Interestingly, railway accidents most often occur in winter, while accidents on roads occur less frequently in winter (Hothorn et al. 2012; Kušta et al. 2014a; Kušta et al. 2017; Pokorný 2006). Therefore railway transport can influence animal behaviour in a different way than road transport. It is necessary to look for the reasons why accidents happen so often in this season. In the Czech Republic it may be due to the attractive food availability, which is in the immediate vicinity of the tracks in the winter (wild raspberry bushes, etc.). This explanation is also supported in other studies (Bowman et al. 2010; Rea et al. 2010; Marchand 1996). In the winter months the cleared track can also act as a migration corridor. On sunny days, it can serve as a resting place for animals (Seiler 2005).

Kušta et al. (2014b) found a connection between the number of accidents and the frequency of passing trains, a pattern also reported in other studies (Danks and Porter 2010; Hussain et al. 2007; Seiler 2004). On the other hand, there was no correlation between accidents and the abundance of wildlife around the monitored tracks. The study also found that there were more accidents on tracks with more meadows and fields around them than on tracks with prevailing forest. However, significant differences in accidents in different types of habitats (meadows, forests and scrubland) were not statistically confirmed. According to the information from employees of Czech Railways, the most frequent collisions with animals occur in open flat sections of the track, especially at dawn, dusk or at night. This is probably caused by grazing ungulates in these locations and their greater physical activity at dusk and dawn (Kušta et al. 2017), which can correlate with temporal patterns of wildlife-vehicle collision (WVC) on roads (Kušta et al. 2017).

#### Good Practice and Recommendation for Future Action

#### Decision Making Process

For individual investment plans, the permissible level of environmental impact is already pre-defined within a strategic level by SEA procedure (Strategic Environmental Assessment) and at a project level by EIA procedure (Environmental Impact Assessment). In the future, the results of the evaluation need to be considered, especially through the implementation of EIA Follow-up (Environmental Impact Assessment post-project analysis). To ensure more accurate predictions and more effective mitigation measures, the existing railways need to compare the predicted impacts with the ones that occurred in reality and define recommendations for future authorization procedures based on these comparisons.

#### Technical Measures

Technical measures against accidents with animals on railway tracks are not very frequent. For example, measures for reducing drive-through speed of trains or warning devices are placed (Becker and Grauvogel 1991; Muzzi and Bisset 1990), noise warning devices are installed (Boscagli 1985; Child 1983), the ground speed of trains is reduced (Becker and Grauvogel 1991; Child 1983), snow along the railway is cleaned up, enabling animals to escape from the corridor when snow is deep (Child 1983; Child et al. 1991), carcasses are removed from around the tracks (Gibeau and Heuer 1996), spilled cereal grains and other food sources are cleaned from around the tracks and occurrence of this spillage is prevented (Gibeau and Heuer 1996; Wells et al. 1999), or fences are built along the tracks (Boscagli 1985).

In the Czech Republic, the above mentioned technical measures are used quite rarely. The most common technical solution is the application of odour repellents near railway tracks. However, their effectiveness is questionable. Their effectiveness depends on many factors. Among them is, for example, seasonal food availability and its nutritional value (Van Beest et al. 2010), weather, frequency of product application and its concentration (Diaz-Varela et al. 2011; Knapp et al. 2004; Wagner and Nolte 2001). The reason for the ineffectiveness of repellents can often be the excessive disturbance of animals (e.g. by hunting), which then changes their behaviour (Benhaiem et al. 2008) making them less responsive to the repellents. The most probable reason for their frequent ineffectiveness is the fact that the environment around tracks is highly food-attractive for the animals and the applied odours are not able to discourage the animals from being near the railway. Other studies (Elmeros et al. 2011; Schlageter and Haag-Wackernagel 2012a, b) came to similar conclusions, i.e. ineffectiveness of odour repellents in places with attractive food for animals. In contrast, in the vicinity of roads, odour repellents appear to be an efficient tool to reduce the number of animals killed in collisions with cars (e.g. Kušta et al. 2015).

#### Management Measures

On the other hand, we recommend paying close attention to management measures, whose implementation is often the cheapest and can be most effective option of solving collisions.

We should study in detail the ecological and behavioural needs of animals that are threatened by railway transport. It is very important to identify critical areas where collisions occur most frequently and establish databases on animal mortality on railways with the information on location, time and external collision factors.

Fencing is an option for sites with high collision rates, and also in the case of main corridors with significantly high capacity, but it requires maintenance and has a major impact on the fragmentation of habitats and populations. For the wider countryside, the most important management measures include the management of wildlife in such numbers that match the capacity of the environment (applies to the species that can be managed by hunting). Animals must not be overpopulated in a given area in any case. Their high numbers do not only cause frequent damage to agricultural land, crops and forests, but also cause significantly frequent WTC as well as WVC.

Furthermore, hunting must not interfere with the appropriate social structure (i.e. age and sex) of the population and a correct sex ratio must be retained. In this context, the heads of the herd and their young need to be protected. This prevents excessive migration of animals due to excessive stress and the need to find new locations.

In the Czech countryside it is common practice to give supplementary feed to game in the winter season. Knowledge of this feeding can be used to reduce migration and therefore even collisions (Kušta et al. 2017). It is important to place feeding devices near animal resting areas so that they do not have to migrate in search of food in winter, or even have to search for it intensively. Feeding devices should never be placed near railways, which would enable animals to concentrate near them.

Also, around railway tracks where the animals occur in higher numbers, very intense hunting should be practiced within the hunting plan in the given territory. On the contrary, hunting should be reduced in areas where there is no danger of WTC or wildlife-vehicle collision (WVC). In game management this corresponds to establishing so-called quiet zones: there is no hunting, peace and quiet is ensured and food is supplied intensively. Suitable conditions for animals should also be created in these locations (e.g. planting appropriate woody plants, planting feeding field, etc.). Animals are then focused into them and protected. They can thus be detained in a certain place, which will prevent their migration in search of food across railway tracks. The results of the study Kušta et al. (2017) show that when animals have suitable resting, cover and feeding conditions, they limit their physical activity to a minimum.

In the vicinity of transport infrastructure (road and railway) there are often hiking trails, country lanes, or the area is used for recreation (walking, dog walking, etc.). Thus, resting animals are often disturbed and forced to cross a road or railway in their escape, which may result in a collision with a passing vehicle or train. Peace and quiet must be guaranteed, especially in winter, which is extremely energy-intensive for animals. For this reason, it is undesirable to let dogs move freely when walking in the countryside in this period, especially around roads and railways; in the Czech Republic there are very often successional areas with sparse vegetation or woody plants growing outside the forest, and the animals rest there (Keken et al. 2016).

A practical tool for reducing collisions with animals also appears to be removing vegetation from the immediate vicinity of the tracks (deciduous trees, herbs, brambles) and trimming browsing trees that are very attractive to animals from the food point of view (Jaren et al. 1991) and also growing unattractive plant species along railway tracks (Jaren et al. 1991; Gundersen and Andreassen 1998; Lavsund and Sandegren 1991). Some studies demonstrated a reduction of animal mortality due to a decrease in food supply along the tracks, for example a 56% reduction in collisions on a railway studied in Norway (Jaren et al. 1991). The measure consisted of the removal of vegetation 20–30 m along the train track. However, Sielecki (2000) states that this method is very costly.

#### Conclusion

Taking into account the worldwide research on this subject, it is obvious that this issue is very topical and requires further thorough investigation. The planned future growth of railway transport associated with an increase in the probability of collisions with animals must be treated as a nationwide issue with the involvement of the largest possible number of affected organizations, including government administration, businesses farming on adjacent land, hunters, conservationists and others.

Although it is very difficult and expensive to prevent animal mortality due to collisions with road and railway transport, it is important to find solutions which will at least minimize these accidents. Above all, we propose: evaluating the risks associated with the environment more efficiently and accurately in the planned projects within the decision-making process; providing feedback to individual licensing procedures; paying close attention to management measures; and focussing on technical measures in the riskiest sections.

Acknowledgements This chapter was supported by the Ministry of Agriculture of the Czech Republic Grant No. QJ1220314. Further, authors would like to thank the Faculty of Environmental Sciences and the Faculty of Forestry and Wood Sciences at the Czech University of Life Sciences Prague for support during our research career.

#### References

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

## Chapter 16 Ecological Roles of Railway Verges in Anthropogenic Landscapes: A Synthesis of Five Case Studies in Northern France

J.-C. Vandevelde and C. Penone

Abstract This chapter presents the results of several studies realised between 2010 and 2014 on the French railway network. We assessed several potential ecological roles for this network on various taxa: (1) habitat, (2) corridor/longitudinal connectivity along railways and (3) barrier/transversal connectivity across railways. Our results show that railway verges, contrary to common belief, can have positive effects in anthropogenic landscapes for several taxa and communities. They can be habitats for semi-natural grassland plants, bats and orthopteran. They provide functional connectivity for some plants, but do not seem to increase it for highly mobile invasive species in urban landscapes. Railways also seem to be weaker barriers than roads for one butterfly species. We conclude by proposing a change in management practices, stressing that extensive management coupled with small-scale revegetation processes, either artificial or natural, may help increase the positive effects of railway verges and counteract the negative large-scale effects of urbanisation.

Keywords Habitat Corridor Barrier Agricultural landscape Urban landscape Bat Orthoptera Plant Butterfly Railway verges management

#### Introduction

Changes in land-use are important drivers of biodiversity loss (MEA 2005). Linear infrastructures such as roads and railways play a particular role in this process by altering, artificializing and fragmenting landscapes (see previous chapters).

J.-C. Vandevelde (&)

C. Penone

© The Author(s) 2017 L. Borda-de-Água et al. (eds.), Railway Ecology, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-57496-7\_16

UMR 7204 (MNHN-CNRS-UPMC), Centre d'Ecologie et de Sciences de la Conservation (CESCO), 43 rue Buffon, 75005 Paris, France e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Institute of Plant Sciences, University of Bern, Altenbergrain 21, 3013 Bern, Switzerland

Nonetheless, linear infrastructure verges can also have positive roles for a large number of taxa (Hodkinson and Thompson 1997; Merriam and Lanoue 1990). They can be substitution habitats for grassland plants and insects (Saarinen et al. 2005; Wehling and Diekmann 2009), hence contribute to the conservation of indigenous flora (O'Farrell and Milton 2006) and fauna (Ries et al. 2001). They can also ensure structural and functional connectivity when they penetrate artificial areas such as dense urban areas or agricultural-intensive landscapes (Tikka et al. 2001).

Among studies examining the effects of linear infrastructure verges, very few focused on railway verges, the majority concerning roadside verges (Forman et al. 2002). Indeed, compared to roadside verges, railway verges occupy smaller surfaces. Nevertheless, railway verges have at least two peculiarities worth considering when compared to roadside verges. First, their potential positive effects on biodiversity may be significant in human-dominated areas such as intensive agricultural or urban landscapes due to their greater width margins and lower traffic intensity. Second, railway lines of many European countries are managed by one unique manager, allowing realistic biodiversity-friendly management (see discussion).

This chapter presents the results of five studies realised between 2009 and 2014 on the French railway network. We assessed three potential ecological roles for this network: (1) habitat, (2) corridor/longitudinal connectivity along the railway and (3) barrier/transversal connectivity across the railway.

#### General Context and Methodology

We conducted five different studies in the Paris region, France (Fig. 16.1). Although densely populated, with 20% of the national population living in just 2% of the nation's land area, and with a spreading urbanisation, the Paris region is still predominantly rural. Intensive farming covers 50% of the regional territory, woods and natural land more than 25%, and urban areas and transport infrastructures cover about 25%.

Fig. 16.1 Location of study sites in France (left panel) and in the Paris region (right panel)

#### Vegetation of railway verges in France

The studies described in this chapter were conducted along railway verges. Railway verges are all the green areas that are beside the railway tracks. The total area occupied by railway verges in France is estimated by the railway owner, the SNCF Réseau company, at 50 000 hectares. The vegetation type on these green spaces is dictated by security reasons. Management is thus necessary but different in different parts of the railway concerned:

– Tracks and lanes: the goal is the absence of vegetation to avoid platform/ infrastructure deterioration. Total weed control is recommended once a year but depends on the age of the infrastructure. For instance, a recent track, better drained, is less sensitive to plant colonization and is usually not treated for 10 year;

The verges can be separated in two main zones:

We examined two types of railways: recently built high-speed railway lines (1994 and 2007) and long-established railway lines (built in the nineteenth century). In the high-speed lines, we studied verges from 10 to 20 m-wide, composed of herbaceous species and shrubs. No vegetation management plan existed for these verges. Clearcutting of trees and mowing were applied on a case-by-case basis when presenting threats for train security, e.g. risk of tree falling on overhead lines. The long-established lines traverse a landscape structured by different degrees of urbanisation, as they cross numerous cities and towns from the centre of Paris towards the limits of the region. The vegetation found along the borders of the train tracks is mainly spontaneous as the verges have not been planted or sown since their construction and is principally interrupted by railway stations and overpasses.

#### Roles of Railway Verges: Habitat, Corridor, Barrier

#### Railways as Habitats

Linear infrastructures can be substitution habitats for various taxa (O'Farrell and Milton 2006; Ries et al. 2001), however, hardly any studies focused properly on railways. We thus decided to examine the role of railway verges as a habitat for two groups: common bats and Tettigoniidae (Orthoptera) (Vandevelde et al. 2014; Penone et al. 2013).

#### Bats Along Railway Verges in an Intensive Agricultural Landscape

Studies have shown that bat activity and species richness decrease when approaching a motorway (Berthinussen and Altringham 2012). Some studies stressed particular negative effects, such as road casualties (Lesinski et al. 2011). Others found that roads formed strong barriers to the movements of bats within the landscape (Bach et al. 2004; Kerth and Melber 2009; Abbott et al. 2012).

Yet, very few studies have focused on the potential positive effects of linear infrastructures such as railway verges on bats. Some bat species fly along such features when commuting from roosts to foraging areas because these linear elements could constitute commuting paths away from predators and wind (Limpens and Kapteyn 1991). In addition, some species forage regularly along linear elements (Verboom and Huitema 1997). Indeed, foraging activity is facilitated close to these features because of greater abundance of some preys (Verboom and Spoelstra 1999). These contrasting behaviours among species may be linked to their specific foraging ecology (Kerth and Melber 2009).

We hypothesized that railway verges impacted negatively some species, particularly gleaner species generally linked with forest habitat (such as species from the Myotis genus). These species could perceive railway verges as an inadequate habitat and in addition could be impacted by the fragmentation effect of these verges. Conversely, aerial hawking species that generally forage in more open habitats, such as species of the genus Pipistrellus, Nyctalus or Eptesicus, could benefit from the edge effect of railway verges, using them as a foraging/commuting habitat (Vandevelde et al. 2014).

To test this hypothesis, we examined the potential use by bats of railway verges crossing woodland patches within an agricultural matrix as foraging/commuting habitats. We tested whether (i) at a large scale (national level), railways lines were globally a preferred foraging/commuting habitat for these different common bats species, and (ii) at a local scale (landscape level), woodland-railway verges had an effect on bat activity compared to other habitat types like woodland-field verges, woodland habitats and field habitats. At local scale, we also tested the influence of landscape composition on bat activity over habitat types (Vandevelde et al. 2014).

We identified ten similar sites via aerial photographs and field visits: each site consisted of a railway portion of 600 m to 2 km long fragmenting a woodland patch within a farmland matrix. We used two distinct sets of data for bat calls. 'Local-scale' data from railway sites were sampled in the summer of 2010 following a similar protocol to the one designed for the French Bat Monitoring Programme (named Vigie-Chiro), from which we used 'large-scale' (national) data collected from 2006 to 2011. For both local- and large-scale data sets, bat calls were detected. Each point was monitored twice: once in the period between June 15 and July 31, during which females give birth and feed their offspring; second, in the period between August 15 and September 31, during which young are flying and individuals are expected to be less dependent on their reproductive roost. Habitat characteristics were analysed in a radius of 100 m around the sampled point, using a detailed habitat classification (Kerbiriou et al. 2010). Species calls were identified through spectrogram analyses.

At large scale, we found that activity of common bats in railway verges was of the same order of magnitude as in other habitats, except for aquatic habitats, which are known as key habitats for numerous European bat species (Russo and Jones 2003; Nicholls and Racey 2006). Furthermore, we found that activity was even greater in railway verges than in some other habitats for two aerial species: N. leislerii and P. pipistrellus. For P. pipistrellus, a very generalist species (Russ and Montgomery 2002), activity in railway verges was greater than in seven other habitats. Overall, bat activity among railway verges was not inferior to the activity in highly modified habitats such as continuous artificial surfaces, discontinuous artificial surfaces and arable land (confirmed for 4 of the 5 taxa studied).

At local scale, we found a negative effect of railway areas on the Myotis spp. for the two sample periods and a positive effect on Nyctalus spp. for the post-reproductive period. When focusing the analysis on the site type, we detected few obvious significant differences in bat activity between the verges of railways and the three other site types (field verges, plain field and plain wood). The significant difference for Nyctalus spp. during the post-reproductive period (lower activity in woods than on railway verges) may seem contradictory with the positive effect of surrounding areas of wood for these species at the same period. The foraging ecology of these aerial hawking bats and their habitat requirements could explain these results: Nyctalus spp. are species that forage mainly along edges, thus more in forest verges than in the heart of forests, but otherwise inhabit the interior of the forests, thus the amount of woodland habitat at the landscape level would have also an overall positive effect.

It must be noted that except for the Myotis spp. group in the reproductive period, we detected no difference between the verges of railways and those of fields. This result seems to indicate a similar functioning role for railway verges on bats as that of other linear verges, particularly on common aerial hawking bats (Verboom and Huitema 1997).

Our results suggest that the presence of railway verges does not influence significantly the foraging/commuting activity of common bats, except for species like those fromtheMyotisgroup, a groupincludingmostly gleaner species,less generalist species (Dietz et al. 2007) and some threatened species (Temple and Terry 2009).

In several cases (for P. pipistrellus at global scale and for Nyctalus spp. at local scale), railway verges even seem to provide a significant habitat in intensive agricultural landscapes where semi-natural elements, in particular linear elements like hedgerows, tend to disappear. Railways, along with other artificial linear infrastructures, may thus contribute to maintaining common bat populations in such landscapes.

#### Orthoptera Along Railway Verges in an Urban Landscape

Railway verges could potentially provide a habitat for Orthoptera in an urban landscape because the majority of these insects in Europe are grassland species and some occur at roadsides (Theuerkauf and Rouys 2006). We thus studied Tettigonidae along railway verges in urban landscapes using an original method. Because Orthoptera produce mating calls that are species-specific, it is possible to collect large standardised datasets using sound recording devices. To sample a large number of landscapes, we thus recorded Orthoptera sounds from running trains along five long-established railway lines in the Paris region (Penone et al. 2013). We did not sample the entire community of singing Orthoptera but rather focused on insects that produced powerful stridulations, which were not masked by the noise produced by trains.

We detected 2003 individuals of 10 species of bush-crickets from the Tettigoniidae family along 209 km of railway verges (Penone et al. 2013). This represented 59% of Tettigoniidae species known to exist in the region (Voisin 2003) and included specialist species (e.g. Conocephalus fuscus). These results suggest that railway verges play a habitat role for these arthropods even for specialist species that are more heavily affected by anthropogenic changes. This was further strengthened by the fact that Orthoptera abundance was significantly lower when the trains crossed areas with paved (non vegetated) railway verges (Penone et al. 2013). We also detected a significant negative effect of urbanisation on species richness, abundance and community specialization, over a broad set of spatial scales (Penone et al. 2013). This effect was partly mitigated when railway verges were vegetated, suggesting that these zones are not only habitats but could even act as refugia for Orthoptera in an urban landscape. Therefore, if extensively managed (Marini et al. 2008), railway verges could play a role in the conservation of biodiversity in urban areas. More generally, we believe that acoustic surveys are a simple and cost-effective method, allowing long-term and large-scale surveys that can help advance railway ecology studies.

#### Railways as Corridors in an Urban Landscape (Longitudinal Connectivity)

Habitat fragmentation is a major perturbation that affects biodiversity at local, regional and global scales (Fahrig 2003; Krauss et al. 2010). Fragmentation has effects not only at the population level but also on taxonomic and functional composition of communities and on species interactions (Fahrig 2003; Fischer and Lindenmayer 2007; Krauss et al. 2010). Fragmented landscapes, including urban ones, are characterised by small habitat patches isolated by a matrix that filters species according to their mobility and dispersal abilities (Ewers and Didham 2006; Ricketts 2001). In this context, functional connectivity is crucial to maintain populations, communities and potentially, ecosystem services (Taylor et al. 1993). As shown before in this book, railways are mainly considered to be barriers for wildlife or corridors for invasive species. However, railways are linear and almost continuous patches of vegetation that penetrate into dense urban areas, ensuring a structural connectivity. Despite their potential as corridors, railway verges functional connectivity has been poorly studied (but see Tikka et al. 2001), and most studies have focussed on invasive species (Hansen and Clevenger 2005).

As mentioned previously, semi-natural grasslands are one of the vegetation types in railway verges, especially in urban contexts, where the space is precious and the verges have a reduced width. In general, semi-natural grasslands are important habitats for conservation because they support plants, invertebrates and vertebrates, including threatened ones, and provide ecosystem services (Ridding et al. 2015). However, surfaces are decreasing all around Europe, therefore it is crucial to conserve them and ensure connectivity between the patches to enhance gene and species flows. In our study (Penone et al. 2012), we examined whether these areas could provide functional connectivity for semi-natural grassland plants in urban landscapes.

#### Using Structural Breaks to Detect Functional Connectivity Along Railways

If linear structures provide functional connectivity an interruption of structure should result in an interruption of the function. The structural connectivity of railway verges is regularly interrupted by spatial breaks, such as overpasses and stations. We hypothesised that if railway verges favour connectivity, spatially connected communities within railway verges should be more similar than disconnected communities (H1). We tested this assumption by comparing floristic dissimilarities between sites located along railway verges that were either connected or separated by a railway break (Penone et al. 2012). In order to take into account differences among plant species, we considered species traits linked to dispersal abilities. These analyses were conducted on 71 plots located on two different railway lines going from Paris to the south of the Paris region (Fig. 16.1).

We found a significant effect of railway breaks on most species and dispersal traits consistent to our hypothesis (H1): connected communities were more similar than disconnected ones, suggesting a potential corridor role of railway verges (Penone et al. 2012). However, this effect was influenced by species mobility (summarized in Fig. 16.2). Highly mobile species (e.g. wind pollinated) were not affected by railway breaks, likely because they can disperse over long distances in any direction. Similarly, we did not find a significant effect of railway breaks on poorly mobile species (e.g. gravity-dispersed seeds). Their dispersal is more related to very local factors (e.g. slope) and the effect of breaks might be only visible over multiple generations. The most interesting result was found for moderately mobile species (e.g. wind-dispersed seeds), for which we found a significant effect of railway breaks. For these species railways seemed to provide functional

Fig. 16.2 Functional connectivity of railway verges for semi-natural plant species. Green patches represent railway verges. Arrows represent propagules movement. Circles with symbols represent plant communities with highly (black), moderately (dark grey) and poorly (light grey) mobile species

connectivity, at least between two railway breaks, which can represent large distances (e.g. more than 5 km in our study) (Penone et al. 2012).

Interestingly, we detected an effect of overpasses but not of stations on community dissimilarities (Penone et al. 2012 and Fig. 16.2). The slipstream of trains, which possibly carry wind-dispersed seeds (as shown for cars, Von der Lippe and Kowarik 2007), can be interrupted by air turbulence or crosswind when the trains traverse overpasses (Ernst 1998). Since those have very narrow paved verges, the seeds are more likely to be lost. The airflow may also be interrupted when trains slow down or stop at stations. But at stations, seeds may then be picked up again by air turbulence or wind. More generally, using structural connectivity to detect functional connectivity allows assessing corridor efficiency for several species groups. The precision is lower compared to genetic methods, which are the best suited methods for this purpose, but our methods are cost and time effective. Therefore, we believe that is an interesting and valuable cost-effective approach that can be widely applied to railway research to assess corridor efficiency in the future.

#### Using Urbanisation Effects to Detect Functional Connectivity Along Railways

Plant community composition is the result of stochastic effects as well as different biotic and abiotic processes, or filters, that select species with suitable functional traits from a species pool through dispersal and survival (Roy and de Blois 2006; Weiher and Keddy 1999; Williams et al. 2009). The effects of these processes are particularly strong in urban landscapes (Stenhouse 2004). The abiotic constraints in cities include higher temperatures and nitrogen deposition (McDonnell et al. 1997; Pellissier et al. 2008). Fragmentation and isolation in urban landscapes also have an effect on communities through habitat size reduction and dispersal limitation. All these effects should be reflected in communities' trait composition (Weiher and Keddy 1999). While the first abiotic effects (temperature, nitrogen), should not be influenced by connectivity between patches within urban landscapes, the seconds (fragmentation effects) should be attenuated if communities are connected. We used this assumption as a supplementary and indirect approach to assess functional connectivity in railway verges. We hypothesised that if railway verges favour connectivity this should attenuate the effect of fragmentation on plant communities (H2). We thus examined the effects of urbanisation on species richness, diversity and trait composition in railway verges and compared our results with the patterns described in literature. This study was conducted using the same data as the previous analysis, i.e. 71 plots on two lines.

We did not detect urbanisation effects on plant communities due to fragmentation (Penone et al. 2012). Indeed, we did not find significant relationships between urban cover and plant richness, diversity or dispersal traits, while most studies detected positive or negative effects, depending on urbanisation intensity (McKinney 2008). In contrast we found an effect of abiotic conditions linked to the urban landscape, which were consistent with the literature. For instance, we detected a positive effect of urbanisation on the abundance of species adapted to higher temperatures and nitrogen levels (Penone et al. 2012). These results matched our hypothesis (H2) and thus further suggested that railway verges provide functional connectivity in urban landscapes for semi-natural grassland species.

#### What About Exotic and Invasive Species?

Our study showed that railway verges can play a positive role for semi-natural grassland plants in urban landscapes by connecting communities and potentially improving gene and species flow between communities (Penone et al. 2012). However, as showed in Chap. 5, railway verges can also be corridors for invasive species. In order to explore this topic in an urban context, we performed the same analyses described above (railway breaks and urbanisation effects) separately for exotic and invasive species (Penone et al. 2012). We also focussed on one particular invasive species, Senecio inaequidens, which is one of Europe's fastest plant invaders and is suspected to spread along railways (Lachmuth et al. 2010).

We detected a significant effect of railway breaks on community similarity in terms of exotic but not invasive species (the latter being a subset of the exotic). As for native plants, this effect was only observed for overpasses and not railway stations (Penone et al. 2012). In addition, we measured the similarity between plots in the two different railway lines, accounting for urbanisation effects. We also found a difference between the two lines for exotic but not for invasive species (Penone et al. 2012). According to our hypothesis (H1: if railways verges provide functional connectivity, structurally connected communities should be more similar than disconnected ones) this result suggests that railway verges might play a connectivity role for exotic but not for invasive species in urban landscapes.

We also analysed the effects of urbanisation on the frequency of exotic and invasive plants to test our hypothesis H2 (urbanisation effects should be attenuated if communities are connected). We found the well-known positive urbanisation effect on exotic and invasive species, i.e., increased species frequency in highly urbanised areas (Penone et al. 2012). This result possibly suggests that the urbanisation effect was not attenuated by railways connectivity and thus railways did not provide additional functional connectivity for exotic and invasive species in urban landscapes.

To further confirm these results we performed a genetic analysis on S. inaequidens in the same region (Blanchet et al. 2014). This perennial herb presents a self-incompatible reproductive system and is pollinated by insects; the effective fruit production is high, with 75% viable achenes, which are well dispersed by wind and animals (Lopez-Garcia and Maillet 2005). This species was introduced in the south of France (Mazamet) in 1936 and then observed in Gare d'Austerlitz (a Parisian railway station) in 1990 (Henry and Maurin 1999). Consequently, we hypothesised that if railway verges play a corridor role for S. inaequidens, genetic diversity of this species should be structured along railways. We collected 450 individuals from 15 populations regularly on 3 different railway lines connecting the centre of Paris to its periphery. Given that the species was first seen in Parisian railway stations and assuming that railways act as corridors for S. inaequidens in the Parisian region, we expected a significant genetic differentiation among the main departure stations within Paris centre and among the three railway lines. We also expected significant isolation by distance (i.e., positive correlation between genetic distance and geographical distance) if the main central stations act as sources for other populations in the surroundings.

Our results did not confirm these scenarios: despite a clear differentiation among the three departure stations of the centre of Paris and a genetic cline along one of the lines, the differentiation among lines was low. Similarly, we did not detect significant isolation by distance among populations within lines, supporting the absence of population structure along railways (Blanchet et al. 2014). One explanation could lie in multiple sources of introduction of S. inaequidens from other European regions (e.g. Belgium or Germany). This species has high dispersal ability and is also present in other urban habitats (e.g. wastelands), which could also contribute to the high gene flow detected. In sum, the impact of railways as corridors on the genetic structure of S. inaequidens was not confirmed in our study, especially outside the centre of Paris where the deep interconnection with other corridors such as motorways in the suburban matrix may have a significant impact by reducing genetic differentiation among railway lines.

All the results that we put together converge and tend to suggest that in a highly urbanized and anthropogenic region, railway verges provide functional connectivity for exotic species but not for invasive species. This is inconsistent with many other studies on other transport networks (roadsides, highways), and should then been taken with care (but see Kalwij et al. 2008 for a similar result). Although railway verges did not appear as clear corridors for invasive species, trains might constitute an efficient transportation vector for seeds and contribute to their spread outside cities. Furthermore, railway verges are habitats and thus potential sources for these species for other habitats. The positive urbanisation effect that we found on these species, suggests that their presence is more linked to the urban context (sources, abiotic conditions) than railways connectivity. More studies are needed to assess railways connectivity in other landscapes and for a greater number of species.

#### Railways as Barriers in an Agricultural Landscape (Transversal Connectivity)

Linear infrastructures such as railways can be barriers to the movements of individuals and, hence, may have strong impacts on populations (see Chap. 4). We tested if this effect existed or if there was transversal connectivity between the two sides of a high-speed railway for the common butterfly Pyronia tithonus (Vandevelde et al. 2012). We hypothesised that P. tithonus individuals, if captured on the railway verge on one side of the railway and translocated to the other side in a similar habitat, will not be able to return to their original site because of the alleged barrier effect of the railroad. This hypothesis is based on empirical evidence that P. tithonus shows homing behaviour when displaced: when given a choice between a familiar and an unfamiliar habitat, these butterflies prefer to return to their familiar habitat (Conradt et al. 2001).

Pyronia tithonus is a European Satyrinae (Nymphalidae) occurring in several grassland habitats, usually in association with scrub or hedges. Mean life-span of adults ranges from 3.5 to 8 days (Brakefield 1987). P. tithonus produces only one generation per year and uses several grasses as host plants (Merckx and Van Dyck 2002).

We captured, marked and displaced 152 individuals in two different locations. One-third of the butterflies were released at a capture plot, one-third on the other side of the railway (in a similar habitat) and one-third on the same side but 100 m away from the capture plot. Many (31%) butterflies crossed the railway, showing homing behaviour. There were even a slightly greater number of exchanges between the two release plots across the railway (12) than between the two release plots along the railway (8); the opposite of what we would expect if railways acted as a barrier to butterfly movements.

Even if based on a small sample, our results tend to show that contrary to wide busy roads (Munguira and Thomas 1992), high-speed railways, which are narrower and have infrequent traffic, are not barriers to Gatekeeper movements. These results also suggest that in a predominantly agricultural-intensive context, railways with large grassy verges could be substitution habitats for grassland butterflies, with no effect of the 20-m-wide-ballast-tracks. Furthermore, it suggests that passing trains do not have an impact on P. tithonus movements. However, the mortality risk from train traffic still has to be properly assessed, as well as the possible effects of the railway structure (tracks on cuttings vs. those on embankments; wide vs. narrow verges) on movements of individuals.

#### Conclusion

In a context of rapid biodiversity decline, our results (see synthesis Table 16.1) suggest that railway verges should be considered by managers and engineers not only as a side aspect of the railroad, but also as elements having a potential role in maintaining common biodiversity, especially in human-dominated landscapes such as urban areas or agricultural systems. We found that railway verges could play habitat and corridor roles and that railways were not barriers for butterfly species. The total length of the railway network worldwide is more than one million kilometres (CIA 2008), and its verges represent important green areas (e.g. nearly 0.1% of the French surface). Therefore, the latter could represent an interesting topic for biodiversity conservation in human-dominated landscapes, as already suggested (Jarošík et al. 2011; Le Viol et al. 2008). More precisely, railway verges may contribute, along with private gardens and green spaces (Vergnes et al. 2012), to improve biodiversity in urban environments and could be potentially included in urban green network planning. Moreover, railway verges plants are mainly herbs and grasses that can be of interest for semi-natural grassland conservation, as already suggested for road verges (Cousins and Lindborg 2008).

In order to contribute to the maintenance of biodiversity, the management of these verges is thus crucial, as shown by previous studies (e.g. Noordijk et al. 2010). The following management rules should be considered: (1) during the construction phase, the revegetation process should try to maximise plant diversity to increase interactions with higher trophic levels as well as ecosystem functioning, (2) the relationship between the network of these linear features and the overall landscape connectivity should be considered (Karim and Mallik 2008; Boughey et al. 2011), (3) finally, during the exploitation phase of the railroad, management decisions could take biodiversity into account through a move from clearcutting to more extensive management (e.g. selected cutting and late-mowing), enabling the maintenance of some linear structures and allowing the reproduction of several plant and insect species.

Table 16.1 The three roles of railway verges studied on selected taxa

nt not tested

Overall, we suggest that extensive management coupled with small-scale revegetation processes, either artificial or natural, may help counteract the negative large-scale effects of urbanisation and of the homogenisation of agricultural landscapes.

Acknowledgements We deeply thank the editors for inviting us to participate to this stimulating book on railway ecology. We would also like to thank in particular L. Borda de Água as well as I. Takehito for their constructive and helpful comments on the submitted version of this chapter.

#### References

From naturalist inventories to urban ecology] (pp. 333–355). Paris: Publications scientifiques du Muséum.

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

## Chapter 17 Wildlife Deterrent Methods for Railways—An Experimental Study

Andreas Seiler and Mattias Olsson

Abstract Since reliable accident statistics and consequent costs have become available, train collisions with wildlife, especially ungulates, have received increasing attention in Sweden. In contrast to collisions on roads, accidents involving wildlife on railways do not entail human injury or death, but can cause substantial train damage and lead to significant delays in railway traffic. Wildlife-train collisions (WTC) are rising in numbers and railways appear as a greater source of ungulate mortality per kilometer than roads. Nevertheless, railways are largely unprotected against wildlife collisions, and mitigation measures that have hitherto been applied to roads are either infeasible or economically unviable for railways. The Swedish Transport Administration is therefore seeking innovative and cost-effective measures for preventing collisions with larger wild animals. In this chapter, we present research on WTC in Sweden that has been used to define the baseline and set up criteria for a new mitigation project. This project aims to develop warning or deterring signals that encourage animals to leave the railway shortly before trains arrive. This will be carried out at several experimental crosswalks for animals along fenced railways where the effect of different signals on animal behaviour can be evaluated. If effective, these deterrent systems could replace fencing and/or crossing structures, and reduce mortality and barrier effects on wildlife. The project was begun in 2015 and will continue for at least 4 years.

Keywords Accident prevention Animal-deterrent Crosswalk Deer-train accidents Exclusion fences Hotspots Wildlife-train collisions Wildlife-warning

A. Seiler (&)

Department of Ecology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, SLU, Riddarhyttan, Sweden e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
M. Olsson EnviroPlanning AB, Gothenburg, Sweden e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
© The Author(s) 2017 L. Borda-de-Água et al. (eds.), Railway Ecology, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-57496-7\_17

#### Introduction

Wildlife-train collisions (WTC) on Swedish railways have steadily increased over the past 15 years (Fig. 17.1), totalling about 5,000 reported incidents with moose (Alces alces), roe deer (Capreolus capreolus), reindeer (Rangifer tarandus), and other ungulates (fallow deer, red deer, wild boar) every year (Seiler et al. 2011; Olsson and Seiler 2015). The number of unreported WTCs, as well as the number of collisions with smaller mammals and birds, is unknown. WTCs receive increasing public media attention and their importance is also acknowledged by train operators and the Swedish Transport Administration (Olsson and Seiler 2015). WTC can cause significant disruptions and delays to train traffic; produce considerable repair costs for material damages; and entail further costs related to the retrieval and handling of animal carcasses, the loss of other economic values of

Fig. 17.1 Trends in moose and roe deer reportedly killed on roads, on railways and through hunting. Traffic accounts for about 10–15% of all human-caused mortality, and the proportion is increasing. (updated from Seiler et al. 2011)

wildlife, and the administration of accidents (Child and Stuart 1987; Jaren et al. 1991; Gundersen and Andreassen 1998).

However, since WTCs do not cause human injury or death, and hence are not considered a traffic safety problem, the Swedish railway network is still largely unprotected against collisions with wildlife. Except for a few railway sections in the northern region, where accidents with semi-domestic reindeer lead to expensive reimbursements, fencing has long been regarded as economically unviable for railways, and alternative measures have not been seriously tested. This attitude, however, is changing as train operators upgrade their train systems to modern light-weight multiple-unit trains. These trains are less robust than traditional single train engines and require more expensive repairs after a WTC, sometimes leading to significant delays in railway traffic. The overall socio-economic costs of WTCs in Sweden have recently been estimated at 100,000,000–150,000,000 million Euros per year (Seiler et al. 2014). This is similar to the costs estimated for wildlifevehicle collisions on roads (250,000,000 Euros per year) (Seiler and Olsson 2015), despite railways comprising less than 2% of the national road network. Thus, the number of collisions with larger wildlife, especially ungulates, per kilometer, is greater on railways than public roads.

Preliminary analyses of the Swedish railway network suggest that there are at least 10 railway sections with very high WTC frequencies where fencing would be economically viable today. On most railway sections, however, fencing still may not be cost-effective. Alternative methods, such as wildlife deterrents or warning systems, need to be developed to keep animals off railways, at least when trains approach. Initial attempts with such wildlife warning systems in other studies have produced promising results (Larsson-Kråik 2005; Werka and Wasilewski 2009; Babińska-Werka et al. 2015; Shimura et al. 2015).

Therefore, the Swedish Transport Administration, in cooperation with Swedish Railways, Enviroplanning AB, and the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, initiated a project in 2015 to develop and test methods for deterring wildlife from railways when trains approach. In this chapter, we describe the research that provided the baseline for this unique project and describe its specific settings and objectives.

#### Background

Wildlife-train collisions (WTC) on Swedish railways were not scientifically studied before 2011 (Seiler et al. 2011) because empirical data was not accessible, and authorities did not perceive WTC as a problem and thus did not finance research. Collisions with semi-domestic reindeer were an exception, probably because rail authorities had to reimburse reindeer owners and therefore maintain detailed statistics (Åhrén and Larsson 1999, 2001). WTCs are reported by train drivers via telephone to a central register. Based on these reports, railway patrols and specially trained hunters visit the accident site to remove the carcasses or take care of the wounded animals. We compiled these reports and analyzed spatial and temporal patterns in the distribution of WTCs. We also surveyed train drivers regarding their experiences with wildlife on railways and wildlife-train collisions. These studies provided the framework for the preparation of the current mitigation project, whose main findings are summarized below. The major objectives were to evaluate the magnitude of the problem, obtain input on potential mitigation measures, analyze spatial and temporal patterns, and identify the hotspots where mitigation might be most urgently required.

#### Train Driver Survey

In 2010, we conducted a survey with train drivers to map their experiences with WTCs (Seiler et al. 2011). Drivers were asked about how often they observed animals on or near the railway, how often they experienced collisions with ungulates, and how animals typically responded to the oncoming train. Train drivers were also asked for their opinions and ideas on how to reduce WTCs. About 17% of the 1,023 participants took an active part in the survey, and over 65% of the respondents replied that they encountered deer several times a week. Most respondents (91%) had experienced collisions with roe deer (49.3%), moose (23.5%), reindeer (19.4%), and other larger wildlife (7.8%) during the previous year. This matches the overall accident statistics, in which these three species make up over 90% of all reported cases (Fig. 17.2). Collisions with wild boars (Sus scrofa), fallow deer (Dama dama) or red deer (Cervus elaphus) are rare, probably because these species are more restricted in their geographic distributions.

Train drivers perceived poor visibility, thick vegetation, poor light conditions, and deep snow as the main causes for WTCs. These factors may cause the animals to detect approaching trains very late or be unable to escape in time. However, train

Fig. 17.2 Reported wildlife-train collisions in Sweden during 2001–2010 Source Seiler et al. 2011)

drivers also reported that many animals in the vicinity of the railway rarely seemed to react to passing trains. Flight behaviour was not often observed, but if flight was initiated by the train or by warning signals (horn), the animals sometimes fled ahead of the train and along the rail (see also Rea et al. 2010; Child 1983). Animals sometimes even walked up on to the railway track as the train approached, presumably to gain speed during flight (Child 1983).

Most train drivers (90%) were concerned about damage to the train, traffic delays, and unnecessary suffering and non-fatal injuries to the animals. Many drivers considered WTC to be a severe working environment issue because of the psychological stress they cause. Since train drivers are not able to slow down or stop the train to avoid a collision, their only options are to use the horn or flash the headlights in order to alert animals. However, most drivers disagreed about whether these measures are effective.

#### Collision Statistics

About 2,500–3,000 collision reports were issued every year from 2001–2010, including, on average, 1,070 moose, 1,336 roe deer and 994 other large mammals killed or injured annually (since accidents may involve more than one individual; Fig. 17.1). The number of unreported cases and undetected incidents is not known, but is assumed to be large and more pronounced in the smaller and lighter species. Since 2001, accident reports on roe deer and moose have increased by about 2.5% per year, despite decreasing hunting statistics that suggest smaller populations. The trend in WTC reflects trends in wildlife-accident numbers on roads (Seiler 2011). This follows both a similar diurnal pattern to road accidents with most collisions occurring during dusk and dawn, and a similar seasonal pattern with most accidents reported during autumn and winter (Neumann et al. 2012; Borda-de-Água et al. 2014; Rolandsen 2015). Likewise, as on roads (Seiler and Helldin 2006; Jacobson et al. 2016), WTCs were more frequent on railways with intermediate traffic volumes (50–150 trains per day) and less frequent on both calmer and busier tracks.

Overall, wildlife collisions on railways and roads seem to share many characteristics and patterns. However, collisions with moose appeared to be twice as frequent per kilometer of railway (and with roe deer slightly more frequent) than on public roads, suggesting that railways may be more dangerous than roads on average. We assume that this may be related to the relatively long intervals between trains; animals may be deterred less often by railway traffic and use railway tracks more readily than roads, because trains pass by less often.

In Sweden, WTCs are reported by train drivers not as an actual GPS position, but as incidents occurring between two consecutive nodes in the railway network. Thus, WTCs contain no point statistics, but rather frequencies related to a given section of railway. These sections average 8 km, but range from a few hundred meters to 53 km. A total of 1,377 sections longer than 1 km were included in the study. On average, during 2001–2011, annual reports yielded 0.79 moose and 1.09

Fig. 17.3 Annual frequencies of reported and positioned train collisions with moose and roe deer per km of railway in Sweden during 2001–2009. (from Seiler et al. 2011)

roe deer incidents per 10 km railway per year. On some sections, however, densities would exceed one accident per km per year (Fig. 17.3).

## WTC Hotspots

We identified special aggregations of WTCs or "hotspots" as railway sections with collision frequencies above 2.38 collisions with moose and 3.30 collisions with roe deer per 10 km per year, which corresponded to the top 5% at the national level. We then ranked hotspots according to their stability over time, with high-ranked sections comprising those that were among the top 50 sections in more than four of seven overlapping 5-year intervals during 2001–2011. For comparison, we selected "coldspots" as sections for which no WTC had been reported during the study period. Logistic regression analyses successfully distinguished between "hotspots" and "coldspots" based on the composition of the surrounding landscape, availability of suitable forage, and preferred habitat, and the presence of linear structures, such as minor roads and water courses that would lead animals toward the railway or encourage them to cross (Seiler et al. 2011).

From the top 50 hotspots, we then selected those that contained more than one ungulate species besides moose, had high traffic volumes and were used by SJ passenger trains, and had been subject to vegetation clearance (tree felling) within a 30-m wide corridor alongside the railway. In addition, the railway sections had to run primarily through forest-dominated landscapes and not through built-up areas. With these criteria, we eventually selected three railway sections for the experimental mitigation study (Olsson and Seiler 2015) (see below).

#### Wildlife-Train Encounters

In cooperation with Swedish Railways, we initiated a new project in 2015 to study the behaviour of animals when they encountered an approaching train. This was carried out using video recordings made by train drivers on a commercial dashcam (DOD-LW730). The dashcam records continuous video in 1–5 min clips, but overrides old recordings when memory capacity is full. If the camera alarm is set off, however, a recording in progress is protected and can be extracted for later analysis (Fig. 17.4). The advantage of this approach is that the alarm does not need to be set immediately, but can be made after the incident in question occurred. In this project, 15 train drivers volunteered to use a dashcam during their daily work routines. They were instructed to set off an alarm whenever they saw an animal on or near the railway. While this project is still ongoing (as of October 2016), preliminary findings from the first 178 recordings confirm the previous driver survey results: many ungulates utilize rail corridors for browsing or transport (see also Jaren et al. 1991). Most individuals were attentive to traffic, but in about 15% of the documented encounters, animals did not respond to the approaching train. The overall kill rate was 5% in both moose and roe deer. Mean flight initiation distances were short in both species (112 and 125 m, respectively), leaving the animals less than 2 s to respond correctly and leave the track when a modern passenger train approached at about 200 km/h. Flight initiation distances varied slightly, depending on whether the animals were on the track or beside the track, but due to the limited number of observations, these differences are not yet significant. They suggest, however, that animals may less easily detect approaching trains when on the railway tracks or be unable to distinguish risks, depending on how close they are to the railway. We could not detect any effect of the horn or the headlights used by the driver to warn animals, but as the study continues, we hope to find out whether acoustic or optic signals help to increase flight distances and reduce the risk for collisions.

Fig. 17.4 Train driver's view of a fleeing moose shortly before collision (above). The picture was taken with a video dashcam mounted inside the driver's cabin. The damaged front of the X2000 train engine after the moose collision (below) (photos Jimmy Nilsson, Swedish Railways)

#### Ultimate and Proximate Causes of WTCs

Based on these previous studies, we can identify various factors that influence collision risk.

Clearly, WTCs are more frequent in areas with higher wildlife abundances (see also Gundersen and Andreassen 1998; Hedlund et al. 2004; Seiler 2005), or where animals are more likely to cross railways. This relates to landscape composition, food availability, landscape structure, and other regional and local factors typically beyond the responsibility of the train operator or the railway manager (Seiler et al. 2011; Rolandsen 2015). Other factors relate to the attractiveness and accessibility of the railway, including vegetation management alongside railways (Jaren et al. 1991; Rolandsen 2015), the presence of gullies and fences, or by train density (Righetti and Malli 2004; Kusta et al. 2011).

The proximate cause of WTCs, however, must be attributed to the behaviour of the animal itself. In contrast to roads, where motorists carry the main responsibility for avoiding collisions with wildlife (Seiler and Helldin 2006; Litvaitis and Tash 2008), trains are unable to stop or change paths. Therefore, it is only the animal that can avert a collision, but this depends on its chance of detecting an oncoming train in time, its cognitive abilities, and its anti-predator or flight behaviour. As we have seen on video recordings, flight initiation distances were short, leaving little time for the animals to respond appropriately, especially to rapidly moving and silent modern passenger trains (Gundersen and Andreassen 1998; Rea et al. 2010). Therefore, a possible mitigation is to increase the available response time by alerting animals earlier, before the train is too close to be avoided.

#### Mitigation Project

### Objectives

In 2015, the Swedish Transport Administration, in cooperation with Swedish Railways, Enviroplanning AB, and the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, initiated a project to develop novel approaches and test available systems for alerting and deterring wildlife from railways shortly before trains arrive (Olsson and Seiler 2015). The goal is to prevent WTCs while still allowing animals to cross the railway when no trains are approaching.

Earlier studies from Poland (Werka and Wasilewski 2009; Babińska-Werka et al. 2015) have been promising, but further technical and methodological development is needed to develop a cost-effective and robust alternative to fences and crossing structures.

## Approach

To develop and test wildlife warning systems, we selected three railway sections (8, 11 and 23 km in length) with extreme WTC frequencies ("hotspots") and two other sections for practical reasons. All five sections will be fenced, using 2 m high standard exclusion fences of a type also used along roads. These fences will be perforated by 20–24 experimental crosswalks, i.e., gaps in the fence of about 50 m that are monitored by video and thermal cameras and secured by the alerting or deterring systems (Fig. 17.5). The fences thus serve two purposes: they reduce WTC on most of the railway section by an estimated 80% in moose and 60% in roe deer (Swedish-Transport-Administration 2014), and they lead animals toward the openings at the crosswalks.

These experimental crosswalks serve as test locations where the effect of various stimuli can be studied (Fig. 17.5). They thus provide independent replicates and controls in a BACI setup (BACI = Before, After, Control, Impact). The crosswalks will be placed at feasible locations where animals are known to cross the railway (detected by snow tracking) and are dispersed approximately 2 km apart, providing an estimated sufficient level of permeability to moose and roe deer (Seiler et al. 2015). The crosswalks will be constructed so that terrain conditions, vegetation and ground substrate naturally and effectively lead animals toward the fence gap and

Fig. 17.5 Conceptual sketch of an experimental crosswalk: standard exclusion fences lead animals towards an opening about 50 m wide where movement detectors, thermal cameras, and video cameras monitor the presence and behaviour of animals and trigger the warning system when trains approach. Crushed stone or cattle guards will discourage ungulates from entering the fenced area. Human access to the crosswalk is prohibited (sketch Lars Jäderberg)

over the railway. Cattle guards or large crushed stones alongside the crossings will discourage animals from entering the fenced railroad track. Escape ramps or one-way gates will be installed to allow animals to exit if they get trapped inside the fence nevertheless.

Providing the same animal detection and monitoring and surveillance systems, each experimental crosswalk will operate as an independent unit that will be triggered by the same signal from a standard train sensor located several kilometers earlier along the railway. One train sensor will serve several crosswalks, and the delay between the train passing the sensor and the alarm at each crosswalk will be adjusted to the speed of the train and the distance between the crosswalk and the sensor. Warnings will only be displayed when animals are detected near the crosswalk and a train has passed the sensor, i.e., when the risk of a collision is imminent. This basic setup will be identical at all crosswalks and guarantee a standardized basis for the evaluation and comparison of different warning methods.

We budgeted 150,000–270,000 Euros per experimental crosswalk that includes surveillance equipment and warning systems. If such systems were installed on a regular basis, the costs would be substantially lower. The overall budget for the 20– 24 crosswalks along 50 km of fenced railways was 5.5 million Euros in total (minimum cost estimate 4,500,000 million Euros and maximum estimate 7,800,000 million Euros) (Olsson and Seiler 2015). Most of the budget is reserved for fences (about 50,000 Euros per km), while research money totalled about 5,500,000 Euros over 4 years. However, if one assumes that over the next 20 years, WTC levels and the average costs for repairs, delays, and reimbursements are similar to those of the last 10 years, and at least 80% of the WTCS could be prevented by fences and/or crosswalks, then the socio-economic costs that could be saved by mitigating the selected hotspots alone would exceed 4,600,000 Euros. However, it is likely that the overall costs for the installation of the experimental study will be outbalanced by the savings, because the benefits are easily underestimated (Olsson and Seiler 2015; Seiler et al. 2016).

#### The Deterrent System

Traditional attempts to scare animals away from fields, roads, and airports by means of ultrasonic whistles, explosionss or shooting guns have mostly been ineffective (Koehler et al. 1990; Romin and Dalton 1992; Curtis et al. 1997; Belant et al. 1998; Ujvari et al. 2004). The underlying problem is that when the warning signal is not followed by a real threat and is merely a bluff without consequence, animals will soon habituate and learn to ignore the signal (Bomford and O'Brien 1990). In our approach, we rely on the passing train to reinforce the signal. In most cases, as we have seen in our video recordings, the train will be frightening enough when it is nearby. Habituation should therefore not be a problem; instead, learning should instead lead to a conditioning, provided the animals are able to relate the signal to the approaching train. Conditioning will presumably work best in those individuals who have an experimental crosswalk within their home range and thus repeatedly experience the signal and the passing train. However, there will always be a proportion of animals (offspring, dispersers, and migratory animals) that are not yet conditioned or do not know about the danger of traffic. Thus, rather than using abstract stimuli, such as whistles or bangs that would alert humans, it may be more effective to use natural sounds that already communicate a message for animals, such as a human voice indicating the presence of people, or a deer warning or distress call for alarming other animals.

Such approaches have been tested in Poland using animal alarm calls, barking dogs and sounds from hunting scenes (Werka and Wasilewski 2009; Babińska-Werka et al. 2015); in Japan, using sika deer warning calls (Shimura et al. 2015); in Italy, using sounds of dogs and humans to scare wildlife off roads when cars approach (Mertens et al. 2014); and in Northern Sweden, using human voices from a conventional radio to alert semi-domestic reindeer (Larsson-Kråik 2005). Experiences from these studies suggest that such warning systems may be effective in causing the animals to leave the disturbed site.

The basic idea is thus to condition a movement response to an auditory and/or visual stimulus that is strong enough to evoke the desired, subtle response in most individuals, but weak enough to avoid causing a panic reaction and allowing the animals to experience reinforcement through the passing train.

We intend to address questions such as which signals will work best, how quickly animals learn to respond appropriately, and to what extent this reduces the risk of collisions. If the systems prove successful in moving wildlife away from the railway track when trains approach, they could replace more costly crossing structures such as bridges or tunnels and provide the necessary complement to fences in an inclusive mitigation system (Huijser et al. 2009; Seiler et al. 2016). If the system is to replace fencing, however, the deterrent or warning effect must be extendable over several kilometers. This may be evaluated in a later study. If the system does not operate successfully, i.e., if animals show very little response to warning signals, and if collisions in the crosswalks are not reduced, the gaps in the fences may need to be closed.

## Complementary Studies

Besides the aforementioned system of crosswalks and fences, the project will involve complementary activities such as in-depth analyses of WTC statistics; field surveys to assess unreported collisions; improvements to the reporting and registration routines of WTCs; studies on the indirect costs of WTCs due to delays in train traffic; exploration of possible animal detection and warning systems that can be mounted on train engines instead of in railway infrastructure; and continued video monitoring of train-animal encounters. Collaborations with similar research projects in Norway and Austria have been initiated. An international reference group will be established together with a group of private companies interested in testing their technical solutions and ideas for a warning system.

Parallel to this project, empirical studies are being conducted to reduce wildlife-vehicle collisions on roads; in combination, these studies will help to develop national objectives and set up a national strategy for reducing wildlife and traffic problems in Sweden.

Acknowledgements This project is being financed by the Swedish Transport Administration and conducted in cooperation with Swedish Railways, Enviroplanning AB, and the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. Financial support for the video documentation was provided by the Marie Claire Cronstedt Foundation. We thank Luís Borda-de-Água and Rafael Barrientos for their valuable comments on the manuscript, and Tim Hipkiss at Enviroplanning AB, and Geeta Singh at SLU, for proofreading this paper. The project is being carried out in close collaboration with Anders Sjölund (Swedish Transport Administration), Pär Söderström, and Anders Forsberg (Swedish Railways), Andreas Eklund (WSP), and many others. We are grateful for the help of the train drivers in recording wildlife-train collisions, as well as for the interest of many private companies in developing and testing innovative, technical solutions for warning wildlife on railways.

#### References

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

## Chapter 18 Commerce and Conservation in the Crown of the Continent

John S. Waller

Abstract While railroads figure prominently in U. S. history and culture, their environmental impacts are often overlooked. Here, I describe situations where operation and maintenance of a section of transcontinental railroad in Montana, USA, resulted in high mortality of grizzly bears (Ursus arctos), a threatened species under the U. S. Endangered Species Act, and where proposed avalanche control measures conflicted with the preservation mandates of Glacier National Park. A unique public/private partnership was created to work towards effective solutions to environmental problems. The partnership was successful in decreasing high grizzly bear mortality rates, but less so in finding a consensus on how best to reduce avalanche risk. I suggest that collaborative partnerships, such as that developed here, will be essential to solving future environmental problems associated with railroads.

Keywords Avalanche control Connectivity Cooperative conservation Grizzly bear Highways Partnerships Ursus arctos

#### Introduction

Railroads hold an important place in U. S. history. They served an important function in settling the west and transporting homesteaders and all the goods they needed to build a life on the frontier. Completed in 1893, the Great Northern was one of the last of the frontier railroads. It penetrated the vast wilderness of northwest Montana, opening an area of scenic wonder to a nation hungry to explore itself. The Great Northern railroad was instrumental in the development of what is now Glacier National Park, constructing numerous grand lodges and chalets that now are themselves historic tourist attractions. These lodges and tourist facilities were small islands of civilization within a largely untamed wilderness.

© The Author(s) 2017 L. Borda-de-Água et al. (eds.), Railway Ecology, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-57496-7\_18

J.S. Waller (&)

Glacier National Park, West Glacier, MT, USA e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Fast-forward 123 years… Glacier National Park is today an island of wilderness surrounded by various levels of development. The grand lodges and chalets have lots of competition for the tourists that arrive in ever-increasing numbers. The golden age of railroads is long past, as most tourists now arrive by automobile or plane rather than train. Still the trains rumble through, carrying every imaginable type of cargo across this mountain vastness.

Railroads have always operated in a unique public/private capacity. Because they required vast capital to construct, and because they provided great benefits to the nation, they were heavily subsidized by the U. S. Government. During the frontier days, these subsidies often came in the form of land grants that could supply the railroads with the resources they needed for construction and that had other values that could help offset the costs of construction. These subsidies required that railroads also be regulated to counter the natural monopolistic tendencies of such an enterprise.

Nevertheless, the railroads amassed tremendous wealth and political power. During the frontier times, railroads were constructed with little consideration of their environmental impacts, and their power was so great that it's unlikely that anyone could have successfully challenged them on those grounds, had they wanted to. Today, railroads still remain powerful entities, but because they serve an important public function, they are also held to public standards of environmental accountability.

This case study is an example of how a railroad, working with government and public partners, discovered ways to uphold its environmental responsibilities by making meaningful contributions to the recovery of the threatened grizzly bear. However, it also describes how tenuous these partnerships can be, and how not all problems are solved through collaboration.

#### Geographic Location

The northern-most railroad line in the continental USA is the "hi-line" section of the Burlington Northern–Santa Fe railroad (BNSF, formerly the Great Northern Railroad). It is a primary freight corridor running between Minneapolis, Minnesota, and Seattle, Washington. It also supports the Empire Builder Amtrak passenger line. This railroad line bisects the Rocky Mountains and crosses the Continental Divide at Marias Pass (elevation 1462 m). The portion spanning the Continental Divide and lying between East Glacier and West Glacier, Montana, separates two large protected wilderness areas: Glacier National Park to the north (4079 km2 ), and the Great Bear/Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex to the south (6131 km2 ). From West Glacier, the railroad follows the Middle Fork of the Flathead River southeasterly to its confluence with Bear Creek, which it then follows northeasterly through the John Stevens Canyon to Marias Pass. East of Marias Pass, the rail line drops down into the South Fork of the Two Medicine River drainage to East Glacier, and crossing into the Blackfeet Indian Reservation. From the Bear Creek/Middle Fork confluence to just west of East Glacier, the railroad is the southern boundary of Glacier National Park (Fig. 18.1).

Fig. 18.1 The Great Northern Environmental Stewardship Area between West Glacier and East Glacier, Montana, USA

#### Land Ownership

Traveling southeast from West Glacier, the railroad line passes through intermixed public and private lands (Fig. 18.1). The private lands are primarily small ranches and recreational home sites, small communities, and campgrounds. The public lands are primarily managed by the U. S. Forest Service for recreation and timber. Also, U. S. Highway 2 parallels the railroad for its entire length between East and West Glacier, as does a natural gas pipeline and electricity transmission line. This narrow ribbon of railroad, highway, utilities, and private land development form what Servheen and Sandstrom (1993) term a "fracture zone" which is a zone where human development impedes the connectivity of wildlife populations within a natural area.

#### Ecological Characteristics

Glacier National Park and the Great Bear/Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex are highly protected federal lands managed for preservation of their natural qualities and for non-motorized recreation. Glacier National Park has been designated a biosphere preserve and a world heritage site by the United Nations (UNESCO). Additionally, the Middle Fork of the Flathead River is federally designated as a Wild and Scenic River, which recognizes that it flows on an unmodified flood plain, is ecologically unimpaired, and provides some protection from future development.

The floodplain and its function have been the topic of important ecological research (Harner and Stanford 2003). This area is also home to a number of rare species, including some listed as threatened under the U. S. Endangered Species Act (ESA). These include the grizzly bear (Ursus arctos), Canada lynx (Lynx Canadensis), wolverine (Gulo gulo), and bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus). Other species of note are Rocky Mountain elk (Cervus canadensis), mountain goat (Oreamnos americanus), Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis), moose (Alces alces), mountain lion (Puma concolor), black bear (Ursus americanus), wolf (Canis lupus), and bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus); in fact, the area retains its entire complement of native fauna with the exception of American bison (Bison bison). This diverse fauna is supported by high floral diversity that arises from the areas location within the transition zone between the Pacific coastal and continental climate regimes.

West of the continental divide, the climate is characterized by cold, wet winters, and cool, moist summers, supporting extensive conifer forests, primarily of Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmannii) and subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa). Lodgepole pine (Pinus contortus), Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), and western larch (Larix occidentalis) are also well represented. East of the continental

Fig. 18.2 A westbound Burlington-Northern Santa Fe freight train crossing Marias Pass

divide, the climate is characterized by dry, cold winters and hot, dry summers. Here, conifer forests give way to extensive aspen (Populus tremuloides) park lands and shortgrass prairie (Fig. 18.2). The entire area has been frequently recognized as an important area for wildlife connectivity, for example, the Yellowstone to Yukon conservation initiative (Levesque 2001), the Western Governors Association (2008), and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (Ament et al. 2014). The larger ecosystem, which the BNSF rail line crosses has been variously termed the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem (NCDE; in a grizzly bear recovery plan context), or the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem (in a trans-boundary management context).

#### Railroad Attributes

The East Glacier to West Glacier portion of the BNSF railroad line is composed of single and double-track sections, depending on topography. Locomotives are staged along the track to help long freight trains ascend and descend the pass. Freight trains carry a wide variety of goods and materials, especially corn and wheat from the Midwest headed to Pacific export terminals. In recent years, a large volume of crude oil from the Bakken oil fields in North Dakota has been transported as well. Because the railroad traverses extreme mountain topography, it is impacted by snow avalanches, rock slides, floods, heavy snow, and extreme temperatures that can affect rail integrity. Most of the wooden railroad ties over the pass have been replaced with concrete ties to help improve track stability. There are also snow sheds that protect portions of the track from avalanches.

The railroad line in this area generally has a smaller ecological footprint than highways because its width is typically narrower and carries less human traffic. However, as is the case here, railroad lines are typically paired with other developments such as roads and utility corridors. Thus, the cumulative footprint is large. In many areas, wildlife fencing is used to keep animals off rail lines and roads, but in our area, neither the highway nor the railroad line are fenced to exclude wildlife.

#### A Grizzly Problem Arises

The railroad operated without much environmental controversy through most of the twentieth century. However, a problem arose during the late 1980s and early 1990s. Between 1985 and 1989, at least 134 cars of corn derailed along a 15-mile section of track west of Marias Pass (Fig. 18.3). Each car carried approximately 3500 bushels of corn so the total amount spilled was 469,000 bushels or nearly 12,000 metric tons. In its haste to repair the tracks and to dispose of the spilled grain, BNSF buried it along its right-of-way. As the buried grain began to decompose, it fermented, producing a strong odor that drew black and grizzly bears

Fig. 18.3 Spilled corn covers the slopes below the tracks during cleanup of a freight train derailment near Marias Pass, Montana, USA

into the site from many kilometers away. One observer claimed to have observed at least 20 different grizzly bears feeding at the site. As the bears began to excavate and consume the fermented grain, some observers believed the bears became intoxicated. Regardless, the feeding bears became highly habituated to the close passage of trains. As a result, between 1985 and 1990, at least 9 grizzly bears were hit by trains and killed. Grizzly bears are listed as a threatened species under the U. S. Endangered Species Act; hence, their deaths during operation of the railroad amounted to an illegal taking under that act.

These grain spills and the resulting deaths of grizzly bears brought increased scrutiny to the frequency and causes of grizzly bear mortalities in the corridor. Bears weren't just dying during grain spills–they were dying at relatively high rates in general. Bears were being struck and killed along the tracks at areas other than grain spills and in conflicts with humans at developed sites. Further investigation revealed that many of the hopper-bottom train cars that carry grain had hopper doors that did not seal well; as a result, grain constantly dribbled out along the tracks and created small piles between the rails whenever the train stopped. Also, as train cars were filled at terminals, grain would accumulate along the tops of the cars, which would then fall off along the tracks as the train headed west. This continuous deposition of grain along the tracks acted as a powerful attractant for bears. Most of the bears found killed by trains had grain in their stomachs.

Much of the rail line through the corridor crosses ungulate winter range and areas grazed by livestock. Wild ungulates and domestic livestock are occasionally

Fig. 18.4 A Burlington-Northern Santa Fe freight train crosses the Sheep Cr. Trestle

struck by trains and their carcasses also become attractants for bears. As bears come to scavenge the remains, they themselves become victims.

A third important source of mortality was associated with trestles. The rail line crosses a number of deeply incised water courses with high trestles (Fig. 18.4). As grizzly bears traveled the tracks in search of grain and carcasses, or just as an easy means of travel, they would utilize these trestles. Occasionally, an oncoming train would overtake bears on the trestle where they could not escape and they would be hit and killed.

#### Working Towards a Solution

In 1990, two environmental activist groups threatened to sue the railroad for continuing to kill grizzly bears. During the summer of 1992, railroad operations caused a small wildfire inside Glacier National Park (GNP) that enabled the park to seek damage reparation payment from BNSF. In order to help prevent future grizzly bear mortalities, then-GNP Superintendent Gil Lusk suggested that rather than pay GNP damages for the fire, BNSF establish a special organization to help facilitate solutions to environmental problems in the rail corridor. BNSF agreed and established the rail line between East and West Glacier as a special operating area called the Burlington-Northern Environmental Stewardship Area (BNESA), along with an organization to administer its operation.

In the agreement, BNSF and the signatory agencies acknowledged the importance of balancing the interests of commerce, agriculture, transportation, natural resources, and wildlife and acknowledged the nationally significant qualities of the corridor. Specifically, the parties agreed to pay particular attention to the operation and maintenance of the railway because of the areas importance to populations of threatened and endangered species. The parties committed to working cooperatively with affected jurisdictions to plan and implement emergency responses to derailments, including providing and placing emergency response equipment to expedite response times and prevent spilled materials from entering rivers and streams. The agreement tasked wildlife biologists from the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (MFWP) with determining specific sections of track that were hazardous to grizzly bears or sections where bears frequently crossed the tracks or otherwise congregated. BNSF committed to rapid spill response and placement of cleanup material at key points for ready access to these resources; to strict adherence to operating speed limits, and use of continuous welded rail, welded turnouts, and concrete ties to improve rail integrity; the erection of fences at key locations determined by MFWP wildlife biologists; and special training and educational programs for BNSF personnel working in the corridor conducted by the appropriate agency. The BNESA agreement also established a conservation trust fund to be used for the protection of critical grizzly bear habitat and movement corridors, placement of a grizzly bear management specialist to serve as a coordinator in the area, provide education and resolution of management issues and bear conflicts, and research to evaluate the effectiveness of operational changes and develop new techniques to minimize grizzly bear mortalities. Additional actions implemented by BNSF included the regular use of a vacuum truck that picks up spilled grain along the tracks, and every spring after the snow melts, BNSF crews pick up carcasses along the tracks and dispose of them in safe areas. They have also used motion-sensitive electronic noise makers on trestles to discourage use by bears, and experimented with electric fencing and electric "track-mats". It is difficult to assess the success of these efforts in absolute terms, but we do know that even as the number of bears in the ecosystem has increased substantially (Mace et al. 2012), the numbers of bears hit and killed along the railroad tracks has dropped significantly; only four grizzly bears were killed between 2010 and 2015, compared to the six-year running average of 11.

As the BNESA organization grew, its name was changed to the Great Northern Environmental Stewardship Area (GNESA) to reflect its broader mission and purpose beyond just the BNSF railroad. The GNESA organization grew to include representatives of the more than 20 state, tribal, and federal agencies having land management authority within the GNESA corridor (GNP, U. S. Forest Service, MFWP, Montana Department of Transportation, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Flathead Conservation district, and Blackfeet Indian Nation), private land owners, utilities (Flathead and Glacier Electric Cooperatives, Northwestern Energy), and county officials. Over the next several years, GNESA facilitated additional actions to reduce grizzly bear mortalities along the railroad tracks. They helped fund a transition from open garbage containers to bear-resistant models at county refuse sites; worked to establish guidelines for the safe transportation of hazardous materials through the corridor; and facilitated interagency cooperation in planning for responses to accidents involving hazardous materials, including resolution of emergency communications issues.

GNESA has also supported wildlife research in the corridor, including studies of habitat connectivity across the corridor. They worked to preserve local knowledge of wildlife connectivity by hosting workshops that involved citizens who work and live in the corridor, including train engineers, school bus drivers, local law enforcement officials, biologists, and rangers. They helped fund a study of game trail use in the corridor that identified where animals were crossing the highway and railroad (Roesch 2010). This information will be vital, as crossing structures may eventually be required.

BNSF and the U. S. Department of Transportation also supported in-depth research into grizzly bear movement patterns across the corridor. Obtaining fine-scale movement data from grizzly bears was nearly impossible before the advent of satellite global positioning system (GPS) tracking collars in the late 1990s. One of the first studies in the continental U. S. to utilize this technology on brown bears was that of Waller and Servheen (2005), which used a relatively large sample of GPS-collared grizzly bears (n = 42), paired with detailed road and traffic counts, to assess the response of grizzly bears to various traffic types and volumes. These researchers found that although the highway and railroad did have measureable effects on the trans-corridor movements of grizzly bears, they still crossed frequently and successfully. Grizzly bears crossing the transportation corridor were faced with traversing both the railroad line and the highway, which closely parallel one another through the GNESA area. The monitored grizzly bears appeared to make behavioral adjustments to daily fluctuations in highway traffic but not for rail traffic. Grizzly bears chose to cross the corridor when highway traffic volumes were lowest, but when rail traffic was the highest. Rail traffic was higher at night because most rail maintenance work is done during daylight hours, thus curtailing daytime freight traffic. Furthermore, freight trains loaded on the coast during the day leave in the evening and arrive in the GNESA area at night, 24–36 h later. It may be that grizzly bears are more easily habituated to rail traffic because it tends to be highly predictable. The consequence, however, is that grizzly bear mortality was much higher on the tracks than on the highway. Between 1980 and 2002, 23 grizzly bears were killed on the tracks in the GNESA corridor, but only two on the highway. The fine-scale movement data did not show that grizzly bears were still feeding on grain accumulations along the railroad tracks, suggesting that grain-control actions were working as intended. Therefore, the authors concluded that the high observed post-grain spill mortality rates were the consequence of high rail traffic volume, low highway traffic volume, and natural grizzly bear movement patterns.

The collaborative environment that fostered the birth of GNESA and innovative problem-solving approaches to environmental issues was recognized as a model for other conservation problems throughout the world. In 2008, GNESA was recognized by the U. S. Department of Interior as an exemplary example of collaborative conservation (USDOI 2008). Such collaboration is often the result of the right people being in the right place at the right time. In 2004, an issue arose that would test the limits of the collaborative efforts embodied in GNESA.

#### An Avalanche of Problems

On January 28, 2004, heavy snowfall resulted in avalanches in the GNESA corridor that blocked the BNSF railroad for 29 h. These avalanches began in starting zones within the GNP. During the storm, an empty 119-car freight train was struck by an avalanche and derailed. While it was derailed, another avalanche in an adjacent slide path struck the train again, derailing more cars. A third avalanche nearly hit a clean-up crew, and a fourth avalanche hit a truck travelling the highway beneath the railroad. Responding to continued snowpack instability and the need to ensure the safety of its personnel, BNSF requested a special use permit from GNP that would authorize explosive avalanche control in the John Stevens Canyon. After much deliberation, GNP granted a 3-day emergency special use permit, but, as is often the case, moderate weather allowed the snowpack to stabilize, and the avalanche risk abated before any control measures could be implemented.

After the January 2004 incident, BNSF contracted with a company specializing in avalanche control to analyze the avalanche hazard in the canyon. Their report described the avalanche potential in 14 avalanche paths along the railroad in the John Stevens Canyon (Hamre and Overcast 2004). Nine of those paths had some level of protection provided by snow sheds, although seven of them were too short to provide complete protection. Avalanche paths are dynamic, changing over time with changes in vegetation growth. Most of the sheds were constructed around 1900, so for some of them, the paths had widened or altered position, so that the sheds no longer provided complete protection (Fig. 18.5). The report identified avalanche hazard reduction measures ranging from explosive control to snow shed construction. From the viewpoint of BNSF and their consultants, explosive control was the most expedient and cost-effective means to mitigate the avalanche risk. However, the viewpoint of GNP was quite different.

Glacier National Park is congressionally mandated to protect the park from impairment resulting from human-caused activities. Other legal mandates include the protection of wilderness values (the Wilderness Act of 1964), protection of threatened and endangered species, protection of scenic and cultural resources, and maintenance of visitor enjoyment. The use of explosives generally ran counter to these mandates and were inconsistent with the park's status as a biosphere preserve and world heritage site. In order to evaluate alternative courses of action, GNP prepared an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) as required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970. Four alternatives were evaluated in the EIS: a "no action" alternative, by which no action by BNSF to mitigate avalanche hazard

Fig. 18.5 An avalanche partially buries a snow shed on the Burlington-Northern Santa Fe railroad in the John F. Stevens canyon

would be permitted; an alternative where GNP, USFS, and MDOT would recommend constructing and/or modifying snow sheds (the preferred alternative); an alternative similar to the previous alternative but that also included a 10-year special use permit for explosive control during snow shed construction; and, finally, an alternative that allowed explosive avalanche control without concomitant snow shed work (NPS 2008a).

After an extensive analysis and public comment period, GNP selected the preferred alternative and a "record of decision" (ROD) was signed in September 2008. The ROD permitted BNSF to install a weather station and snow depth sensor within GNP, and for BNSF to conduct non-explosive snow stability testing. It allowed the installation of avalanche detection devices, but limited the use of explosives to extenuating emergency conditions where human lives or resources were at risk and after other options, including delays, had been exhausted. The ROD recommended that BNSF construct or modify snow sheds in high-risk slide paths (NPS 2008b).

The search for solutions to the avalanche problem in the GNESA corridor rose quickly to the upper echelons of corporate and government management. As the situation became political, both sides became entrenched in their positions and the collaborative environment of GNESA disappeared. In the end, GNP prevailed in their position but at the cost of some of the close working relationships built within GNESA. Hard feelings remained for some time, and, to date, BNSF has not attempted to construct or modify any snow sheds, instead relying on an avalanche forecasting program to mitigate risk. They have approached the park on at least one occasion for a special permit for avalanche control, but usually high-hazard conditions ameliorate rapidly and so the opportunities for explosion control are very limited (Reardon et al. 2004). The BNSF also purchased a "Daisy Bell" device which, when suspended below a helicopter, can test snow stability by directing a blast downward to the snowpack. This technique eliminates many of the disadvantages associated with explosive control. Fortunately, it appears that, as time passes and as personnel changes take place, working relationships are being restored.

#### What Next?

The GNESA corridor remains an important locale for commerce and connectivity, and grizzly bears remain an important issue in the corridor. The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service is working with BNSF to prepare a habitat conservation plan that, under the ESA, will indemnify BNSF against litigation resulting from grizzly bear deaths provided that BNSF continues to implement procedures and practices that work to minimize mortalities. The implementation of the GNESA protocols and continued support of the organization will likely be an important component of that plan.

In general, efforts to control grizzly bear mortality have been successful throughout the ecosystem, and the grizzly bear population rapidly is expanding (Mace et al. 2012). State and federal bear managers are confident about the recovery of the bear population and will likely seek removal of the NCDE grizzly bear from the ESA within the next several years. Collaborative conservation efforts, as embodied by GNESA, have been critical to the attainment of this conservation success.

New issues will continue to surface as development within the corridor continues. Heavy traffic of railroad cars carrying crude oil have been a concern, as has increasing traffic on U. S. Highway 2 (Waller and Miller 2016). As traffic increases, wildlife connectivity across the corridor will diminish to the point where some type of accommodation will have to be made. Crossing structures are the current tool for maintaining connectivity, but other concepts may arise. For example, strategic highway planning might be used to direct higher traffic volumes to better-developed road systems in less ecologically sensitive areas. The avalanche sheds currently used are over 100 years old, in some cases, it might be possible to replace them with new designs that serve to protect the railroad and highway from avalanches and also serve as a crossing structure. Conservation investments of this magnitude will require public/private partnerships and inter-agency collaboration.

New technologies will continue to surface that have the potential to further limit wildlife mortalities and railroads have a responsibility to support the development and application of these technologies. For example, long-range, optical-infrared video alarm systems can warn engineers of wildlife on tracks day or night, far in

Fig. 18.6 A large cut-and-fill railroad bed completely obstructs natural drainage in Glacier National Park

advance, and long-range acoustic devices or other sonic devices may be able to get animals to move out of harm's way (Babińska-Werka et al.2015; Grey 2015).

As connectivity becomes an issue, so will watershed integrity. When the railroad was constructed, massive cuts and fills were used to bridge drainages (Fig. 18.6), these large fills obstruct the natural terrain, alter natural stream courses, and may need to be removed. Modification of this kind will be very expensive and will probably require public investment.

The success of the GNESA partnership was due, in large part, to the participation of individuals who were unafraid to take risks inside corporate and agency cultures. These individuals were committed to using the GNESA group to seek solutions and to resolve issues at the lowest possible levels. They did not use the media to advance their positions; they worked to get to know one another on a personal level; and they respected each other's different mandates. It also required organizational frameworks that were flexible towards this type of participation and tolerant of the risk that comes with trusting others in other organizations. Future success will demand more of the same from individuals and organizations. Building trust takes time and patience; while some conflict may be inevitable, it is important to accept those situations and move beyond them. Building a robust network of trust requires more than just affinitive trust among key individuals; establishing rational and systems-based trust adds resiliency when personnel turnover changes the group dynamic (Stern and Baird 2015). Bridging organizations, such as GNESA, bridge the boundaries between stakeholders that operate at different scales, linking varied constituencies to increase collective capabilities and social capital (Pretty 2003; Pahl-Wostl et al. 2007). With these lessons in mind, the trust and culture will hopefully be in place to allow future collaborative conservation to proceed.

Acknowledgements This study presents the combined contributions of many persons over the course of many years. The author thanks the GNESA partnership for their commitment to environmental stewardship. Major funding for the work described herein was provided by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U. S. National Park Service, Glacier National Park, and the Federal Highways Administration. Valuable support was provided by the U. S. Forest Service; Montana Department of Transportation; Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks; and the Burlington-Northern Santa Fe railroad.

#### References

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

## Part III Conclusion

## Chapter 19 What's Next? Railway Ecology in the 21st Century

Rafael Barrientos, Luís Borda-de-Água, Pedro Brum, Pedro Beja and Henrique M. Pereira

> Predicting is very difficult, especially about the future, attributed to Niels Bohr.

Abstract As societies realise the importance of maintaining biodiversity and, accordingly, acknowledge the need for monitoring, minimizing and compensating the impacts of socioeconomic activities, including transportation, more scientists will be called to address these societal challenges. Railway Ecology is emerging in this context as a relatively new field to identify and provide solutions to the specific environmental problems associated with the building and operation of railways, particularly their impacts on wildlife. This is an interdisciplinary field that uses and draws methods from other disciplines, ranging from ecology and genetics, to statistics and computer simulations. Here, we summarize the guidelines to address railway-related biodiversity conservation problems as they were identified in the several chapters of this book, and recommend lines for future research.

Keywords Climate change Environmental sustainability Linear infrastructures Railway ecology

R. Barrientos (&) L. Borda-de-Água P. Beja H.M. Pereira CEABN/InBIO, Centro de Ecologia Aplicada "Professor Baeta Neves", Instituto Superior de Agronomia, Universidade de Lisboa, Tapada da Ajuda, 1349-017 Lisboa, Portugal e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
H.M. Pereira German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig Deutscher Platz 5e, 04103 Leipzig, Germany

R. Barrientos L. Borda-de-Água P. Beja H.M. Pereira

CIBIO/InBIO, Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos, Universidade do Porto, Campus Agrário de Vairão, Rua Padre Armando Quintas, 4485-661 Vairão, Portugal

P. Brum Faculdade de Ciências Socias e Humanas da Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal

#### A Bright Look at the Future of Railways

Transportation in the 21st century involves multiple challenges. Transports will have to deal with the increasing needs of a growing and wealthier human population, and the socioeconomic requirements to deliver natural resources, manufactured goods, and transport people. The emergence of new strong economies, and the expectation that economic growth will raise the living standards of vast populations, will be surely accompanied by an increase in transportation infrastructures, given the well-known relationship between transportation activity and Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (Profillidis 2014). How societies will accommodate economic development with the biophysical constrains imposed by the environment is a major challenge, but one where railways will certainly play an important role (Smith 1998, 2003).

One of the reasons to expect a steady development of railways is related to their cost-effectiveness over other means of transportation, particularly for the so-called intermediate range distances (Profillidis 2014). Therefore, it is expected that railways will develop to fill in the niche that lay somewhere in-between the local door to door transportation and, in the other extreme, the long distance transportation of passengers or freight that is better accomplished through aviation or marine transportation. The exact level at which railways will fill in such niche, however, will depend on the characteristics of the region where they operate: its geography, the size of its population and how the population is distributed. Nevertheless, it is likely that in many countries new railway lines will be built and others will be improved, to support, for instance, the commuting of people between the suburbia and city centres, to transport passengers among cities laying a few hundred kilometres apart, and to transport freight among harbours and big cities.

Another reason to expect the expansion of railways is related to its environmental benefits relatively to other means of transportation, which is well illustrated by the role it can play in addressing global warming. For instance, Dulac (2013) analysed infrastructure requirements under different climate change scenarios, concluding that an increase in 335,000 railway track kilometres would be needed to accommodate the projected transportation needs until 2050, while keeping the increase in average global atmospheric temperatures under 4 °C. Under a more strict policy scenario of a 2 °C increase in temperatures, the railway network would have to expand by approximately 535,000 track kilometres, reflecting the higher efficiency of railway over road transportation (Dulac 2013). Once again, this will certainly lead to a steady development of railway networks, thereby calling for the collaboration of railway ecologists to mitigate impacts and to foster the environmental added value of railways.

#### Emerging Trends and Challenges

While we expect a major development in railway networks in the next decades, technological developments may considerably affect their characteristics, as well as the environmental problems that will be raised. For instance, in regions with high population densities the use of the magnetic levitated ("maglev") trains may become a typical feature (Najafi and Nassar 1996), but some of the problems associated with barrier effects and mortality are still likely to occur. Although maglev trains share several of the characteristics with the present railways, other technologies such as the admittedly farfetched "hyperloop" may differ considerably (Matthews and Brueggemann 2015). In a hyperloop, passengers and freight travel in vehicles enclosed in elevated "tubular" structures. In this case, barrier effects will be greatly reduced, and mortality due to collisions with the trains will disappear, though the possibility of flying animals colliding with the tubular structure will still exist. Another technological advancement that is likely to develop in forthcoming years is electric cars with auto-pilot features. As we write, this technology is being promoted by large companies (e.g., Google) and at least one company already commercializes cars with hardware and software enabling the auto-pilot mode (Tesla Motors), a development that services such as Uber may use automated in the future. These vehicles, or future improved versions, may enable comfortable travels with the flexibility of door to door connections, challenging some of the advantages that trains presently exhibit for some distances. Nevertheless, it is unlikely that railway transportation as we know it today will become obsolete at any time in the near future, requiring a continued engagement of railway ecologists to deal with the current and future challenges associated with this transportation system.

Despite its positive prospects at the global scale, however, it is likely that some railway lines will get out of operation due to technological developments and changes in socioeconomic requirements, as it has happened during the past decades. For instance, railways in the USA after World War II were quickly put aside in favor of other means of transportation of passengers, such as automobiles and airplanes, and by 1990 the 270,000 miles of active rail lines had diminished to 141,000 miles (Ferster 2006), though railways have retained 43% of the freight market (Profillidis 2014). Comparable processes have occurred in other countries such as Portugal, where many lines built during the early twentieth century lost their importance and were progressively abandoned during the second half of the twentieth and early twentyfirst centuries (Sarmento 2002). These changes represent opportunities for conservation and call for the active participation of railway ecologists in collaboration with other specialists, as abandoned railway lines may lead to ecologically-oriented projects as well as to the mitigation of situations of social injustice. The combination of ecological and social minded policies can contribute to a new global pattern of urban transformation, as exemplified by the High Line in New York City or the Sentier Nature in Paris (Foster 2010). The old High Line railroad was disused in 1980 and it then started to develop as a semi-natural habitat that was converted into a public park comprising twenty-two blocks along the lower west side of Manhattan (Foster 2010). Paris' Sentier Nature represents another approach, where an old railway was converted into a nature trail, now enriched with a diversity of types of ecosystems, with 200 species of flora and 70 species of fauna (Foster 2010). Although this field of ecological restoration after railway abandonment was not dealt with in this book, this is an important area where the experience on linear infrastructures of railway ecologists may prove instrumental, namely due to their knowledge on the species and habitats that can persist in railway verges in urban and suburban settings (see Chap. 16).

#### Railways Travel Towards Environmental Sustainability

As with any other means of transportation, there are environmental issues associated with railways, ranging from wildlife mortality, barrier effects, introduction of exotic species, and several forms of pollution. Some of these are comparable to those found in roads and other linear infrastructures, while others are railway specific. Likewise, some mitigation measures can be adapted from road and power line infrastructures, while others have to be developed specifically for railways. As highlighted throughout this book, information is still in short supply for the evaluation and mitigation of impacts specific to railways, which justifies the need to continue investing in research programs targeting railway ecology on its own right. Based on the collective experience of this book we suggest that the following research lines should be the priority focus of such programs, which will greatly contribute to help keep railways on track towards environmental sustainability:

studies may contribute to such understanding, including comparisons of wildlife crossings of railways before and after the building of wildlife passes, in places with and without such passes (i.e., BACI designs; Corlatti et al. 2009; Soanes et al. 2013). Novel molecular techniques may also contribute to tackle these issues, using for instance non-invasive genetics to know which individuals cross the railways and how railway barriers contribute to spatial genetic structuring (Riley et al. 2006; Balkenhol and Waits 2009; Clevenger and Sawaya 2010; Simmons et al. 2010; see also Chap. 4). Modelling approaches may also be useful to explore the demographic and genetic consequences of barrier effects induced by railways, and to disentangle barrier from mortality effects (Borda-de-Água et al. 2011, 2014; Ceia-Hasse et al. 2017).

tools and mitigation measures to help reconcile environmental protection and socio-economic demands (see, e.g., Andreassen et al. 2005; Ford et al. 2009; Mateus et al. 2011). The potential positive impacts of railways also need to be better explored, including in particular the prospective for the right-of-way to act as a shelter for biodiversity (see Chap. 16), which can probably be improved through well-designed wildlife-friendly management procedures.

#### Final Remarks

Overall, our book documents the wealth of research that is already available on the ecology of railways, particularly on the evaluation and mitigation of impacts on wildlife, illustrating the considerable progress that has been made over the past decade. However, it also shows that many aspects of railway ecology remain poorly researched, which makes it difficult to understand what are the main impacts of railways on important dimensions of biodiversity such as landscape connectivity and population viability. As a consequence, the evaluation and mitigation of railway impacts continue to be largely driven by the lessons gained from road ecology, which may often be inadequate for application in the railway context. By reviewing the state-of-the-art and presenting a diversity of valuable case studies, we hope that this book can contribute to attract both researchers and practitioners to this interesting field of applied science, thereby promoting the development of new tools and applications for a better integration of the transportation networks with the challenges associated with the protection of biodiversity.

#### References

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

## Glossary

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2017 L. Borda-de-Água et al. (eds.), Railway Ecology, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-57496-7

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2017. This book is an open access publication Open Access This book is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this book are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.