1. Critical Issues - DVC Reduction Research and Data Collection 2005 Fall Meeting Madison, WI October 24-25, 2005 Keith K. Knapp UW-Madison Deer-Vehicle Crash Information Clearinghouse www.deercrash.com

2. PRESENTATION CONTENT Research: Deer-Vehicle Crash Countermeasure Toolbox  Objective and Content  General Findings, Category Conclusions, and General Recommendations (Safety Focus) Data Collection: Regional Data Management and Information Survey  Recall Objectives  Conclusions and Concerns  Recommendations

3. THE TOOLBOX Objective: Provide Detail Needed to Support/Defend DVC Countermeasure Application Decisions and Choices Current Knowledge Related to DVC Reduction Effectiveness Exec. Summary and Three Chapters 16 Countermeasures Considered

4. 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/Policies Public Information and Education Wildlife Crossings

5. GENERAL FINDINGS Multitude of “References” (500+) Comparably Few Valid, and Well Designed and Documented Studies Many Conflicting or Inconclusive Research Results  Variability and/or Validity of Data and Approach  Time, Area, and Dollars

6. GENERAL FINDINGS (Cont.) Definitive Studies of Countermeasure DVC-Reduction Effectiveness are Rare One Common Solution Unlikely Work Required to Match/Focus Measure(s) to Locations Definitively Exclude/Include Widely Used Measures, and Properly Evaluate New Measures Upfront

7. COUNTERMEASURE CATEGORIES  Deer Whistles  Roadside Reflectors/Mirrors  Speed Limit Reduction  Signs and Sign Technology  Hunting and Herd Reduction  Roadside Vegetation Management  In-Vehicle Technologies  Deicing Salt Alternatives  Public Information and Education  Roadway Maintenance, Design, and Planning Policies 10 of 16 Measures Used but Rarely/Never Been Studied or with Conflicting Results:

8. …CATEGORIES (Cont.) 2 of 16 Measures Used with Generally Positive Results:  Exclusionary Fencing  Wildlife Crossings 4 of 16 Measures Not Generally Used but Rarely Studied:  Roadway Lighting  Deer-Flagging Models  Intercept Feeding  Repellents (on Roadways)

9. …CATEGORIES (Cont.) AASHTO Safety Plan Strategy Categories  “Experimental”  “Tried”  “Proven” Concluded all But 2 DVC Countermeasures were “Experimental” or “Tried” Fencing and Crossing Safety Analysis Work also Stills Need Improvement

10. GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS Measures Used with Conflicting Results and “Tried” - Definitively Determine Positive/Negative Safety Impacts Measures Used with Positive Results and Generally “Proven” - Apply Currently Accepted Standards of Safety Data Analysis and Answer more Detailed Application Questions

11. RECOMMENDATIONS (Cont.) Measures Used but Rarely Studied and “Tried” - Proper Study of Effectiveness (Replicate and Improve on Past Limited Evaluations) Measures Used but Rarely Studied and “Experimental” - Pilot Study Application with Currently Accepted Standards of Safety Data Analysis

12. RECOMMENDATIONS (Cont.) Measures Used but Not Studied and “Tried” or “Experimental” - Initial Evaluations and/or Pilot Study Applications Required Measures Not Generally Used but Rarely Studied and “Experimental - Proper Evaluation at a Pilot Study Level to Refute/Confirm Previous Individual Study Results

13. REGIONAL SURVEY 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

14. 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 DNR Officers and Others Issue/Record Carcass Salvage/Possession Permits A Few Combine/Summarize Permits and Removals if Data is Collected as Estimate of “Actual” DVCs (Some Also Collect Location)

15. SURVEY CONCLUSIONS (Cont.) For Most States Carcass Removal is Primarily a State and Local DOT Job - Done When Needed, but Usually not Recorded “Reported” DVC often Means Something Different to DNR and DOT DNRs Typically Not Consulted about Deer Crossing Sign Locations Similar Issues Occur Nationwide

16. DVC DATA CONCERNS Typical PDO Data Characteristics  Under-Reporting  Specificity of Location  Different Minimum Reporting Thresholds Relevant Database Locations  Intra-agency  Interagency  Interdisciplinary  Public, Private, and Non-Profit  Federal, State, County, and Local

17. …DVC DATA CONCERNS (CONT.) Poor Documentation of Data/Terminology in “DVC” Summaries and Research For Example in Past Reports:  “DVC” = “Roadkill” Observed, Roadside Permit Numbers, and Officially Reported Crashes  These are NOT Equal in Magnitude or Location Possible that “Best” Data is not Generally Collected/Recorded by Location Lack of Species-Specific Crash Input

18. DVC DATA CONCERN IMPACTS Definition of Overall Problem and Problem Locations Spatial and Temporal Combinations and Comparisons Understandability and Usefulness of DVC Safety Research Results The “What” and “Where” Questions of Implementation

19. RECOMMENDATIONS Continue to Encourage Activities that Increase Reporting and Locational Accuracy Properly Define Available DVC-Related Databases Statewide, Regionally, and Nationally Properly Document Magnitude, Trends, and/or Location of DVC Problem Statewide, Regionally, and/or Nationally

20. RECOMMENDATIONS (Cont.) Encourage Quality Control of Standard DVC Countermeasure Research and its Documentation Pilot Study Collection/Recording of Roadside Carcass Locations - Compare to Reported DVCs Encourage DVC Countermeasure Implementation and Monitoring by Multidisciplinary Teams

21. Questions and Discussion Website: www.deercrash.comwww.deercrash.com