How Many Animals Are Killed From Cars In The United States Annually

Publication Number: FHWA-HRT-08-034
Date: August 2008

Wildlife-Vehicle Collision Reduction Written report: Report To Congress

PDF files tin be viewed with the Acrobat® Reader®

Executive Summary

America's highways allow people and products to travel to every corner of our nation. Along the way, these roads cross through the habitat of many native wild animals species. When these paths intersect, collisions can occur, and in greater numbers than almost people realize. Based on the results of this study, there are an estimated one to two 1000000 collisions between cars and large animals every yr in the United States. This presents a real danger to man safety besides as wildlife survival. State and local transportation agencies are looking for ways to encounter the needs of the traveling public, maintain human safety, and conserve wild fauna.

Under Department 1119 (n) of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), the U.South. Congress directed the Secretarial assistant of Transportation to conduct a national wildlife-vehicle standoff (WVC) study. This study details the causes and impacts of WVCs and identifies potential solutions to this growing safety problem. The study focuses on mitigation methods that reduce the number of collisions between vehicles and large wildlife, such equally deer, considering these accidents nowadays the greatest rubber danger to travelers and crusade the most damage (Effigy ES1).

This summary of the full written report highlights the major findings and serves as an introduction to the upshot of WVCs. Major findings include:

• WVCs are a growing trouble and correspond an increasing percentage of the accidents on our roads.

Figure ES1. Photo. A collision with a white-tailed deer can issue in all-encompassing property harm (copyright: Marcel Huijser).

• WVCs have significant impacts on drivers and wildlife. For motorists, WVCs nowadays a safe danger and can result in pregnant costs from vehicle impairment. For animals, WVCs ofttimes kill the private animals and can even pose a threat to the very survival of certain species. This study identified 21 federally listed threatened or endangered animal species in the United states of america for which road mortality is documented equally one of the major threats to their survival.

• There are no elementary solutions to reducing WVCs. In this study, the research team reviewed 34 mitigation techniques, a number of which are effective in reducing WVCs, evidence promise, or are considered good practice, including integrated planning efforts, wildlife fencing and wildlife crossing structures, animate being detection systems and public information and pedagogy (Figure ES2 through Figure ES4).

Effigy ES2. Photo. Standard deer warning sign along Montana Highway 83

(copyright: Marcel Huijser).

Figure ES3. Photo. Seasonal deer migration sign in Utah

(copyright: Marcel Huijser).

Effigy ES4. Photograph. Wildlife alarm and advisory speed limit reduction signs triggered past an animal detection system in 't Harde, The Netherlands (copyright: Marcel Huijser).

• A major challenge that must be addressed before WVCs can be systematically reduced is improving the consistency and precision of data collection on WVCs. Inconsistent and imprecise data make it difficult to place and prioritize road sections that crave mitigation.

This document concludes with recommendations for further action. Policymakers who are interested in reducing WVCs can brainstorm past considering the following actions:

• Incorporate WVC reduction into the early stages of planning and pattern for transportation projects.

• Develop and implement guidelines and standards for collecting data on and reporting WVCs.

• Develop and implement guidelines for evaluating mitigation methods.

• Evaluate the effectiveness of mitigation methods that have been recommended for further research.

• Implement (or install) proven mitigation measures where advisable.

• Develop and apply wild fauna population models to assist with locating and designing mitigation methods.

• Acquit engineering science transfer to Land departments of transportation, resource agencies, and other transportation professionals regarding the findings of this study. A handbook and training course on WVC reduction techniques will be developed by August 2008, which volition assist in making this information bachelor to practitioners.

Wildlife-Vehicle Collisions: A Growing Problem on U.Southward. Roads

Isn't This Merely a Rural Problem?

According to data from national crash databases, 89 percent of all WVCs (2001–2005) were on ii-lane roads. This might lead some people to conclude that WVCs are only a problem in remote, rural locations, just two-lane roads and WVCs are also prevalent in areas where many people live and commute to work in nearby cities. Such ii-lane highways are critical travel corridors, and, in the Us, drivers use ii-lane roadways for the majority of the total highway miles they travel. Therefore, WVCs are a challenge in every state and for nigh all drivers across the state.

How Many Accidents Are There?

Estimates of the total number of WVCs are based on several sources, including crash statistics (from police and highway patrol study data), roadside carcass counts, insurance manufacture claims data, and interviews with the public.

National crash databases approximate the total number of reported collisions at 300,000 per twelvemonth. Yet, most researchers believe that WVCs are essentially under-reported for a number of reasons. Crash databases typically exclude accidents that have less than $one,000 in property impairment, not all drivers report collisions with animals, and non all law enforcement, natural resource, or transportation agencies have the resources to collect detailed information on WVCs. Furthermore, many animals that are injured wander abroad from the road before they die and are never found.

Using a combination of carcass count information, insurance industry information, police-reported crashes, and interviews with the public, this study estimates that there are between 1 and two one thousand thousand collisions between vehicles and big animals in the United States every year. About all animal-vehicle collisions (AVCs) resulted in no human injury (95.4 percent). Collisions with moose and other big animals can have a college likelihood of resulting in damage to the vehicle occupant (figure ES5 and figure ES6).

Effigy ES5. Graph. Human injury from AVCs (primarily deer).

Effigy ES6. Graph. Animal species involved in fatal (to man) collisions, Maine.

Is the Number of Accidents Increasing?

National trends were studied in a review of several sources of crash data. Figure ES7 and Figure ES8 illustrate that from 1990 to 2004, the number of all reported motor vehicle crashes has been holding relatively steady at slightly in a higher place six million per year. By comparison, the number of reported AVCs (includes wildlife and domestic animals) has increased past approximately 50 per centum over the same period, from less than 200,000 per year in 1990 to a high of approximately 300,000 per year in 2004. Looking at the data another fashion, AVCs at present represent approximately 5 per centum (or 1 in xx) of all reported motor vehicle collisions.

Figure ES7. Graph. Total vehicle crashes.

Figure ES8. Graph. Total AVCs (including wildlife and domestic animals).

The increase in WVCs appears to be associated with an increment in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and an increase in deer population sizes in most regions in the United states. The occurrence of WVCs, notwithstanding, is associated with many more factors, as reflected past their characteristics, which include:

• More than 98 percent of WVCs are single-vehicle crashes.

• 89 per centum of WVCs occur on two-lane roads.

• WVCs occur more frequently on low-volume roads.

• Compared to all motor vehicle collisions, WVCs occur more frequently on directly roads with dry route surfaces.

• WVCs occur more frequently in the early forenoon (five–9 a.m.) and evening (4 p.m.–12 a.1000.), when deer are more active and traffic volume is relatively high.

• WVCs occur more ofttimes in leap and especially in fall, when animals move effectually more due to migration, mating, or hunting seasons.

• The vast bulk (every bit loftier as 90 pct in some states) of reported WVCs involve deer.

• White-tailed deer-vehicle collisions are associated with diverse landscapes with abundant edge habitat (transitions from cover to more than open habitat) and riparian habitat.

What are the Consequences? The costs and impacts to drivers and animals

WVCs can have a wide range of consequences for both motorists and animals. Though human injuries and fatalities resulting from WVCs are relatively rare, they practice occur and are a serious consequence. More common results are vehicle damage, secondary motor vehicle crashes, emotional trauma, and less direct impacts such as travel delays. WVCs can also require the assistance of police enforcement personnel, emergency services, and road maintenance crews for potential repairs and carcass removal. For animals, WVCs nowadays an immediate danger to their individual survival, and certain threatened and endangered species are faced with a further reduction in their population survival probability.

Impacts on Travelers

Rubber Risk

Collisions with large animals pose a safety risk to humans as well as wildlife (Figure ES9). Based on research from various states, roughly 4–ten percentage of reported WVCs involving large animals result in injuries to drivers and their passengers. While this may not appear to be a large per centum, this translates into approximately 26,000 injuries per year that are owing to these accidents.

Figure ES9. Photo. A mule deer is striking past a vehicle in Big Curve National Park, TX (copyright: Marcel Huijser).

Similarly, only a very small proportion of crashes with large animals issue in man fatalities. Nonetheless, an estimated 200 people die from WVCs in the United States every year. From 2001 to 2005, an average of 38,493 fatal crashes occurred.⁽ⁱⁱ⁾ Hence WVCs represent roughly 0.5 per centum of fatal crashes.

Straight Budgetary Impacts

For vehicle owners, the most mutual directly cost incurred from a WVC is damage to their vehicle. Nearly inquiry indicates that more than ninety percent of collisions with deer effect in harm to the driver'southward car or truck. Nearly 100 percent of collisions with larger animals—such equally elk or moose—cease with substantial vehicle damage.

Due to the size and weight of the animals, damage to the vehicle can exist plush. Based on numerous studies, the average price of repairing a vehicle after colliding with a deer was estimated at $one,840. For collisions with elk and moose, the averages increase to $3,000 and $4,000, respectively.

Drivers may incur other direct costs if they must take their vehicle towed after the accident. If an injury occurs, drivers and passengers may confront expenses from medical care and possibly lost wages from missed piece of work.

WVCs accept fiscal implications for public agencies as well. Law enforcement agencies face up direct costs of investigation and traffic control following a standoff. Transportation agencies typically are responsible for carcass removal and disposal costs and infrastructure repair costs, if necessary. Public agencies may incur some financial losses based on the monetary value of the animal itself, value associated with its hunting or license fees or recreational attraction for wildlife viewing.

The best guess of the full almanac cost associated with WVCs, based on available data, is calculated to be $8,388,000,000. Collisions with deer establish the unmarried largest collision category involving human and vehicle costs. The average costs from a collision with a deer include the following:

• $one,840 in vehicle repair costs.

• $2,702 in medical costs.

• $125 in towing and police enforcement services.

• $2,000 for the monetary value of the fauna.

• $50 for carcass removal and disposal.

• Costs tin can increase essentially if a car collides with a larger animal (such as an elk or moose).

Indirect Impacts on Travelers

WVCs can have other impacts on travelers that are more than difficult to quantify in fiscal terms. Accidents involving big animals tin atomic number 82 to travel delays or secondary accidents for subsequent motorists if the vehicle or brute lies in the correct of way. Some drivers also experience emotional trauma as a result of the danger they experienced and the killing of a large animal.

Impacts on Wildlife

WVCs are a serious prophylactic risk for animals. In most cases, an animal that has been hitting by a vehicle dies immediately or soon afterwards a standoff. Clearly, these deaths affect the immediate survival of many individual animals. However, they also correspond a serious conservation issue. For some species, the long-term survival of a local or regional population may be threatened, especially in combination with other factors such as habitat loss due to agronomics and urbanization.

This study identified 21 federally listed threatened or endangered beast species in the United States for which road mortality is among the major threats to the survival of the species. These species include birds such as the Hawaiian goose (Figure ES10), reptiles such as the desert tortoise (Figure ES11), mammals such as the San Joaquin kit fox (Figure ES12), and amphibians such as the California tiger salamander.

Figure ES10. Photo. Hawaiian goose warning sign (copyright: Haleakala National Park, National Park Service).

Effigy ES11. Photo. Desert tortoise (copyright: Marcel Huijser).

Figure ES12. Photo. San Joaquin kit pull a fast one on (copyright: Brian L. Cypher, California State Academy, Stanislaus, Endangered Species Recovery Program).

THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES

This study identified 21 federally listed threatened or endangered species in the United States for which road mortality is amongst the major threats to the survival of the species:

Mammals

Lower Keys marsh rabbit, Cardinal deer, bighorn sheep (peninsular California), San Joaquin kit fox, Canada lynx, ocelot, Florida panther, crimson wolf

Reptiles

American crocodile, desert tortoise, gopher tortoise, Alabama cerise-bellied turtle, bog turtle, copperbelly h2o snake, eastern indigo snake

Amphibians

California tiger salamander, flatwoods salamander, Houston toad

Birds

Audubon'south crested caracara, Hawaiian goose, Florida scrub jay

Notation that other factors such every bit habitat loss due to agriculture and urbanization too touch these species and that a substantial reduction in WVCs may not automatically issue in viable populations.

Can the Number of Collisions be Reduced? Methods for Preventing Collisions

For this written report, 34 different techniques aimed at reducing the number of WVCs were identified and reviewed. This section presents only some examples of the mitigation measures aimed at reducing WVCs; other measures are described and evaluated in the chief text of the written report. The measures are grouped into four major categories: efforts to alter or influence the behavior of wildlife, efforts to reduce wildlife population size, efforts to change or influence a driver's behavior, and planning and blueprint approaches. It should be noted that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is not recommending these measures by including them in this report.

Influencing Wildlife Behavior

WVCs can exist reduced by influencing the behavior of animals. These efforts either effort to deter animals from approaching the roadway or straight the animals toward a safer location to cross the route.

Wildlife fences that separate animals from the roadway have a successful record of reducing WVCs and are now used extensively. Wildlife fences typically consist of wire mesh debate material that is 2 to 2.5 m (6.5 to eight ft) tall, running parallel to the roadway (Figure ES13). Numerous studies in the last 20 years have demonstrated that wild animals fencing, with or without wildlife crossing structures, can reduce collisions with deer and other big animals by 87 percent on average (80–99 percent).

Figure ES13. Photograph. Wildlife fencing along Interstate 90 near Bozeman, MT (copyright: Marcel Huijser).

While correctly installed wildlife fencing is highly effective in reducing collisions, it must be advisedly practical to avoid unintentional effects such as creating an absolute barrier that keeps animals from accessing habitat on the other side of the road. In addition, animals are more likely to break through the wildlife fencing if safety crossing opportunities are not provided or if these opportunities are too few, too small, or too far apart. Therefore wildlife fencing is usually combined with safety crossing opportunities, such equally wildlife underpasses (Figure ES14 and fFigure ES15) and overpasses. In add-on, wildlife jump-outs are commonly integrated with wildlife fencing. These features allow animals that do manage to cross the fence to escape from the fenced road and right of way.

Effigy ES14. Photo. Wild fauna underpass in southern Florida that allows for ecosystem procedure (hydrology) as well as wild fauna use, including the Florida panther (copyright: Marcel Huijser).

Wildlife underpasses and overpasses provide condom road crossing opportunities for a wide array of species, assuasive them to continue to motility beyond the mural. These structures are typically used in combination with wild fauna fences that keep the animals from entering the roadway and that funnel the animals toward the overpasses and underpasses. In some cases wildlife underpasses and overpasses accept no or very express wildlife fencing, making them the primary measure to reduce WVCs on short road sections. The location, type, and dimensions of wildlife crossing structures must be advisedly planned with regard to the species and surrounding landscape. For example, grizzly bears, deer, and elk tend to use wildlife overpasses to a greater extent than wildlife underpasses, while black bears and mountain lions use underpasses more frequently than overpasses. In addition, different species employ different habitats, influencing their movements and where they want to cantankerous the route. Other factors that should be considered are the vegetation in the direct vicinity of the crossing structure, co-use by humans, and the time it takes for animals to acquire the location of the structures and to learn that they are safety to use. Although wildlife overpasses are more mutual in Europe than Northward America, some of the best studied examples are located in Banff National Park in Canada, and multiple large overpasses are planned in the United States.

Effigy ES15. Photograph. Large culvert with vegetative cover and fencing on Highway 1 in Canada (copyright: Tony Clevenger).

Large boulders parallel to the road can be an alternative to wildlife fencing, especially if landscape aesthetics are a concern. Preliminary data suggest that hoofed animals are reluctant to walk across large boulders. Smaller rocks have as well been used at debate ends to discourage hoofed animals from wandering in between the fences.

Long tunnels (or landscape bridges) are tunnels that are at least several hundreds or thousands of yards long (Figure ES16 ). Long bridges (or elevated road sections) are bridges that span a similar distance. Long tunnels and bridges are primarily synthetic because of the nature of the terrain (e.1000., through a mountain, across a floodplain), simply in some cases they are constructed to avoid areas that are ecologically very sensitive and where no alternatives are available. If the nature of the terrain permits, animals can move freely over long tunnels or under long bridges, and because the animals are physically separated from traffic, WVCs are eliminated. However, long tunnels or bridges are rarely specifically designed to reduce WVCs.

Effigy ES16. Photo. Long bridge on Arizona Highway 260 constructed in such a mode equally to minimize the impact to soil and vegetation (copyright: Marcel Huijser).

Reducing Wildlife Population Size

Wild fauna alternative involves a substantial reduction in the population size of a detail species in a sure expanse. When used, this measure is typically applied to deer. Culling is sometimes done by recreational hunters through increased deer quotas and sometimes it is accomplished by hiring professionals. The elimination of does (females) is more effective than the killing of bucks (males) because in that location is a greater impact on the reproductive potential of a population. Alternative efforts are more likely to outcome in a substantial reduction in deer population size if the herd size is relatively modest to begin with and if it is a airtight population that does not permit influx of animals from nearby places. Data on the upshot of culling on deer-vehicle collisions (DVCs) are scarce. I field exam in Minnesota showed that a deer population reduction program reduced wintertime deer densities by 46 percent and DVCs past 30 percent. Sharpshooting past professionals using allurement was deemed to be the most constructive and adjustable culling method in an urban setting, as opposed to controlled hunts in large parks and refuges or opportunistic sharpshooting by professionals. The attempt will have to be repeated periodically, every bit the deer population will render to the same levels if the habitat conditions remain similar; culling is non a i-time-only measure out. In addition, the endeavour involved for population size reduction programs increases unduly with higher population size reduction goals, and substantial reductions (for instance ≥ fifty percent) may be hard to obtain, perhaps capping the potential reduction in DVCs at l percent. Finally, wild fauna alternative tin meet with strong public opposition.

Modifying Commuter Behavior

Efforts aimed at helping motorists avoid collisions depend on providing the driver with information. The commuter may then take action, for case, by choosing when or where to drive, remaining alarm, or lowering vehicle speed (Figure ES17).

Figure ES17. Photo. Permanently flashing Florida blackness bear alarm signs in the Ocala National Wood, FL (copyright: Marcel Huijser).

Brute detection systems use sensors to detect large animals that approach the route. One time a big brute is detected, warning signals are activated to inform drivers that a big animal may be on or near the road at that time. Such systems take been installed at over 30 locations in Northward America and Europe. Limited data exist on the effectiveness of animal detection systems, but a Swiss study showed that collisions with big hoofed animals were reduced by 82 percent on boilerplate for seven different locations. While these data are encouraging, animate being detection systems should withal exist regarded as experimental, as more data on their effectiveness is needed. Animal detection systems applied over long route sections do not restrict animal movements. Animal detection systems may likewise be applied at gaps in a wildlife fence or at fence ends. This mitigation measure notwithstanding allows large animals to be on the roadway, and the posts, sensors, and other equipment associated with the organization may pose a safe hazard of their own.

Public information and pedagogy programs aim to increase motorists' sensation of the impacts, causes, and high hazard locations of WVCs. These campaigns may also offering advice on how to avoid crashes with animals or how to reduce their severity. Broadcasting of this information is often targeted to drivers at specific high take a chance locations or during seasons of high wildlife movement. Little enquiry has been conducted to conclude whether these efforts are effective on their own; therefore, they are generally integrated with other mitigation measures.

Planning and Design Methods

Integration of transportation planning and wildlife management on a regional or statewide level can help to reduce WVCs. These efforts do not generally reduce WVCs in a direct or easily quantifiable style. Still, by working together, planners from transportation, resource, park, and other agencies find opportunities to share information and make planning decisions that help prevent or reduce WVCs. Examples include:

• Avoidance of key habitat. Some states have chosen to avert impacts in the almost sensitive areas, for example by choosing an alternative route for a new road. This may avoid increased WVCs.

• Identification and prioritization of WVC problem areas. Some transportation agencies use roadkill information, animal movement data, aeriform photos, and mapping tools to identify habitat linkage zones (areas of high animal movement) and WVC locations. With this information, transportation agencies can focus express resource on mitigating high priority locations. Having such data available also allows for the early integration of these WVC reduction measures with road building or road upgrading plans. This increases the probability that mitigation measures will be implemented and that WVCs will exist reduced.

• Data collection. Planners demand practiced data regarding the magnitude and trends of WVCs so that they can identify and prioritize areas that may crave mitigation. In addition, these information help in evaluating the effectiveness of potential mitigation measures. Some states have established data standards; others are developing methods to go far easier to collect detailed and accurate information (Figure ES18). Having good data increases the probability that mitigation measures volition be implemented and that WVCs will be reduced.

• Consideration of geometric and roadside design features can reduce WVCs:

• Steeper fill slopes may non allow drivers to see deer budgeted the roadway until the animals bound over the guardrail. If a steeper side slope is unavoidable, a landing expanse may allow drivers to come across animals before they bound over the guardrail.

  • At locations where the roadway crosses drainages, known migration corridors, or known creature habitat, avoid curves, steep side slopes, and narrow clear zones, which may brand animals visible to drivers.

  • At locations where culverts or bridges are installed, culverts and bridges can perchance exist widened to include opportunities for animals to cross under the road.

  • Drainage features tin exist designed to minimize wildlife attraction and influence wildlife movement. Avoid creating pooled water in the right of way which increases vegetation and attracts wildlife. Some wildlife volition avoid crossing rip-rap (large boulders). If rip-rap funnels animals to an undesirable crossing location, consider filling gaps in the rip-rap with sand and gravel (which may make it more than conducive to animals crossing) or extend the rip-rap to a more suitable crossing location.

  • When considering seeding mixes for the roadside, consider unpalatable species. Also consider plants that practice not grow so alpine as to visually obscure animals approaching the roadway.

  • Concrete median barriers may cause wildlife to break at the barrier or turn around, increasing their time in the roadway.

Which Methods Are Most Constructive?

In that location is no single, depression-cost solution for WVCs that tin can or should exist applied everywhere. A successful mitigation strategy requires a detailed, location-specific assay of the problem and often involves a combination of different types of mitigation measures. Nonetheless, wild fauna fences, with or without wildlife crossing structures, creature detection systems, and long tunnels or bridges, reduce or may reduce WVCs substantially (≥ fourscore percent). Of these mitigation measures, wildlife fences, with or without wild fauna crossing structures and brute detection systems, are among the most price-effective measures.

Are We Making Progress? Challenges Faced by Transportation Agencies

With several successful WVC mitigation methods available, why hasn't more progress been made toward reducing the number of WVCs? This report identified several challenges that currently foreclose a systematic, nationwide arroyo to WVC reduction.

Gaps in Noesis, Insufficient Information, and Lack of Data

There are no standards or guidelines for the collection of data on WVCs. Information are collected inconsistently and often haphazardly, and methods vary between states and agencies. Some transportation agencies do not collect this blazon of information at all. Without reliable, consistent data, it is difficult to identify road sections where mitigation methods may be required, to select an appropriate mitigation measure out, or to evaluate whether that try is making a difference. Time to come analyses should also include additional statistical methods to analyze the data.

Effigy ES18. Photo. Roadkill ascertainment collection arrangement (ROCS), a GPS-enabled PDA for brute carcass data collection (copyright: Amanda Hardy, WTI).

Research and Evaluation of Mitigation Measures

While several mitigation methods evidence promise, transportation agencies demand information that show the effectiveness of different types of mitigation measures to justify their deployment. Boosted research and field demonstration of WVC reduction techniques (Figure ES19) help advance the state of the practice equally results depend on the type of problem, the species involved, and local circumstances. Long-term monitoring of the effectiveness of the mitigation measures is needed, as WVC numbers are highly variable in nature. In improver, wildlife use of crossing structures tends to increase over time, as animals need time to larn their locations and learn that they are safe to use.

Training

While many transportation agencies are interested in reducing WVCs, their staff may not accept the noesis or experience to select effective methods. DOT planners and blueprint engineers need training and guidance materials before they can brainstorm to implement WVC reduction plans.

Figure ES19. Photo. Creature detection organisation forth U.Due south. Highway 191 in Yellowstone National Park, MT (copyright: Marcel Huijser).

Where Do We Get From Here? Opportunities and Next Steps

This report has provided an opportunity to certificate the central issues related to WVCs on America'southward highways: the magnitude and trend of the problem, the dangers posed to both drivers and animals, successful and promising methods for reducing the number of collisions, and challenges that lie alee.

More importantly, the findings of this written report can help policymakers make informed choices regarding future efforts to reduce WVCs. Policymakers who wish to accept the lead in advancing effective WVC safety measures can brainstorm by considering the post-obit recommendations:

• Incorporate WVC reduction into the early stages of planning and design for transportation projects.
• Develop and implement standards and guidelines for the collection of data on and reporting of WVCs.
• Develop and implement guidelines for the evaluation of mitigation measures.
• Evaluate the effectiveness of mitigation measures that have been recommended for further enquiry.
• Conduct additional analysis of the data and conduct inquiry to farther develop and improve existing mitigation measures (Effigy ES20).

Figure ES20. Photograph. Fauna detection test-bed used to test the reliability of multiple animal detection systems, Lewistown, MT (copyright: Marcel Huijser, WTI).

• Implement (or install) proven mitigation measures where appropriate.

• Develop and apply wildlife population viability models to assist with locating and designing mitigation measures.

• Conduct engineering transfer to state DOTs, resource agencies, and other transportation professionals regarding the findings of this study. A handbook and grooming course on WVC reduction techniques volition be adult by 2008, which will help in making the information available to practitioners.

Previous | Table of Contents | Side by side

Source: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/08034/exec.cfm

Posted by: jacobsoulding.blogspot.com

Share this post