,800 2002
Fuller Rd (CR 156) Washington Ave to Guilderland Town Line Principal Urban Arterial 12,900 1999
Fuller Rd (CR 156) Guilderland Town Line to Western Ave Principal Urban Arterial 12,900 1999
Kings Road (Guilderlad) Old State Rd to Curry Rd Urban Collector 2,400 1999
Lincoln Ave (Colonie Village) NY 5 to Rapp Rd Urban Collector 3,500 2000
Lincoln Ave (Colonie) NY 155 to 1st St Urban Collector 5,130 2010
Lydius St Old State Rd to NY 146 (Carman Rd) Minor Urban Arterial 4,500 1999
Morris Rd Curry Rd to Albany St Urban Collector 3,000 2001
Old State Rd E Lydius St to Kings Ct - 5,770 2009
Old State Rd E NY 146 to Lydius St - 3,153 2009
Rapp Rd Western Ave to Albany City Line Minor Urban Arterial 8,630 2009
Rapp Rd Albany City Line to Washington Ave Ext Minor Urban Arterial 5,100 2001
Rapp Rd Washington Ave Ext to Lincoln Ave Urban Collector 4,540 2009
Washington Ave Extension NY 910D CR 156 (Fuller Rd) to Albany City Line Urban Expressway 24,740 2008
Washington Ave Extension NY 910D Albany City Line to Guilderland Town Line Urban Expressway 29,010 2009
Washington Ave Extension NY 910D Guilderland Town Line to NY 155 Urban Expressway 28,080 2008 Figure 12 – Average annual daily traffic (AADT) for major roads in the Albany Pine Bush (NYSDOT, 2011).
Page | 56
ALBANY PINE BUSH CASE STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDATION № 1: REALIGNMENT/PARTIAL DECOMMISSIONING OF OLD STATE ROAD The 2004 Pinebush Transportation Study Update (CDTC, 2004) presented the
possibility of implementing a idea first proposed in an environmental study of Karner Road
in 2000 (Lawler et al., 2000). The report, Threatened and Endangered Species Along County
Route 155 Through the Albany Pine Bush by Lawler, Matusky and Skelly Engineers, LLP, was
commissioned by NYSDOT to study the effects of fragmentation on New Karner Road
(CDTC, 2004). In its recommendations, the firm recommended against any widening of
New Karner Road, and instead proposed a realignment Old State Road with Old Karner
Road (now VFW Road). The proposed outcome of this measure was to reduce road density
in the Karner Barrens, combine two existing intersections into one, and extend weaving
and queuing distances for New Karner Road traffic east of the New York State Thruway
(CDTC, 2004). As recently as 2007 (CDTC, 2007), CDTC continued discussion of a possible
conversion of New Karner Road into a “parkway” with wildlife crossings and roundabouts,
but no current plans for these treatments currently exist.
A more effective but controversial proposal would be the full or seasonal closure of
Old State Road east of its intersection with Kings Road, with or without realignment with
the circuitous Apollo Drive. Old State Road cuts through important Pine Bush habitat and is
absent of residential development between New Karner Road and Kings Road. Its
realignment with New Karner Road via Apollo Drive would redirect traffic around existing
commercial development, reducing roadway fragmentation in the heart of the Pine Bush.
Realignment would also eliminate the hazardous intersection at New Karner Road and Old
Page | 57
State Road and increase weaving distance for northbound traffic on New Karner Road
(CDTC, 2004).
Old State Road is currently over-capacity8, mostly due to evening peak travel to
residential development east of the New York State Thruway (CDTC, 2004). Proposals to
realign or decommission Old State Road are likely to generate public disagreement, but
approaches to offset traffic demand on this facilities by encouraging travel on nearby
higher categories roads (e.g., Central Avenue and Western Avenue) without adding
significant travel times should be investigated.
RECOMMENDATION № 2: DECOMMISSIONING OF GIBB ROAD One of the most problematic parts of the Albany Pine Bush Preserve is the area
north and east of Crossgates Mall, Surprisingly, a few parcels of protected land here
accommodate isolated Karner blue butterfly populations, these habitats are currently
divided by a dense road network. Rapp Road and the various Crossgates perimeter roads
carry too much traffic to permit straightforward mitigation, but Gipp Road is a minor
residential access road that serves cul-de-sac housing development easily accessible by
alternate routes. The closure of Gipp Road would permit a merger of parcels 57 and 84 and
could perhaps allow the construction of smaller structures over Pine Lane or Rapp Road to
create further connectivity.
RECOMMENDATION № 3: TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES ON MINOR URBAN ARTERIALS
Many of the main thoroughfares in the Pine Bush carry traffic volumes that far
exceed the recommended threshold for traffic calming measures, according to NYSDOT
8 AADT of 5,570 on a segment immediately west of New Karner Road, between East Lydius Street and Kings Court (NYSDOT, 2011).
Page | 58
protocol. However, some minor roads that cut through vulnerable and fragmented parts of
the area exhibit relatively low AADT. The Albany Pine Bush Preserve should investigate the
implementation of traffic calming measures on minor urban arterial routes that fragment
vulnerable areas, particularly where land ownership and the density of residential
development preclude the installation of wildlife crossing structures. Lydius Street, Albany
Street, Kings Road, Curry Road, Morris Road, and Old State Road are probable locations for
these measures.
Most NYSDOT traffic calming recommendations are restricted to Category I and
Category II roads (under 35 mph). According to NYSDOT guidelines (NYSDOT, 1999), the
most effective traffic calming measures at reducing both speed and volume are one- and
two-lane slow points, gateways, and full and partial closures (on road segments) and
chokers, diverters, channelization at (at intersections). Streetscaping measures like
landscape development, street furniture, and lighting are suitable for higher category
roads, though NYSDOT is dubious of their efficacy in speed and volume reduction (NYSDOT,
1999).
WILDLIFE CROSSING STRUCTURES IN THE ALBANY PINE BUSH
Cursory recommendations for the installation of wildlife crossings in the Albany
Pine Bush have appeared in a few local planning documents, including Management
Strategies for the Woodlawn Preserve, Schenectady, NY (Rittner et al., 2011) and the Pine
Bush Transportation Study Update (CDTC, 2004). The former recommended the installation
of tunnels under railroad tracks in the Woodlawn Preserve to facilitate migration by “larger
animals”. The following proposals are offered in the similar spirit as optimistic
Page | 59
recommendations, but serious structural mitigation of road network fragmentation in the
Pine Bush should be implemented following thorough a thorough planning process
involving qualified experts and the public.
The successful use of small wildlife crossing structures has been well documented in
New York (Nelson et al., 2006; Woltz et al., 2008; Langen, 2011) and Albany County was the
location of the first reptile and amphibian tunnel in the state (Fitzsimmons and Breisch,
2015).
Landscape
bridge
Wildlife
overpass
Multi-
use
overpass
Canopy
crossing
Viaduct
or
flyover
Large
mammal
underpass
Multi-use
underpass
Small- to
medium
mammal
underpass
Modified
culvert
design
Amphibian
and
reptile
tunnel
White-
tailed deer ● ● ● - ● ● ● - - -
Coyote ● ● ● - ● ● ● ● □ -
Red fox ● ● ● - ● ● ● ● □ -
Fisher ● ● ● ● ● □ ● ● ● -
Weasel ● ● ● - ● □ ● ● ● -
Arboreal
mammals □ □ □ ● □ □ □ - - -
Small
mammals ● ● ● - ● ● ● ● ● □
Amphibians □ □ □ - □ □ □ □ ● ●
Reptiles ● ● ● - ● ● ● ● ● □
Birds and
insects ● ● ● □ ● □ □ - - -
Figure 13 - The suitability of various wildlife crossing structures to a selection of Albany Pine Bush residents. The most expensive
structures (landscape bridges and wildlife overpasses) provide potential benefits to the greatest number of species, as well as
allowing more substantial ecological processes to take place (see Figure 8).
● Recommended/optimal solution □ Possible if adapted to local conditions – Not applicable or recommended
RECOMMENDATION № 4: NEW KARNER ROAD VIADUCT The Pinebush Transportation Study Update (CDTC, 2004) discussed the possibility
of converting New Karner Road (Route 155) into “a parkway with advanced design
Page | 60
treatment for wildlife crossing” (CDTC, 2004: 61), in accordance with requests from the
Albany Pine Bush Commission. Previously, the 1985 Pinebush transportation study
recommended doubling the capacity of New Karner Road from two lanes to four in
anticipation of increased development and commuter traffic in the area. The proposal was
roundly opposed by the nonprofit community group Save the Pine Bush on ecological
grounds, and in subsequent years, peak traffic volumes on New Karner Road have failed to
meet these projections (CDTC, 2004).
A more radical and ecologically valuable proposal would be the conversion of New
Karner Road to an elevated roadway between the New York State Thruway and Old State
Road (a distance of approximately one-third of a mile). New Karner Road still carries
significant amounts of traffic9, making most traffic calming measures ill-advised and
impractical. A low-level viaduct would not only restore habitat connectivity but allow for
greater flexibility in fire management practices in a core habitat of the Pine Bush currently
bisected by New Karner Road. Construction of a viaduct would permit wildlife movement
and other ecological processes underneath a raised two-lane highway, extending
connectivity benefits to the entire range of Pine Bush flora and fauna. Coupled with a
possible realignment (or closure) of Old State Road, a viaduct could extend even further to
Apollo Drive (nearly two-thirds of a mile), with a minor frontage road providing public
access to the Albany Pine Bush Discovery Center at 195 New Karner Road.
9 16,730 AADT between Washington Avenue Extension and Central Avenue in a 2008 count (NYSDOT, 2011).
Page | 61
Figure 14 – A large viaduct on the C25 motorway in Spain. A similar design could be employed in the Albany Pine Bush to mitigate the road effects of
New Karner Road (CR 155). Photo by C. Rosell (Iuell et al., 2003).
RECOMMENDATION № 5: NEW YORK STATE THRUWAY LANDSCAPE BRIDGE
Large crossing structures aren’t generally constructed for small animal passage or
even to facilitate management practices, but a landscape bridge spanning the New York
State Thruway in the Karner Barrens west of Old State Road could provide connectivity to
at-risk species and fire ecology in the core of the Pine Bush. A landscape bridge could be
designed to allow fire management to take place between two disjunct parcels currently
divided by some of the heaviest traffic volumes in the area. Landscape bridges provide the
greatest use potential for a number of species (Figure 13) and can be managed to provide
habitat features as well. Another possible location would be over the railroad tracks west of
the wetlands near Albany Street (including parcels 35a through 35g, identified as pitch
pine-scrub oak habitats with high linkage value), north of New Karner Road.
Page | 62
Figure 15 – A landscape bridge in the Netherlands. A similar design could be employed to provide connectivity over the New York State Thruway in the
Albany Pine Bush. Source: ARC Solutions.
PITCH PINE-SCRUB OAK HABITAT + KBB SUBPOPULATION
20 29A 72B 74 84
PITCH PINE-SCRUB OAK HABITAT + POTENTIAL KBB SUBPOPULATION
75 76
PITCH PINE-SCRUB OAK HABITAT + HIGH LINKAGE VALUE
17A 17B 21A 21B 29 35A-G 72B 74 75 76 82-86
KBB SUBPOPULATION + HIGH LINKAGE VALUE
11A 36 53 72B 74 78 84
POTENTIAL KBB SUBPOPULATION + HIGH LINKAGE VALUE
54 55 73 75 76
PITCH PINE-SCRUB OAK HABITAT + KBB SUBPOPULATION + HIGH LINKAGE VALUE
72B 74
PITCH PINE-SCRUB OAK HABITAT + POTENTIAL KBB SUBPOPULATION + HIGH LINKAGE VALUE
75 76 Figure 16 - Parcels recommended for full recommendation with or more qualifying criteria, as identified by the 2010 management plan (APBPC, 2010).
Page | 63
Figure 17 – Protection area recommendations for the Albany Pine Bush Preserve (APBPC, 2010).
RECOMMENDATION № 6: MANAGEMENT OF ROADSIDE HABITAT IN THE ALBANY PINE BUSH Efforts should be made to widen road verges as much as possible in the Albany Pine
Bush in order to increase microhabitat areas for the Karner blue butterfly. Lepidopteran
abundance has been correlated with roadside width (Munguira and Thomas, 1992).
Wherever possible, terrain should remain ungraded and native Pine Bush soils should be
retained. Micro-landscaping graded verges to produce topographical variety can provide
benefits to butterfly conservation (Thomas et al., 2002). Reducing lines of sight on Pine
Page | 64
Bush roadways may also have the benefit of reducing brood parasitism by brown-headed
cowbirds (Molothrus ater) on at-risk pine barrens nesters like the prairie warbler
(Dendroica discolor) and blue-winged warbler (Vermivora pinus), according to Jacobson
(2005).
More ecologically sensitive roadside landscaping in the Pine Bush could improve
wildlife populations and habitat quality. Delayed mowing regimes have been demonstrated
to improve the abundance and breeding success of grasslands birds (Siegel, 2009) and
butterflies and diurnal moths on road verges (Valtonen et al., 2006). For reasons of safety,
current NYSDOT right-of-way management requires clear zones free of trees and visible
road signs and guide rails unobstructed by vegetation (Gao et al., 2010). However, NYSDOT
has expressed a commitment to greater environmental stewardship (Nelson et al., 2001)
and Federal Highway Administration publications suggest the feasibility of attaining public
support for unmowed verges for ecological benefits (Harper-Lore, 2000). Furthermore, less
intensive mowing regimes would have the added benefit of lower maintenance costs
(Jaarsma et al., 2013) and reduced carbon emissions (Gallivan et al., 2010).
RECOMMENDATION № 7: REDUCTION OF OTHER ROAD EFFECTS
New technical interventions like noise-absorbing porous asphalt, rubberized asphalt
concrete, and ZOAB10 (Piepers, 2001; Bendtsen et al, 2008) offer promising solutions that
should be considered for road maintenance projects in the Albany Pine Bush, particularly
on very high volume facilities (e.g. the New York State Thruway) for which other structural
mitigation is unlikely. The use of noise-reducing pavements may even allow the removal of
10 Zeer Open Asfaltbeton, a Belgian/Dutch product.
Page | 65
noise barriers that obstruct wildlife movement (Jacobson, 2005). In addition to its acoustic
benefits, noise-reducing asphalt concrete commonly uses recycled tire rubber as aggregate
and offers a safety record comparable to conventional road surfacing materials (Elvik and
Greibe, 2003). Noise-reducing tires have also been developed for the consumer market
(Carstens, 2003).
Artificial roadway lighting is also a detrimental effect on wildlife in general (Rich
and Longcore, 2006), and Pine Bush residents specifically (Miller, 2006?). Anthropogenic
lighting in the blue-green portion of the spectrum has been shown to be less disruptive to
migratory birds and may offer applications for roadway use in breeding areas (van de Laar,
2007; Poot et al., 2008). Retroreflective sheeting could be employed to improve the
nocturnal conspicuity of traffic signs and road surface markings (Hasson, 2000) while
reducing the significant energy needs of standard electrical highway lighting.
ANALYSIS Mitigating the effects of transportation infrastructure is still a relatively novel
concept in ecology. Widespread application of these countermeasures and public
understanding of the environmental consequences of automobile travel lags even further,
while compounding ecological effects continue to mount with each new road and passing
car. Where mitigation has taken place, it is generally a response to the significant risk
posed to human safety and property by wildlife vehicle collisions in some locations. Road
ecology solutions for primarily ecological objectives – the benefit of lower profile at-risk
invertebrates, habitat connectivity, and the facilitation of fire management practices in the
case of the Albany Pine Bush – is perhaps unprecedented, particularly efforts requiring the
construction of capital projects. However, road ecology is a dynamic and interdisciplinary
area of problem-solving that has produced solutions to a countless number of ecological
and infrastructural scenarios. Though their application as recommended in this paper is
Page | 66
unconventional, large-scale wildlife crossing structures and exurban traffic calming
methods could provide significant ecological benefits to the Albany Pine Bush, and their
potential use there should warrant further investigation.
CONCLUSION There is significant consensus among scientists regarding the role of transportation
networks in habitat destruction and fragmentation and the ongoing biodiversity crisis. This
concern is slowly working its way into the public consciousness and has resulted in some
measures to restore connectivity in road systems, primarily by structural means for the
benefit of extremely endangered species or large animals that pose collision threat to
motorists. While habitat connectivity is achieving greater prestige in official planning
agendas (Tidwell, 2010), mitigation efforts are often hampered by financial and temporal
restrictions, as well as public opposition. Mitigation often requires the careful negotiation
of existing human systems, like transportation and residential housing. Compounding these
difficulties are the significant barriers that exist between the latest road ecology research
and implementation by transportation agencies (Lesbarreres and Fahrig 2012). Effective
ecological mitigation of roadway effects will require partnerships between the scientific
community and transportation agencies, with the underlying support of the general public.
Professional planners will play an essential role in these cooperative efforts and it is
imperative for practitioners to gain an understanding of road ecology effects and solutions
(van der Ree, 2011).
Page | 67
WORKS CITED
AASHTO (AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS). (2011). A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. 6th edition. Washington, D.C.
ADAMS, L. W., AND GEIS, A. D. (1983). Effects of roads on small mammals. Journal of
Applied Ecology 20:403-415.
AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION. (2006). Planning and Urban Design Standards. John Wiley & Sons., Inc. Hoboken, New Jersey.
ALBANY PINE BUSH PRESERVE COMMISSION. (2010). Management Plan/Final
Environmental Impact Statement for the Albany Pine Bush Preserve. September 16, 2010.
Albany, N.Y.
ALBANY PINE BUSH PRESERVE COMMISSION. (2012) “Albany Pine Bush Preserve Commission Road edge tree management in the Pine Bush Comment.” Published 10/23/2012. http://www.albanypinebush.org/conservation/road-edge-tree-management-in-the-pine-bush.
ANDREN, H. & ANGELSTAM, P. (1988). Elevated predation rates as an edge effect in habitat islands. Ecology 69:544-547.
ANDREWS, A. (1990). Fragmentation of habitat by roads and utility corridors: a
review. Australian Zoologist 26: 130-141.
ANDREWS, K.M., NANJAPPA, P. & RILEY, S.P.D. (2015). Roads and Ecological Infrastructure: Concepts and Applications for Small Animals. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland.
ASKINS, R. (1994). Open corridors in a heavily forested landscape: impact on shrubland and forest interior birds. Wildlife Society Bulletin 22(2): 339-347.
ASKINS, R.A. (1998). Restoring forest disturbance to sustain populations of shrubland birds. Restoration and Management Notes. 16:166-173.
AUGUSTINE, D.J. & FRELICH, L.E. (1980). Effects of white-tailed deer on populations of an understory forb in fragmented deciduous forests. Conservation Biology 12(5):995-1004
BARBER, J.R., CROOKS, K.R & FRISTRUP, K.M. (2010). The costs of chronic noise exposure for terrestrial organisms. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 25:180-189.
Page | 68
BARNES, J. 2003. Natural History of the Albany Pine Bush: Albany and Schenectady Counties. New York State Museum Bulletin 502, The New York State Education Department, Albany, N.Y.
BASCOMPTE, J. & SOLE, R. V. (1996). Habitat fragmentation and extinction Thresholds in spatially explicit models. Journal of Animal Ecology 65(4): 465-73.
BEACHY, B. (2002). Invading trees and breeding birds in the Albany Pine Bush. MS Thesis. State University of NY, Albany, N.Y.
BEACHY, B.L., & ROBINSON, G.R. (2008). Divergence in avian communities following woody plant invasions in a pine barrens ecosystem. Natural Areas Journal 28:395-403.
BENDTSEN, H., KRAGH, J. & NIELSEN, E. (2008). Use of noise reducing pavements – European experience. Danish Road Institute. Technical note 69.
BENNETT, A.F. (1991). “Roads, Roadside and Wildlife Conservation: A Review.” In: Nature Conservation 2: The Role of Corridors. Surrey Beatty & Sons. 99-118.
BISSONETTE, J. & ROSA, S.A. (2009). Road zone effects in small-mammal communities. Ecology and Society 14(1):27.
BOYONOSKI, A. (1992). Factors affecting the establishment and maintenance of Lupinus perennis (wild lupine). M.S. thesis. University of Guelph. Guelph, Ontario.
BRIED, J.T., GIFFORD, N.A. & ROBERTSON, K.M. (2015). Predicted crown fire risk adds incentive to restore open-canopy pine barrens at the wildland-urban interface. Journal of Sustainable Forestry. January 2015.
CAPITAL DISTRICT TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE. (2003). McKownville Corridor
Study. Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP in association with the Hudson Group, LLC
and the LA Group, PC. May 2003. Albany, N.Y.
CAPITAL DISTRICT TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE. (2004). Pinebush Transportation
Study Update. September 2004. Albany, N.Y.
CAPITAL DISTRICT TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE. (2007). “Draft New Visions 2030.
Meeting the Environmental Mitigation and Consultation Requirements of SAFETEA-LU:
An Opportunity to Continue Moving Toward a Sustainable Transportation System.” May
2007. Albany, N.Y.
CAPITAL DISTRICT TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE. (2011a). New Visions 2035 Plan
Update. Choosing Our Fugure: New Visions for a Quality Region. September, 2011.
Albany, N.Y.
Page | 69
CAPITAL DISTRICT TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE. (2011b). “Average Annual Daily
Traffic Volumes on Capital District Interstate, Arterials and Collectors (As of September
13, 2011)”. September, 2011. Albany, N.Y.
CEBALLOS, G., EHRLICH, P.R. & BARNOSKY, A.D., GARCÍA, A., PRINGLE, R.M. & PALMER, T.M. (2015). Accelerated modern human-induced species losses: entering the sixth mass extinction. Science Advances 1(5). 19 June, 2015.
CITY OF ALBANY. (2012). Albany 2030: The City of Albany Comprehensive Plan. April, 2,
2012. Albany, N.Y
CLARK, R.W., BROWN, W.S., STECHERT, R., & ZAMUDIO, K.R. 2010. Roads, interrupted dispersal, and genetic diversity in timber rattlesnakes. Conservation Biology 24:1059-1069.
CLENDENNING, G., FIELD, D.R. & KAPP, K.J. (2005). A comparison of seasonal homeowners and permanent residents on their attitudes toward wildlife management on public lands. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 10:3–17.
CLEVENGER, A.P. & HUIJSER, M.P. (eds.) (2009). Handbook for Design and Evaluation of Wildlife Crossing Structures in North America. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Washington, D.C.
CLEVENGER, A.P. & WALTHO, N. (2005). Performance indices to identify attributes of highway crossing structures facilitating movement of large mammals. Biological Conservation. 121:453-464.
CLEVENGER, A.P. & WIERZCHOWSKI, J. (2006). Maintaining and restoring connectivity in landscapes fragmented by roads. Pages 502-535 in K.R. Crooks and M. Sanjayan, eds. Connectivity Conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.
CLOUGH, M.W. (1992) “Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: determination of endangered status of the Karner Blue butterfly.” Federal Register 57. 59236-59244
COFFIN, A.W. (2007). From roadkill to road ecology: a review of the ecological effects of roads. Journal of Transport Geography 15: 396-406.
COLLINGE, S. K. (1996). Ecological consequences of habitat fragmentation: implications for landscape architecture and planning. Landscape and Urban Planning 36: 59-77.
CORLATTI, L., HACKLANDER, K & FREY-ROOS, F. (2009). Ability of wildlife overpasses to provide connectivity and prevent genetic isolation. Conservation Biology. 23:548-556.
CROOKS, K.R. & M. SANJAYAN, eds. (2006). Connectivity Conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.
Page | 70
CROOKS, K. R. AND M.E. SOULÉ, M.E. 1999. Mesopredator release and avifaunal extinctions in a fragmented system. Science 400: 563-566.
CROW. 2008. Plattelandswegen mooi en veilig; een beeldenboek (Rural Roads Nice and Safe. A Picture Book. Publicatie 259. Ede, the Netherlands (in Dutch).
DALE, V.H, BROWN, S., HAUEBER, R.A., HOBBS, N.T., HUNTLY, N., NAIMAN, R.J., RIEBSAME, W.E., TURNER, M.G. & VALONE, T.J. (2000). Ecological principles and guidelines for managing the use of land: an ESA report. Ecological Applications 10:639-670.
DEWAN, A.A. (2002). The ecological effects of carnivore on small mammals and seed predation in the Albany Pine Bush. M.S. thesis. University at Albany, State University of New York, Albany, N.Y.
DIAMOND, J. (1975). The island dilemma: lessons of modern biogeographic studies for the design of nature reserves. Biological Conservation. 7: 129-146.
DIRIG, R. (1994). Historical notes on wild lupine and the Karner blue butterfly at the Albany Pine Bush, New York. Pages 23–36 in D. A. Andow, R. J. Baker, and C. P. Lane, eds., Karner Blue Butterfly: A Symbol of a Vanishing Landscape. University of Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station, St. Paul, Minnesota, miscellaneous publication 84–1994.
DOWNS, J.A. & HORNER, M.W. (2012). Enhancing habitat connectivity in fragmented landscapes: spatial modeling of wildlife crossing structures in transportation networks. Annals of the Association of American Geographers.
EIGENBROD, F., HECNAR, S. J., & FAHRIG, L. (2008). Accessible habitat: an improved measure of the effects of habitat loss and roads on wildlife populations. Landscape Ecology 23(2):159-168.
ELLENBERG, H., K. MÜLLER, AND T. STOTTELE. 1981. Straßen-Ökologie: Auswirkungen von Autobahnen und Straßen auf Ökosysteme deutscher Landschaften. Ökologie und Straße. Bonn, Germany: Broschürenreihe der deutschen Straßenliga, Ausgabe 3:19-122. [In German; translated in Forman et al., 2002 and van der Ree et al., 2011].
ELVIK, R. & GREIBE, P. (2003). Safety aspects related to low noise road surfaces. Report 680. Institute of Transport Economics, Oslo, Norway.
EWING, R.H. (1999). Traffic Calming: Sate of the Practice. Federal Highway Administration and Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1999.
FAHRIG, L. 2003. Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics. 34: 487-515.
FAHRIG, L. & MERRIAM, G. (1994). Conservation of fragmented populations. Conservation Biology 8(1):50-59.
Page | 71
FAHRIG, L. & RYTWINSKI, T. (2009). Effects of roads on animal abundance: an empirical review and synthesis. Ecology and Society. 14(1):21.
FAZEY, I., FISCHER, J. & LINDENMAYER, D.B. (2005). What do conservation biologists publish? Biological Conservation 124:63-73.
FINDLAY, C.S.T. & BOURDAGES, J. (2001). Response time of wetland biodiversity to road construction on adjacent lands. Conservation Biology 14(1):86-94.
FINTON, A.D. (1998), Succession and plant community development in pitch pine-scrub oak barrens of the glaciated northeast United States. M.S. thesis. University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Mass.
FITZSIMMONS, M. & BREISCH, A.R. (2015). “Design and effectiveness of New York State’s first Amphibian Tunnel and Its Contribution to Adaptive Management.” In Roads and Ecological Infrastructure: Concepts and Applications for Small Animals. K.M. Andrews, P. Nanjappa & S.P.D. Riley, eds. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland.
FORD, A. T. & FAHRIG, L. (2008). Movement patterns of eastern chipmunks (Tamias striatus) near roads. Journal of Mammalogy 89:895–903.
FORMAN, R.T.T. & ALEXANDER, L.E.( 1998). Roads and their major ecological effects. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 29: 207-231.
FORMAN, R.T.T. (1979). Pine Barrens: Ecosystem and Landscape. Rutgers University Press.,New Brunswick, N.J. and London.
FORMAN, R.T.T. (1995). Land Mosaics: The Ecology of Landscapes and Regions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.
FORMAN, R.T.T. 2000. Estimate of the area affected ecologically by the road system in the United States. Conservation Biology 14(1): 31-35.
FORMAN, R.T.T., D. Sperling, J. Bissonette, A. Clevenger, C. Cutshall, V. Dale, L. Fahrig, R. France, C. Goldman, K. Heanue, J. Jones, F. Swanson, T. Turrentine and T. Winter. 2003. Road ecology: science and solutions. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
FRANCIS, C.D., ORTEGA, C.P., CRUZ, A. (2009). Noise pollution changes avian communities and species interactions. Current Biology 19:1415–1419.
GALLIVAN, F., ANG-OLSON, J. & PAPSON, A. (2010). Greenhouse gas mitigation measures for transportation construction, maintenance, and operations activities. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Washington, D.C.
Page | 72
GAO, H.O., SONNTAG, D. & MORSE, P. (2010). Air quality and energy impacts of NYSDOT highway ROW management. Research Project C-07-13. Final Report. New York State Department of Transportation, Albany, N.Y.
GEBAUER, S.B. (1993). Conservation Goals and Objectives for the Albany Pine Bush Preserve. The Nature Conservancy – Eastern New York Chapter. January, 1993. Albany, N.Y.
GEHRT, S.D. (2007). Ecology of coyotes in urban landscapes. Proceedings of the 12th Wildlife Damage Conference. D.L. Nolte, W.M. Arjo, D.H. Stalman (eds.).
GIFFORD, N.A., DEPPEN, J.M. & BRIED, J.T. (2010). Importance of an urban pine barrens for the conservation of early-successional shrubland birds. Landscape and Urban Planning 94(1):54-62.
GILL, R.J. (1997). The influences of habitat fragmentation on edge effects in the Albany Pine Bush Preserve. M.S. Thesis. University at Albany, State University of New York, Albany, NY.
GIVNISH, T. J., E. S. MENGES, AND D. F. SCHWEITZER. 1988. Minimum area requirements for long-term conservation of the Albany Pine Bush and Karner blue butterfly: An assessment. Report to the City of Albany from Malcom Pirnie, Inc., Albany. New York, 101 pp.
GLISTA, D.J., T.L. DEVAULT AND J.A. DEWOODY (2009). A review of mitigation measures for reducing wildlife mortality on roadways. Landscape and Urban Planning 91(1):1-7.
GRONDAHL, P. (2007). Mayor Erastus Corning: Albany Icon, Albany Enigma. State University of New York Press. Albany, N.Y.
HADDAD, N.M. (1999). Corridor and distance effects on interpatch movements: a landscape experiment with butterflies. Ecological Applications 9(2):612-622.
HADDAD, N.M. (2000). Corridor length and patch colonization by a butterfly, Junonia coenia. Conservation Biology 14(2):738-745.
HABIB, L., E.M. BAYNE AND S. BOUTIN. (2006). Chronic industrial noise affects pairing success and age structure of ovenbirds (Seiurus aurocapilla). Journal of Applied Ecology 44(1):176-184. February 2007.
HANSKI, I. (1999). Habitat connectivity, habitat continuity, and metapopulations in dynamic landscapes. Oikos 87:209-219.
HANKSI, I. & GILPIN, M. (1991). Metapopulation dynamics: brief history and conceptual domain. Biological Journal of the Linnaean Society 42:3-16.
Page | 73
HANSKI, I. & OVASKAINEN, O. (2000). The metapopulation capacity of a fragmented landscape. Nature 404: 755-758.
HARPER-LORE, B.L. (2000) “Incorporating Grasses into Clear Zones: Clear Zones as Grasslands.” In Roadside Use of Native Plants. Federal Highway Administration. Washington, D.C.
HELLER, N.E. & ZAVALETA, E.S. (2009). Biodiversity management in the face of climate change: a review of 22 years of recommendations. Biological Conservation 142:14-32.
HELS T. & BUCHWALD E. (2001). The effect of road kills on amphibian populations. Biological Conservation 99: 331–340.
HEYERDAHL, E.K., BRUBAKER, L.B. & AGEE, J.K. (2001). Spatial controls of historic fire regimes: a multiscale example from the interior west, USA. Ecology 82:660–678.
HICKMAN, S. (1990). Evidence of edge species attraction to nature trails within deciduous forest. Natural Areas Journal 10:3-5.
HOLDEREGGER R, DI GIULIO M. (201) The genetic effects of roads: a review of empirical
evidence. Basic Applied Ecology 11:522–531.
HOOKE, R.L., MARTÍN-DUQUE, J.F. & PEDRAZA, J. (2012). Land transformation by humans: a review. GSA Today. Vol. 22, No. 12. Boulder, Colorado.
HUIJSER, M.P., MCGOWEN, P.T., FULLER, J., HARDY, A. & KOCIOLEK, A. (2007). Wildlife Vehicle Collisions Study. Draft Project Report. Prepared for Federal Highway Administration. Washington, D.C.
HUIJSER, M.P., KOCIOLEL, A., MCGOWEN, P., HARDY, A., CLEVENGER, A.P. & AMENT, R. (2007). Wildlife-Vehicle Collision and Crossing Mitigation Measures: A Toolbox for the Montana Department of Transportation. U.S. Department of Transportation, FHWA. FWWA/MT-07-002/8117-34.
HUNSINGER, K.C. 1999. A survey of amphibians and reptiles of the Albany Pine Bush Preserve, Albany County, New York, M.S. thesis. State University of New York at Albany, Albany, N.Y.
IUELL, B., BEKKER, G.J., CUPERUS, R., DUFEK, J., FRY, G. HICKS, C. HLAVAC, ET AL. (2003) COST 341: Habitat Fragmentation Due to Transportation Infrastructure; Wildlife and Traffic: A European Handbook for Identifying Conflicts and Designing Solutions. European Co-operation in the Field of Scientific and Technical Research, Brussels, Belgium.
JAARSMA, CATHARINUS F. (1997). Approaches for the planning of rural road networks according to sustainable land use planning. Landscape and Urban Planning 39 (1), 47-54.
Page | 74
JAARSMA, CATHARINUS F. & WILLEMS, G.P.A. (2002). Reducing habitat fragmentation by minor rural roads through traffic calming. Landscape and Urban Planning 58: 125-135.
JAARSMA, C., VAN LANGEVELDE, F., & BOTMA, H. (2006). Flattened fauna and mitigation: traffic victims related to road, traffic, vehicle, and species characteristics. Transportation Research D 11(4):264-276.
JACOBSON, S. L. (2005). Mitigation measures for highway-caused impacts to birds. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-191, 1043-1050.
JORDAN, M.J., PATTERSON III, W.A., & WINDISCH, A.G. (2003). Conceptual ecological models for the Long Island pitch pine barrens: implications for managing rare plant communities. Forest Ecology Management 185:151–168.
KAISER, E.J., GODSCHALK, D.R. & CHAPIN, F.S. (1995). Urban Land Use Planning. 4th Ed. University of Illinois Press. Chicago.
KAYS, R.W. & DEWAN, A.A. (2004). Ecological impacts of inside/outside house cats around a suburban nature preserve. Animal Conservation 7:1-11.
KELLER, V., BAUER, H.G, LEY, H.W. & PFISTER, H.P. (1996). The significance of wildlife overpasses for birds. Der Ornithologische Beobachter 93: 249-258.
KERLINGER, P. & DOREMUS, C.. (1981). Habitat disturbance and the decline of dominant avian species in pine barrens of the northeastern United States. American Birds 35(1):16-20.
KNIGHT, R.L. (1999). Private lands: the neglected geography. Conservation Biology 13(2): 223-224.
KULASH, D.J. (1999). “Transportation and Society” in Transportation Planning Handbook. 2nd ed. Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1999. Ed. John D. Edwards. Washington, DC.
LANGEN et al. 2007
LANGEN, T. (2011). Design consideration and effectiveness of fencing for turtles: three case studies along northeastern New York State highways. Proceedings of the 2011 International Conference on Ecology and Transportation. 545-556.
LAPOINT, S.D., KAYS, R.W, RAY, J. & JUSTINA, C. (2003). Animals Crossing the Northway: Are Existing Culverts Useful? Adirondack Journal of Environmental Studies. Spring/Summer 2003: 11-17.
LESBARRÈRES, D. & FAHRIG, L. (2012). Measures to reduce population fragmentation by roads: what has worked and how do we know? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 27(7): 374-379.
Page | 75
LOWE, W.H. & ALLENDORF, F. (2010). What can genetics tell us about population connectivity? Molecular Ecology 19(15):3038-3051.
LOVALLO, M.J. & ANDERSON, E.M. (1996). Bobcat movements and home ranges relative to roads in Wisconsin. Wildlife Society Bulletin 24:71-76.
MACARTHUR, R.H. & WILSON, E.O. (1967). The Theory of Island Biogeography. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
MANFREDO, M.J., TEEL, T.L. & BRIGHT, A.D. (2003) Why are public values toward wildlife changing? Human Dimensions of Wildlife 8:287-306.
MARZLUFF, J.M. (2002). Fringe conservation: a call to action. Conservation Biology 16(5):1175-1176.
MASTRO, L., CONOVER, M.R., & FREY, S.N. (2008). Deer–vehicle collision prevention techniques. Human–Wildlife Conflicts 2:80–92.
MCDOUGAL, L.A., VAUGHAN, M.R. & BROMLEY, P.R. (1991). Wild turkey and road relationships on a Virginia National Forest. Pages 96-106. In W.M. Healy and G.B. Healy (eds.) Proceedings of the Sixth National Wild Turkey Symposium. National Wild Turkey Federation. Edgefield, South Carolina.
MCHARG, I.L. (1969). Design with Nature. Natural History Press, New York.
MCKENNA, D.D., MCKENNA, K.M, MALCOM, S.B. & BERENBAUM, M.R. (2001). Mortality of Lepidoptera along roadways in Central Illinois. Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society. 55(2):63-68.
MILLER, S. G., R. L. KNIGHT, AND C. K. MILLER. (1998). Influence of recreational trails on breeding bird communities. Ecological Applications 8:162-169.
MUNGUIRA, M.L. & THOMAS, J.A. (1992). Use of road verges by butterfly and burnet populations, and the effect of roads on adult dispersal and mortality. Journal of Applied Ecology 29: 316-329.
NELSON, D.A., MCVOY G.R., & GRENINGER, L. (2001). Promoting environmental stewardship in transportation and maintenance operation in New York State Department of Transportation. New York State Department of Transportation. Albany, New York.
NELSON, D.A., PAPIN, M.E. & BAKER, T. (2006). Quick fixes: working together to address herptile road mortality in New York State. In: Proceedings of the 2005 International Conference on Ecology and Transportation. Eds. C.L Irwin, P. Garrett, and K.P. McDermott. Center for Transportation and the Environment, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Page | 76
NYSDOT (NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION). (1999). “Chapter 25 – Traffic Calming. Revision 36” in Highway Design Manual. February 5, 1999. Albany, N.Y.
NYSDOT (NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION). (2011). 2011 Traffic Data Report for New York State. Albany, N.Y.
NIEMUTH, N.D. & BOYCE, M. (1997). Edge-related nest losses in Wisconsin pine barrens. Journal of Wildlife Management 61:1234-1239.
NOSS, R.F. & COOPERRIDER, A.Y. (1994). Saving Nature’s Legacy: Protecting and Restoring Biodiversity. Defenders of Wildlife and Island Press. Washington, D.C.
NOSS, R.F., LAROE III, E.T., & SCOTT, J.M. (1995). Endangered Ecosystems of the United States: A Preliminary Assessment of Loss and Degradation. Biological Report 28. US Dept. of the Interior, National Biological Service, Washington, D.C.
OLSON, D., O’CONNELL, M., FANG, Y., BURGER, J., & RAYBURN, R. (2009). Managing for Climate Change within Protected Area Landscapes. Natural Areas Journal 29(4): 394 – 399.
ORLOWSKI, G. & SIEMBIEDA, J. (2005). Skeletal injuries of passerines caused by road traffic. Acta Ornithologica 40:15-19.
OXLEY, D. J., FENTON, M. B., AND CARMODY, G. R. (1974). The effects of roads on
populations of small mammals. Journal of Applied Ecology 11:51-59.
PATON, P. C. (1994). The effect of edge on avian nest success: how strong is the evidence? Conservation Biology 8:17-26.
PATTERSON, W. A. & BACKMAN, A.E. (1988). Fire and Disease History of Forests In: Vegetation History. Huntley, B. and T. Webb (eds.). Page 603-632.
RALEIGH, L., CAPECE, J., & BERRY, A. (2003). Sand Barrens Habitat Management: A Toolbox for Manager. The Trustees of Reservations. Island Regional Office. Vineyard Haven, MA.
RAO, R.S.P. & GIRISH, M.K.S. (2007). Road kills: assessing insect casualties using flagship taxon. Current Science 92(6):830-837.
RAY, J., HILTY, J., WEBER, W., & LAPOINT, S. Investigating wildlife use of underpasses under I-87: science and the perils of publicity.
REED, D. H. 2004. Extinction risk in fragmented habitats. Animal Conservation 7:181-191.
Page | 77
REIJNEN, R. AND R. FOPPEN (2006). Impact of road traffic on breeding bird populations. In: The Ecology of Transportation: Managing Mobility for the Environment. J. Davenport and J.L. Davenport, eds. Springer, London.
REIJNEN, R., FOPPEN, R. & VEENBAAS, G. (1997). Disturbance by traffic of breeding birds: Evaluation of the effect and considerations in planning and managing road corridors. Biodiversity and Conservation 6:567-581.
RITTNER, D., ed. (1976) Pine Bush: Albany’s Last Frontier. Pine Bush Historic Preservation Project.
RUEDIGER, B. (2002). High, wide and handsome: designing more effective wildlife and fish crossings for roads and highways. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Ecology and Transportation; 2001. Center for Transportation and the Environment, North Carolina State University. 509-516.
RUSSELL, F.L., ZIPPIN, D.B. & FOWLER, N.L. (2001). Effects of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) on plants, plant populations and communities: a review. American Midland Naturalist 146(1): 1-26.
SAUNDERS, D.A., HOBBS, R.J., & MARGULES, C.R. (1991). Biological consequences of ecosystem fragmentation: a review. Conservation Biology 5:18-32.
RITTNER, D., DIRIG, R., FAUST, K.B., SCHOEDER, A. & YOUNG, S. (2011). Management Strategies for the Woodlawn Preserve, Schenectady, NY. Submitted March, 2011. Schenectady, N.Y.
SEILER, A.(2002). Effects of infrastructure on nature. In: Anonymus, 2003. COST 341. Habitat fragmentation due to transportation infrastructure. The European review. European Commission, Directorate-General for Research, Brussels. SEILER, A. (2003). The toll of the automobile: Wildlife and roads in Sweden. Doctoral thesis. Swedish University, Uppsala, Sweden. SCHELLER, R.M., MLADENOFF, D.J. (2008). Simulation of forest change in the New Jersey Pine Barrens under current and pre-colonial conditions. SCHNEIDER, K., RESCHKE, C. & YOUNG, S. (1991). Inventory of the rare plants, animals, and ecological communities of the Albany Pine Bush Preserve. Final report submitted to the Albany Pine Bush Preserve Commission. 41 pages SHAFFER, M.L. (1981). Minimum population sizes for species conservation. BioScience 31(2):131-134.
SHAFFER, M.L. & SAMSON, F.B. (1985). Population size and extinction: a note on determining critical population sizes. American Naturalist 125:144-152.
Page | 78
SHEPARD, D.B., KUHNS, A.R., DRESLIK, M.J., & PHILLIPS, C.A. (2008). Roads as barriers to animal movement in fragmented landscapes. Animal Conservation 11:288–296.
SHUEY, J. A. (1997). Dancing with fire: ecosystem dynamics, management, and the Karner blue (Lycaeides melissa samuelis Nabokov) (Lycaenidae). Journal of the Lepidopteran Society 52:263–269.
SIEGEL, A.B. (2009). Maximizing the effectiveness of grassland management for a grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum) metapopulation. Doctoral dissertation. Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, New Jersey.
SMALLIDGE, P. J., LEOPOLD, D. J. & ALLEN, C.M. (1996). Community characteristics and vegetation management of Karner blue butterfly (Lycaeides melissa samuelis) habitats on rights-of-way in east-central New York, USA. Journal of Applied Ecology 33:1405–1419.
SOULÉ, M. E. (1991). Land use planning for the maintenance of wildlife in a fragmenting urban landscape. Journal of the American Planning Association 57:313-323
SPELLERBERG, I. (1998). Ecological effects of roads and traffic: a literature review. Global Ecology and Biogeography 7(5):317-333.
STEVENS, T.H., T.H. DENNIS, D. KITTREDGE, & RICKENBACH, M. 1999.
SUNDELL-TURNER, N.M., AND A.D. RODEWALD. 2008. A comparison of landscape metrics for conservation planning. Landscape and Urban Planning 86 (2008) 219-225
TAYLOR, R.D., FAHRIG, L., HENEIN, K. AND MERRIAM, G. (1993) Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure. Oikos, 68: 571-573
THEEUWES, J. , AND H. GODTHELP. Self-explaining roads (1995). Safety Science 19:217-225.
THOMAS, C.D., THOMAS, J. A & WARREN, M. S. 1992. Distribution of occupied and vacant butterfly habitats in fragmented landscapes. Oecologia. 92: 563-567.
THOMAS, J.A., SNAZELL, R.G. & WARD, L.K. (2002). Are roads harmful or potentially beneficial to butterflies and other insects? In: Sherwood, B., Cutler, D. & Burton, J.A. Wildlife and Roads. The Ecological Impact. Imperial College Press. London.
TOWN OF COLONIE. (2005). Town of Colonie Comprehensive Plan. Prepared by Saratoga
Associates. Adopted August 25, 2005. Colonie, N.Y.
TOWN OF GUILDERLAND. (2000). Town of Guilderland Comprehensive Plan 2000.
Prepared by Clough, Harbour & Associates, LLP – Behan Planning Associates. Adopted
August 7, 2001. Guilderland, N.Y.
Page | 79
TROMBULAK, S.C. & FRISSELL, C.A. (2000). Review of ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and aquatic communities. Conservation Biology 14: 18-30.
USFWS (UNITED STATE FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE). (2003). Karner Blue Butterfly Recovery Plan (Lycaeides melissa samuelis). Department of the Interior (Region 3). Fort Snelling, Minnesota.
VALTONEN, A., SAARINEN, K. & JANTUNEN, J. (2006). Effect of different mowing regimes on butterflies and diurnal moths on road verges. Animal Biodiversity and Conservation 29(2):133-148.
VAN BOHEMEN, H. (1998). Habitat fragmentation and roads: strategy, objectives and practical measures for mitigation and compensation. In: Urban Ecology. J. Breuste, H. Feldmann & O. Uhlmann (eds.). Springer-Verlag. Berlin, Heidelberg. 574-578.
VAN DER GRIFT, E.A. (2005). Defragmentation in the Netherlands: a success story? Gaia 14(2):144-147.
VAN DER GRIFT, E.A., VAN DER REE, R., FAHRIG, L., FINDLAY, S., HOULAHAN, J., JAEGER, J.A.G., KLAR, N., MADRIÑAN, F. & OLSON, L. (2013). Evaluating the effectiveness of road mitigation measures. Biodiversity and Conservation 22(2):442-448.
VAN DER REE, R., VAN DER GRIFT, E., MATA, C. & SUAREZ, F. (2007). Overcoming the barrier effects 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. In: Proceedings of the 2007 International Conference on Ecology and Transportation (Irwin, C.L. et al., eds.), pages 423-431 Center for Transportation and the Environment.
VAN DER REE, R., JAEGER, J.A.G, VAN DER GRIFT, E. & CLEVENGER, A.P. (2011). Effects of roads and traffic on wildlife populations and landscape function: road ecology is moving toward larger scales. Ecology and Science 16:48.
VAN LANGEVELDE, F. & JAARSMA, C.F. (1997).
VAN LANGEVELDE, F. & JAARSMA, C.F. (2009). Modeling the effect of traffic calming on local animal population persistence. Ecology and Society 14(2).
VAN LANGEVELDE, F., VAN DOOREMALEN, C. & JAARSMA, C.F. (2009). Traffic mortality and the role of minor roads (short communication). Journal of Environmental Management 90: 660-667
VITOUSEK, P.M., MOONEY, H.A., LUBCHENCO, J. & MELILLO, J.M. (1997). Human domination of earth’s ecosystems. Science, New Series 277(5535): 494-499.
Page | 80
WAGNER, D.L., NELSON, M.W. & SCHWEITZER, D.F. (2003). Shrubland Lepidoptera of southern New England and southeastern New York: ecology, conservation, and management. Forest Ecology Management 185:95-112.
WILCOVE, D. S. (1987). From fragmentation to extinction. Natural Areas Journal 7:23-29.
WILSON, K.A., MCBRIDE, M.F., BODE, M., & POSSINGHAM, H.P., 2006. Prioritizing global conservation efforts. Nature 440 (16): 337–340.
WILCOX, B.A. & MURPHY, D.D. (1985). Conservation strategy the effects of fragmentation on extinction. American Naturalist 125:879-887.
WOLTZ, H.W., GIBBS, J.B. & P.K. DUCEY, P.K. (2008). Road crossing structures for amphibians and reptiles: informing design through behavioral analysis. Biological Conservation 141: 2745-2750.
ZANTOPP, K. (2000). History of Land Use and Protection in the Albany Pine Bush. M.S. Thesis. University at Albany, State University of New York, Albany, N.Y.
ZIPPERER, W.C., WU, J., POUYAT, R.V. & PICKEET, S.T.A. (2000). The application of ecological principles to urban and urbanizing landscapes. Ecological Applications 10(3)685-688.
ZUBE, E.H., (1987). Perceived land use patterns and landscape value. Landscape Ecology 1(1):37-45.
