Editor’s Note: This is Part I of a two-part series. Part II, Linking Ecology to Action, dives deeper into the role of State connectivity action plans and federal wildlife guidance, nudging local governments in the right direction, and the bigger picture take-home for wildlife advocates (plus, an opportunity to take action for Idaho’s wildlife!). 

Only five years ago, if you had asked even the most casual wildlife lovers in Idaho to forecast where the juiciest efforts on the frontlines of wildlife conservation would be, many would have said Endangered Species Act listings or re-introductions of species that had disappeared from their native habitats. Many wildlife biologists would likely have said otherwise.

This month, a conference gathering of hundreds of luminaries in wildlife conservation showed proof of the skyrocketing regional, national and global attention on the seemingly mundane topic of movement of wildlife across landscapes

This issue sits at the crossroads of maintaining healthy populations of native species, human appreciation of wildlife for its intrinsic benefits, transportation infrastructure, and economic interests of residential and industrial development. The subject of wildlife movement is now taking center-stage in efforts to more holistically address the needs of animals and people.

The “science” of animal movement has many disciplines, but the recent conference hosted by Pew Charitable Trusts highlighted a broad exchange of research and policy ideas addressing the “3 Cs” of wildlife movement—corridors, crossings, and (landscape) connectivity.

The need for wildlife to get from one place to another impacts nearly every Idahoan and visitor to our state. It informs planning and management on both public and private lands. It touches everyone from dirt bikers to developers. As such, arriving at durable solutions that benefit both people and wildlife requires attention from a wide spectrum of stakeholders and state leadership. Conservation issues as consequential as this require active participation from Idaho’s legislature, state agencies, Tribes, local government, NGOs, and the general public. A recent poll shows that Idaho’s citizens overwhelmingly support conserving wildlife migration routes and constructing wildlife crossing structures across major highways that intersect those pathways.

Below, we’ve highlighted some important developments relating to Idaho’s native wildlife and discussed by guest speakers at Pew’s Corridors, Connectivity, and Crossings Conference.

A trail camera captures deer at the Rocky Point Wildlife Crossing Project in Eastern Idaho.

The Rocky Point Wildlife Crossing Project in Eastern Idaho

The Idaho Department of Transportation (ITD) will be receiving nearly $21 million from the Federal Highway Administration’s Wildlife Crossings Pilot Project to construct three wildlife underpasses and install eight-foot-tall fencing along six miles of US-30 south of Montpelier in eastern Idaho. The Rocky Point Project targets a critical crossing and migration bottleneck identified by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and IDFG as essential for the Bear Lake Plateau Mule Deer herd to access winter range that stretches into Wyoming and Utah. Construction is set to begin in 2026. 

This will be Idaho’s second major infrastructure project designed to facilitate wildlife movement, following the widely celebrated success of the Cervidae Peak overpass near Lucky Peak Reservoir.

Mule deer travel paths.

ICL believes that the Rocky Point project can serve as another example of collaborative, win-win highway infrastructure efforts that benefit both people and wildlife in Idaho. There is also hope that this project could help build momentum for solutions in additional wildlife-vehicle collision hotspots across the state, including the high-priority Ashton-to-HWY 87 section of HWY 20, currently under review by ITD. The stretch of highway bisects the migration route of the Sand Creek Mule Deer Herd and is critical to animals exiting summer ranges south of Island Park and north of the Tetons.

The Montana Department of Transportation will also receive $400,000 to study a heavily used section of US 93, beginning at the Idaho border, where wildlife-vehicle collisions (WVC) have been increasing by 14% on average per year for the last decade. The area skirts the Bitterroot National Forest and is heavily used by moose and bighorn sheep. It also serves as a migratory corridor for grizzly bears, wolverines, and lynx seeking critical habitat in the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness of Idaho and western Montana.

Conservation easements on private lands adjacent to WVC hotspots are also critical for landscape connectivity as the construction or retrofit of highway infrastructure. Without the protection of those lands from housing or industrial development, the value of any crossing structure would likely be diminished, as the wildlife movement corridor would already be compromised.

Wildlife and Renewable Energy Infrastructure

Although wind projects have been appearing on western landscapes for over 20 years, few studies have examined the effects of turbines on movement of resident and migratory ungulates like deer, elk, and pronghorn. Now, researchers from Wyoming Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit are gathering long-term GPS data that shows movement behavior of pronghorn before and after the completion of wind projects. Biologists are trying to better understand if big game species like pronghorn avoid wind turbines, if they move between tower structures, and if an animal’s distance from a turbine affects avoidance behavior.

Preliminary findings using data from over 60 radio-collared pronghorn shows a fair bit of tolerance for wind turbines, with resident (nonmigratory) animals making “crosses” of the project area two times a week, on average. Researchers didn’t document any major differences between use of peripheral and interior areas of a project and there was no evidence to suggest seasonal-specific avoidance of a project area.

However, studies of so-called “barrier effects” from solar project footprints may be telling a different story. Initial findings seem to show that pronghorns that preferred an area prior to installation of a solar project moved further away after completion of the development. Biologists made clear that data came from a small sample size and that an emphasis needs to be put on research of solar installations. They also cautioned that developers and wildlife managers shouldn’t use a lack of data as an excuse to not make wildlife accommodations that improve “permeability” at large-scale renewable projects. Researchers stressed the need for groups like the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) to recommend basic solar development guidelines—such as integration of movement corridors and softening of fencing corners—that also allow for flexibility, based on the project.

As you’ve read above, wildlife movement is gaining more attention as a critical element of conservation. In order to create effective solutions for both wildlife and human interests, there must be collaboration from various stakeholders—which we discuss more in part two of this blog series. Click here to read Part II.