ODOT Wildlife Collision Hotspots Study RESULTS OF STATEWIDE RESULTS OF STATEWIDE ANALYSIS ANALYSIS August 26, 2008 August 26, 2008 nda Trask regon Department of Transportation, Geo-Environmental Section, Salem cesca Cafferata-Coe, Jessica Burton, Ellen Voth, and John Lloy ason, Bruce & Girard, Inc., Portland OR
15
Embed
ODOT Wildlife Collision Hotspots Study RESULTS OF STATEWIDE ANALYSIS August 26, 2008 Melinda Trask Oregon Department of Transportation, Geo-Environmental.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
ODOT Wildlife Collision Hotspots Study
RESULTS OF STATEWIDE RESULTS OF STATEWIDE ANALYSISANALYSISAugust 26, 2008August 26, 2008
Melinda Trask Oregon Department of Transportation, Geo-Environmental Section, Salem ORFrancesca Cafferata-Coe, Jessica Burton, Ellen Voth, and John Lloyd, Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc., Portland OR
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
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)
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.
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
USHwy
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_NUM CALL DATE LOCATION UNIT S
95309256 RDKILL 10191995 5925 WALLACE RD HWY2 1
95309392 RDKILL 10201995 HELMICK ROAD / 99 SR ;12600 HELMICK RD 21A P
95309598 RDKILL 10201995 21.5 228 SR 3A20 P
95312278 RDKILL 10231995 5.9 22 SR 3A26 1
95312329 RDKILL 10231995 SHERWOOD @ 99W SR MP 15.2-15.8/ ; 19025 SW PAC HWY 3A52 P
95312331 RDKILL 10231995 HWY 212 / FORMORE CT 4A30 P
Data Preparation - ResultsOriginal # Records 31,595 (100%)
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
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”
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
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?