1. ODOT Wildlife Collision Hotspots Study RESULTS OF STATEWIDE ANALYSIS August 26, 2008 Melinda Trask Oregon Department of Transportation, Geo-Environmental Section, Salem OR Francesca Cafferata-Coe, Jessica Burton, Ellen Voth, and John Lloyd, Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc., Portland OR

3. Types of Wildlife Collision Data Focused Road Kill Observations  Possible to get accurate location and species info.  Most expensive Expert Opinion  Good for first cut; precursor to focused studies  Subjective; not empirical Crash Records  Used for national statistics  Limited subjective reporting  Data quality cannot be verified Dispatch Carcass Reports  Most comprehensive option  Data quality cannot be verified

4. Oregon's Highway Animal-Vehicle Collisions CRASH RECORDS:  Avg. 400 wildlife collisions per year, past 14 years About 5,500 records statewide Less than 3% of all crash reports in Oregon 15 fatalities & 117 serious injuries in 14 years  Crash records represent only a small portion of actual animal- vehicle collisions nationally (less than 10% of actual; per literature) Dispatch Carcass Records  6 times more data in similar period  Represents avg. 2,600 wildlife collisions per year, past 12 years  About 32,000 records statewide in OR (12 years)

5. ODOT Wildlife Collision Prevention Plan Addressing wildlife passage is supported by the Governor and ODOT’s current mission and goals, and particularly within the values of safety, accountability, and environmental stewardship. Current lack of information - we cannot adequately address the problem.  Do we have a significant statewide road kill problem or just in some areas?  Need to prioritize wildlife movement corridors and highway barrier problem areas to make science-based and cost-effective decisions, versus ad-hoc.  Need better tools to adequately address wildlife passage. Non-regulated but supported by FHWA, ODFW, USFWS, CETAS, nationwide attention.

6. Density: low medium high ODOT Wildlife Collision Hot Spot Analysis Uses existing carcass pick-up records Statewide, analytical approach Identify high frequency wildlife-vehicle collision zones Conducted pilot study in D10 to fine tune methods and determine the feasibility of statewide analysis US Hwy

7. Data Preparation - Methods 3 different types of record keeping Wildlife Incident Reports, call = RDKILL Animal Type, Deer & Elk Consistent Dates, 12 yeas of data (1995-2006) Location, +/- 0.5 mile Link Location to GIS Coordinates CAD_NUMCALLDATELOCATIONUNITS 95309256RDKILL101919955925 WALLACE RDHWY21 95309392RDKILL10201995HELMICK ROAD / 99 SR ;12600 HELMICK RD21AP 95309598RDKILL1020199521.5 228 SR3A20P 95312278RDKILL102319955.9 22 SR3A261 95312329RDKILL10231995SHERWOOD @ 99W SR MP 15.2-15.8/ ; 19025 SW PAC HWY3A52P 95312331RDKILL10231995HWY 212 / FORMORE CT4A30P

8. Data Preparation - Results Original # Records 31,595 (100%) Step 1 - Data Processing Narrowing Acceptable Parameters25,216 (80%) (20% reduction)  Cut out records older than 1995, duplicate records, non deer/elk, low precision (> 0.5 mi) Tabular Information Problems 21,335 (68%) (12% reduction)  Poor location, highway nomenclature, or MP  Not enough information in recorded data  MP not referenced Step 2 - Linkage to GIS GIS Mapping Problems 17,824 (56%) * (11% reduction)  Route ≠ ODOT Highway number * Final number of "good" records used in data analysis.

9. Final Data Set

10. Results: Kernal Density Evaluation Produces an estimate of risk for each point.  Highlights highway segments with higher density probabilities than others Results Depend on:  Density of points  Relative proximity of points  Study area  Method of categorizing  Ranking or # “bins”

12. Discussion This study did not address why hotspots are found in these areas.  vehicle speed, traffic volume, movement barriers, adjacent habitat structure, animal distribution, travel corridors, etc.  Necessary to make sound management decisions Potential uses of this data:  Planning (NEPA process, one of many types of data)  Project Scoping (one of many types of data)  Project Development (project-specific; up to Regions) Typically will require more research; Hwy 97 example

13. Discussion ODOT can pay for wildlife crossing improvements  Justified under PD-04  FHWA Enhancement program (Category 11)  Oregon Transportation Plan (Goal 4.1.1)  SAFETEA-LU Section 148 (approved uses of safety funds) Hazard Elimination Program (HEP) Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Wildlife passage typically not regulated How does it affect Maintenance? Future data collection?