DVCIC Activitiesand Results - Year Two

UW-MadisonPyle Center

February 12-13, 2004

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (Uncompressed) decompressorare needed to see this picture.

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (Uncompressed) decompressorare needed to see this picture.

Committee/Board Meetingand

Symposium

Presentation Outline• Provide “Updated” DVC Numbers• State Clearinghouse Objectives• Summarize some Website Statistics and

Other Information Sharing Activities• Update of Clearinghouse Activities:

Updated Toolbox Results/Status Regional DVC Data Management Survey UW Sign Study Activities for Next Year

2002

WISCONSIN NUMBERS• Pretty Constant the Last Few

Years• One of Six or Seven Crashes• Some Counties > 45 or 50%• 2002 - About 20,000 Reported

REGIONAL NUMBERS (2000-2002)Pre-Hunt

Numbers inDeer Herd

Deer-VehicleCrashes Deaths Injuries

VehicleDamage

Michigan 1,800,000 67,000 11 2,100 $113.9mil

Wisconsin 1,345,000 20,470 6 710 $34.8mil

Minnesota 1,140,000 5,550 5 520 $9.4 mil

Illinois 750,000 (est.) 23,645 2 976 $40.2mil

Iowa 210,000 7,550 1 630 $12.8mil

Midwest(5 states) 5,245,000 124,215 25 4,936 $211.1

mil

Notes: 1) Deer or Animal Crashes.

2) Reported versus Estimated.

3) $1,700/Crash Vehicle Damage.

4) National Estimates.

NATIONAL ACTIVITIES• TRB Subcommittee Synthesis and NCHRP Project• States/Provinces

Michigan New Jersey Texas Utah South/North Carolina Georgia Minnesota Ontario British Columbia Saskatchewan

Montana Pool:CaliforniaIowaIndianaMarylandNorth DakotaNew HampshireNevadaNew YorkOregonWisconsinWyoming

DVCIC OBJECTIVES• Compile Current DVC-Related

Knowledge

• Develop/Promote Standard DVC-Related Research and DVC Data Collection/Information Management Approaches

DVCIC OBJECTIVES (Cont.)• Collect, Evaluate, and Analyze

Regional DVC-Related Data

• Create/Update DVC-Related Data Information System

DVCIC OBJECTIVES (Cont.)• Distribute Useful DVC-Related

Information/Findings through the Following Deliverables: Countermeasure Toolbox Data Management and Information Survey Standards Proposal Regional Data Collection Summary Webpage (www.deercrash.com)

DVCIC OBJECTIVES (Cont.)• Maintain/Update Information

Sources and Knowledge Exchange: Webpage (www.deercrash.com) DVC Database and Annual Summary Papers/Presentations (TAC, TRB, and Others) Annual Regional Symposia

DVCIC OBJECTIVES (Cont.)• Long-Term:

Contribute to a Decrease in the Frequency and Severity of Deer-Vehicle Crashes (i.e., Useful Information and Monitoring)

“Destination of Choice”

WEBSITE AND INFO SHARING• Website:

Est. 200+ hits per dayEst. 15 Users per dayNoise Devices Site Most PopularSignificant Resource for IIHS Report

• Meetings: 2003 TAC, 2004 TRB, 2003 ICOET, 2003 Iowa Mid-Continent, and 2004 Winter WI Cty. Comm.

INFO SHARING (Cont.)• Numerous Media Responses:

• Wisconsin Outdoor Journal• Men’s Health Magazine• Canadian Broadcasting Corporation• Milwaukee Public Radio - “At Ten”, and

WGN

THE TOOLBOX• Objective: Provide Detail Needed to

Support/Defend DVC Countermeasure Application Choices and Decisions

• Current Knowledge Related to DVC Reduction Effectiveness

• 16 Countermeasures

THE COUNTERMEASURES• Noise/Sound/Whistle

Devices• Reflectors/Mirrors• Deer-Flagging Models• Deer Crossing Signs• Intercept Feeding• Speed Limit Reduction• Highway Lighting• Repellants• Deicing Salt

Alternatives• In-Vehicle

Technologies

• Roadside Vegetation Management

• Hunting or Herd Reduction

• Exclusionary Fence• Roadway Development

Decisions• Public Information and

Education• Wildlife Crossings

(Ongoing)

COUNTERMEASURE UPDATES

• Noise/Sound/Whistle Devices UPDATE: Acoustical Physicist Investigated

Combinations of Device Sound Levels, Deer Hearing Range, and Necessary Field Characteristics for Effectiveness

• Deer Crossing Signs/Tech. More Systems (Proposed and Running) and

Options • Deicing Salt Alternatives

ROW Salt Ponds and Moose Hits in Canada

NEW 2003 SUMMARIES• Exclusionary Fencing

Range of Fencing Studies With and Without Complementary Infrastructure/Activities

• One-Way Gates• Wildlife Crossings• Active Maintenance and Animal Removal• Cattleguards

60 to 97 Percent Reduction Range in Animal Mortality (Result Patterns?)

Primarily 8-Foot (2.44-Meter) Fencing Used - Studies of Other Heights are Questionable

NEW 2003 SUMMARIES (Cont.)• Exclusionary Fencing

Potential Factors that Impact Fencing Effectiveness:

• Proper Installation (e.g., Height, Location/Length, and Strength)

• Active Maintenance/Repair• Complementary Infrastructure• Vigilant Removal of Animals• Location with Respect to Woods, Grazing Land, and

Topography• Suggested Extension of Ends 1/2-mile (0.8 km) beyond

Activity Area

NEW 2003 SUMMARIES (Cont.)• Roadside Vegetation Management

Suspected DVC Impacts are Mostly Anecdotal Further Analysis/Study Needed Summary Includes List/MN Tool Site

• Public Awareness/Education and Hunting or Herd Reduction Part of a Complete DVC-Reduction Program, but

Impacts of Policy Changes are Difficult to Prove No Studies on Educational DVC Impact Models Show Relationships between Herd Density

and DVC Trends (One of Several Variables) Small Area Hunting Studies Show Some Potential

NEW 2003 SUMMARIES (Cont.)• Roadway Development Decisions

Proposed: Inherent Consideration of Animal Mortality in Maintenance, Design, and Planning/Programming Decisions and Processes

Potential DVC-Reduction ImpactsSome GIS and Expert Systems Combining

Habitat and Safety Information to Identify Existing/Proposed “Wildlife Critical” Locations

ONGOING SUMMARY• Wildlife Crossings

Effectiveness Often Measured by Animal Use rather than DVC-Reduction

Some Potential Factors that Impact Use: Location, Adjacent Topography/Vegetation, Geometrics, Fencing, and Human Activity

Variability in Studies (e.g., Species, Crossing Designs, and Location) Limits Transferability of Specific Conclusions

Great Study Summary in “Road Ecology” Book

ONGOING SUMMARY (Cont.)

REGIONAL DATA SURVEY• Final Form on Web and then Hard Copy

in Next Few Months • 9 DNR Questions and 18 DOT Questions• Written Responses and Telephone

Follow-Up• Primary Focus: Deer, Vehicle Travel,

and DVC Data Characteristics, Collection, and Management

SURVEY(Cont.)• Objectives

Share DVC-Related Data Characteristics and Collection/Management Procedures Used by Individual States with DVCIC Partners and Beyond

Allow Proper DVC-Related Data Comparisons Between and Within States

Allow Proper DVC-Related Data Combinations within Region Annually and from Year to Year within States

Similar National Consideration at TRB

SOME DATA SURVEY CONCLUSIONS• Annual Deer Population Estimates done Pre-

or Post-Hunt at DMU or County Level• DNRs Rarely Consulted on Roadway Planning

Projects about Animal/Vehicle Conflicts• Other States: Carcass Removal Primarily a

State and Local DOT Job - Done When Needed but Usually not Recorded

• DNRs Typically Not Consulted about Deer Crossing Sign Locations

CONCLUSIONS (Cont.)

• States in Region are Using Reflectors, Fencing/Bridges, Crossing Signs, and Crossing Signs with Detectors as Countermeasures (Some Studied for Effectiveness)

• Minimum Crash Reporting Thresholds Vary ($400 to $1,000) and Almost all Have Changed during Last 10 Years

• Two DOTs Appear to have a Rule of Thumb Consideration to Install Crossing Signs

UW SIGN STUDY Presented at 2004 TRB/Paper on Website Plotted Deer Carcass Removal (DCR) to DVC

Ratios by County [State Average Ratio: 2.2] Ranked Counties by Six DCR and DVC

measures:• Total Magnitude• Per HMVMT• Roadway Mile• Land Area• Human Population• Deer Population

SIGN STUDY CONTENT Selected Five Counties/38 Sign Pairs Considered 1/4-Mile and Segment DVC

Rates and Frequencies Evaluated DVC Peaking Patterns Suggested Seven Step Installation

Guidelines State Average County Average DVC Peaking Between Signs

TYPICAL STUDY SITEStudy Site Length

Sign Locations

2 Mile Outside Segment

2 Mile Outside Segment

Variable Length Between Segment

EXAMPLE 1/4-MILE DVC PATTERN

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Sign Sign

Study Segment

Total Number of DVCs

PROPOSED INSTALLATION GUIDELINES Step 1: Site Visit/Segment Definition

• Determine Physical Limits• Discuss with Natural Resource Staff• < 1.0 Mile (Reconsider Sign Installation)• > 5.0 Miles (Consider Multiple sign Pairs)

Step 2: DVC Data Collection• Define Sign Segment Plus 2 Miles in Each

Direction• Three Years of Location-Based DVC Data• County and State Averages

INSTALLATION GUIDELINES (Cont.) Step 3: DVC Measure Calculations

• DVCs/mile/year and DVCs per HMVMT• 1/4-Mile and Average Segment Measures

Between and Outside Signs Step 4: State/County Average

Comparison• Between Sign Average Measures > State Average• Between Sign Average Measures > County

Average• If Either is Not True: Reconsider Installation

INSTALLATION GUIDELINES (Cont.) Step 5: Between to Outside Comparison

• Calculate Between to Outside DVC Measure Ratio and Compare to 1.0 and County Average (If Available)

• If Less than Either: Reconsider Installation Step 6: Positive Sign Location (PSL)

Determination• Is Site a PSL (i.e., Are 1/4-mile DVC Measures and

Averages Between Signs of Study Site)?• If not: Redefine Proposed Sign Location and Study

Site (See Step 7).

INSTALLATION GUIDELINES (Cont.) Step 7: Redefine Sign Study Site

• Consider Peak DVC Measures for each 1/4-Mile, Between Signs, and Outside the Signs

• Shift Study Site to Include All Measures Between Signs (i.e., a PSL Results)

• Lengthen Study Site to Include All Measures Between Signs

• If Redefined Length > 5 Miles Consider Multiple Sign Pairs

• Reapply Procedure from Step 2 for Redefined Study Site

GUIDELINE LIMITATIONS Installation Only Allowed at Sites

with DVC Problems > Existing Sites Effectiveness Depends on Previous

Decisions Required Measures Can be Difficult

to Collect, Calculate, and/or Update Adjustments Needed if Applied to

Existing Sign Locations

FUTURE DVCIC ACTIVITIES• Print Regional Data Survey• Complete/Review Wildlife Crossings, Exec.

Summary and Conc./Rec. of Toolbox• Collect 10 Years of Upper Midwest DVC-

Related Data and Summarize• Update a UW County-Level DVC Prediction

Models• Propose Research Guidance and Strategy• Pursue Clearinghouse Continuation

Funding

Questions and Discussion

Website: www.deercrash.com