Notice

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of 

Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes 

no liability for the use of the information contained in this document.

The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or 

manufacturers’ names appear in this report only because they are considered essential 

to the objective of the document.

Quality Assurance Statement 

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high-quality information to serve 

Government, industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public understanding. 

Standards and policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, 

and integrity of its information. FHWA periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its 

programs and processes to ensure continuous quality improvement.
FEDERAL AND TRIBAL LANDS ROAD SAFETY AUDITS: CASE STUDIES

i

Technical Documentation Page

1. Report No.

FHWA-FLH-10-05

2. Government 

Accession No.

3. Recipient’s Catalog No.

 

4. Title and Subtitle

Federal and Tribal Lands Road Safety Audits: Case Studies

5. Report Date

December 2009

6. Performing Organization 

Code

7. Author(s) 

Frank Gross, Dan Nabors, and Margaret Gibbs

8. Performing Organization 

Report No.

9. Performing Organization Name and Address. 

Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc (VHB) 

8300 Boone Blvd., Ste. 700 

Vienna, VA 22182-2626 

10. Work Unit No.

11. Contract or Grant No.

DTFH61-05-D-00024 

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)

Office of Safety 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20590

13. Type of Report and Period 

Covered 

September 2007- January 2010

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. Supplementary Notes. 

The Federal Highway Administration (Office of Safety and Office of Federal Lands Highway) sponsored six of the 

RSAs reported in this document. The FHWA Office of Federal Lands Task Order Manager was Chimai Ngo. The Office 

of Safety Task Order Manager was Rebecca Crowe. Documentation of the other two RSAs included in this document 

were provided by Victoria Brinkly and Scott Whittemore. Production was performed by Kylie Morris and Michelle 

Scism from VHB.

16. Road Safety Audits/Assessments (RSAs) are an effective tool for proactively improving the future safety 

performance of a road project during the planning and design stages, and for identifying safety issues in existing 

transportation facilities. To demonstrate the usefulness and effectiveness of RSAs on Federal and tribal lands, the 

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Office of Safety and Office of Federal Lands Highway sponsored a series 

of six Federal and tribal lands RSAs. Two additional RSAs on Federal Lands were conducted by Western and Eastern 

Federal Lands Division Offices.

The results of the RSAs have been compiled in this case studies document. Each case study includes photographs, a 

project description, a summary of key findings, and the lessons learned. The aim of this document is to provide Federal 

Land Management Agencies (FLMAs) and tribal transportation agencies with examples and advice that can assist them 

in implementing RSAs in their own jurisdictions.

17. Key Words. Road Safety Audits, Road Safety Assessments, 

RSAs, Safety, Tribal, Federal Lands, Case Studies

18. Distribution Statement

No restrictions. 

19. Security Classif. (of this report)

Unclassified

20. Security Classif. 

(of this page)

Unclassified

21. No. of 

Pages

 76

22. Price

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed pages authorized
FEDERAL AND TRIBAL LANDS ROAD SAFETY AUDITS: CASE STUDIES

ii

PREFACE

Road Safety Audits (RSAs) are an effective tool for proactively improving the future safety 

performance of a road project during the planning and design stages, and for identifying 

safety issues in existing transportation facilities. Additional information and resources on 

RSAs are available on the web at http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/rsa.

Information for the case studies reported in this document was gathered during a series 

of eight RSAs conducted throughout the United States between 2007 and 2009, involving 

Federal Land Management Agencies (FLMAs) (Pinckney Island and Savannah National 

Wildlife Refuges, Patuxent Research Refuge, Siskiyou National Forest, Cumberland Gap 

National Historical Park, and Gifford Pinchot National Forest) and tribal transportation 

agencies (Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, Navajo Nation, and Eastern 

Band of Cherokee Indians). The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the 

authors greatly appreciate the cooperation of these FLMAs and Tribes, as well as other 

participating agencies such as the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and state departments 

of transportation (DOTs), for their willing and enthusiastic participation in this FHWAsponsored RSA series.
FEDERAL AND TRIBAL LANDS ROAD SAFETY AUDITS: CASE STUDIES

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 1

Background 1

What is an RSA? 1

The FHWA and Tribal Lands RSA Case Study Program 3

THE RSA PROCESS 4

Eight Steps of an RSA 4

Prioritization of Issues 7

RSAs: COSTS AND BENEFITS 8

RSA Costs 8

RSA Benefits 9

THE FHWA CASE STUDIES: PROMOTING THE ACCEPTANCE OF RSAs 11

Key Factors for Success 11

Lessons Learned 14

CONCLUSION 24

APPENDIX A CASE STUDY RSAs A-1

Pinckney Island and Savannah Wildlife Refuges, South Carolina A-2

Patuxent Research Refuge, Maryland A-7

Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, Wisconsin A-12

Navajo Nation, Utah A-18

Siskiyou National Forest, Bear Camp Coastal Route, Oregon A-22

Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, North Carolina A-27

Cumberland Gap National Historic Park, Tennessee A-31

Gifford Pinchot National Forest, US Forest Service, Washington A-37

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1 RSA PROCESS 4

FIGURE 2 START-UP MEETING 5

FIGURE 3 FIELD REVIEW 5

FIGURE 4 RSA ANALYSIS SESSION 6

FIGURE 5 PRELIMINARY FINDINGS MEETING 6

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1 CASE STUDY RSAs 3

TABLE 2 CRASH RISK ASSESSMENT 8
FEDERAL AND TRIBAL LANDS ROAD SAFETY AUDITS: CASE STUDIES

iv

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
FEDERAL AND TRIBAL LANDS ROAD SAFETY AUDITS: CASE STUDIES

1

INTRODUCTION

Background 

Road Safety Audits/Assessments (RSAs) are an effective tool for proactively improving 

the future safety performance of a road project during the planning and design stages, 

and for identifying safety issues in existing transportation facilities.

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Office of Safety and Office of Federal 

Lands Highway commissioned a series of six Federal and tribal lands RSAs as part of a 

Task Order under FHWA Contract DTFH61-05-D-00024. The RSAs were conducted by 

Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. and Opus International. Two additional RSAs on Federal 

Lands were conducted by Western and Eastern Federal Lands Division Offices.

The results of the RSAs have been compiled in this case studies document. Each case 

study includes photographs, a project description, a summary of key findings, and the 

lessons learned. The aim of this document is to provide Federal Land Management 

Agencies (FLMAs) and tribal transportation agencies with examples and advice that can 

assist them in implementing RSAs in their own jurisdictions.

What is an RSA?

A Road Safety Audit/Assessment (RSA) is a formal safety performance examination of an 

existing or future road or intersection by an independent, multidisciplinary team. 

Changes in roadway ownership, traffic patterns (which may be seasonal), and development 

around roadways often create conditions unanticipated in the original roadway design. 

RSAs, conducted by a team that is independent of the facility Owner and design team, 

address safety by a thorough review of roadway, traffic, environmental, and human factors 

conditions. By focusing on safety, RSAs make sure that safety does not “fall through the 

cracks.”

The RSAs followed the procedures outlined in the FHWA Road Safety Audit Guidelines 

document (Publication Number FHWA-SA-06-06). The procedures involve an eight-step 

RSA process discussed later in this case study document.

The multidisciplinary RSA Team is typically composed of at least three members, 

representing backgrounds in road safety, traffic operations, and/or road design, and 

members from other areas such as maintenance, human factors, enforcement, and first 
FEDERAL AND TRIBAL LANDS ROAD SAFETY AUDITS: CASE STUDIES

2

responders. Members of the RSA Team are independent of the operations of the road 

or the design of the project being assessed. The RSA team’s independence assures two 

things: that there is no potential conflict of interest or defensiveness, and the project is 

reviewed with “fresh eyes.” 

RSAs can be conducted at any stage in a project’s life:

• A pre-construction RSA (planning and design stages) examines a road before it is 

modified or built, at the planning/feasibility stage or the design (preliminary or detailed 

design) stage. An RSA at this stage identifies potential safety issues before crashes 

occur. The earlier a pre-construction RSA is conducted, the more potential it has to 

efficiently remedy possible safety concerns.

•	 Construction RSAs (work zone, changes in design during construction, and pre 

opening) examine temporary traffic management plans associated with construction 

or other roadwork, and changes in design during construction. RSAs at this stage can 

also be conducted when construction is completed but before the roadway is opened 

to traffic.

• A post-construction or operational RSA (existing road) examines a road that is 

operating, and is usually conducted to address a demonstrated crash problem.
FEDERAL AND TRIBAL LANDS ROAD SAFETY AUDITS: CASE STUDIES

3

The Federal and Tribal Lands RSA Case Study Program

The eight RSAs conducted in this case study program are summarized in Table 1.

TABLE 1 CASE STUDY RSAS

FACILITY OWNERS AND OTHER 

RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES RSA SITES RSA STAGE 

Maryland State Highway Administration 

(SHA), United States Department of 

Agriculture, Patuxent Research Refuge 

• paved two-lane rural roads

• signalized intersection

existing roads 

and proposed 

design

Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior 

Chippewa, Wisconsin Department of 

Transportation

• paved two-lane rural roads

• unsignalized intersections

existing roads 

and planned 

improvements

Navajo Nation, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 

Phillips Oil Company, San Juan County, 

Utah

• paved two-lane rural roads

• unsignalized intersections existing roads 

Pinckney Island and Savannah National 

Wildlife Refuges, South Carolina 

Department of Transportation

• existing entrances to wildlife 

refuges

• proposed entrance to wildlife 

visitor center

existing roads 

US Forest Service and Bureau of Land 

Management, Bear Camp Coastal 

Route

• paved one- and two-lane 

rural road existing roads

Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians • rural and urbanized 

unsignalized intersections existing roads

Cumberland Gap Tunnel Authority, 

Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, 

Tennessee Department of 

Transportation, and National Park 

Service

• four-lane rural highway

• interchange

• tunnel approach

existing roads

US Forest Service, Skamania County, 

Washington

• paved two-lane rural roads

• unsignalized intersections existing roads

All participating FLMAs and tribal transportation agencies volunteered to be involved 

in this RSA program. Involvement in the case study program required the agencies to 

nominate the sites for the RSA project; provide the RSA Team with the materials (such 

as traffic volume and crash data) on which the RSA would be based; participate in the 
FEDERAL AND TRIBAL LANDS ROAD SAFETY AUDITS: CASE STUDIES

4

start-up and preliminary findings meetings; and contribute at least one Federal/tribal staff 

member to participate on the RSA team. The RSA teams were led by two experienced 

and independent consultants.

Information on each of these RSAs, including background, a summary of RSA issues, 

and a list of suggested improvements, is included in the Appendix.

THE RSA PROCESS

Eight Steps of an RSA

The eight steps of an RSA are shown in Figure 1, and are discussed below with some 

reference to the case studies.

FIGURE 1 RSA PROCESS

RSA projects and the RSA team (Steps 1 and 2) were pre-selected in this FHWA 

case studies project. RSA teams were interdisciplinary, typically including engineering 

and enforcement staff. Some RSA teams included non-traditional disciplines that were 

beneficial to the team, such as the public health specialist from Indian Health Services 

(IHS) who played a critical role in the Red Mesa RSA for the Navajo Nation.
FEDERAL AND TRIBAL LANDS ROAD SAFETY AUDITS: CASE STUDIES

5

All meetings and site visits for the RSAs in the case studies project were conducted over 

two or three day periods. The RSAs typically began with a start-up meeting (Step 3) 

attended by the Project Owner and/or Design Team (hereafter referred to as the Owner), 

and the RSA team:

• The Owner described concerns regarding the roads and intersections to be assessed, 

why the sites had been chosen for an RSA, and any constraints or limitations. Typically, 

the reasons for the RSA site selection centered on high-profile crashes or public safety 

concerns.

• The multidisciplinary RSA Team then described the RSA process. This included 

an overview of the RSA process with examples of safety issues that are typically 

encountered and mitigation measures to address them.

• Additional issues can be discussed during this step. For example, at the Red Cliff RSA, 

which included a review of planned improvements, the Design Team representative 

described the proposed future road design, including its constraints and challenges.

FIGURE 2

START-UP MEETING

FIGURE 3

FIELD REVIEW

Following the start-up meeting and a preliminary review of the design or site documentation, 

the RSA Team conducted a field review (Step 4). The purpose of the field review was 

to observe the ambient conditions in which the proposed design would operate (for the 

planning-stage RSA), or to observe geometric and operating conditions (for the RSAs of 

existing roads). The RSA Team observed site characteristics (such as road geometry, sight 

distances, clear zones, drainage, signing, lighting, and barriers), traffic characteristics 

(such as typical speeds and traffic mix), surrounding land uses (including traffic and 

pedestrian generators), and link points to the adjacent transportation network. Human 

factors issues were also considered by the RSA team, including road and intersection 
FEDERAL AND TRIBAL LANDS ROAD SAFETY AUDITS: CASE STUDIES

6

“readability,” sign location and sequencing, and older-driver limitations. Field reviews 

were conducted by the RSA Team under a variety of environmental conditions (such as 

daytime and night-time) and operational conditions (such as peak and off-peak times).

The team conducted the RSA analysis (Step 5) in a setting in which all team members 

reviewed available background information (such as traffic volumes and collision data) 

in light of the observations made in the field. On the basis of this review, the RSA Team 

identified and prioritized safety issues, including features that could contribute to a higher 

frequency and/or severity of crashes. For each safety issue, the RSA Team generated 

a list of possible measures to mitigate the crash potential and/or severity of a potential 

crash.

At the end of the analysis session, the Owner and RSA Team reconvened for a preliminary 

findings meeting (Step 6). Presenting the preliminary findings verbally in a meeting gave 

the Owner the opportunity to ask questions and seek clarification on the RSA findings, 

and also provided a useful forum for the Owner to suggest additional or alternative 

mitigation measures in conjunction with the RSA team. The discussion provided practical 

information that was subsequently used to write the RSA report.

FIGURE 4

RSA ANALYSIS SESSION

FIGURE 5

PRELIMINARY FINDINGS MEETING

In the weeks following the on-site portion of the RSA, the RSA Team wrote and issued the 

RSA report (also part of Step 6) to the Owner documenting the results of the RSA. The 

main content of the RSA report was a prioritized listing and description of the safety issues 

identified (illustrated using photographs taken during the site visit), with suggestions for 

improvements.
FEDERAL AND TRIBAL LANDS ROAD SAFETY AUDITS: CASE STUDIES

7

The Owner was encouraged to write a brief response letter (Step 7) containing a pointby-point response to each of the safety issues identified in the RSA report. The response 

letter identifies the action(s) to be taken, or explains why no action would be taken. The 

formal response letter is an important “closure” document for the RSA. As a final step, 

the Owner was encouraged to use the RSA findings to identify and implement safety 

improvements when policy, manpower, and funding permit (Step 8).

Prioritization of Issues

For many of the RSAs conducted on FLMAs and tribal lands, reliable crash data were not 

available. Anecdotal information on run off the road crashes and evidence of fence strikes 

along the roadway helped create a more complete picture of the potential hazards, but could 

not be quantified with any certainty. Therefore a prioritization framework was applied in both 

the RSA analysis and presentation of findings. The likely frequency and severity of crashes 

associated with each safety issue were qualitatively estimated, based on team members’ 

experience and expectations. Expected crash frequency was qualitatively estimated on the 

basis of expected crashes, exposure (how many road users would likely be exposed to the 

identified safety issue?) and probability (how likely was it that a collision would result from the 

identified issue?). Expected crash severity was qualitatively estimated on the basis of factors 

such as anticipated speeds, expected collision types, and the likelihood that vulnerable road 

users would be exposed. These two risk elements (frequency and severity) were considered 

during the qualitative risk assessment of each safety issue on the basis of the matrix shown 

in Table 2.

Consequently, the RSA Team prioritized each safety issue. It should be stressed that this 

prioritization method was qualitative, based on the expectations and judgment of the RSA 

Team members, and was employed to help the Owner prioritize the multiple issues identified 

in the RSA. For each safety issue identified, possible mitigation measures were suggested

for short-term, intermediate, and long-term implementation timeframes. The suggestions 

focused on short-term and intermediate measures that could be cost-effectively implemented 

within likely budget constraints. Ultimately, implementation of the measures suggested in the 

RSA is dependent on project costs and financial constraints of the Owner.
FEDERAL AND TRIBAL LANDS ROAD SAFETY AUDITS: CASE STUDIES

8

TABLE 2 CRASH RISK ASSESSMENT

FREQUENCY 

RATING

SEVERITY RATING

Minor Moderate Serious Fatal

Frequent ModerateHigh High Highest Highest

Occasional Moderate ModerateHigh High Highest

Infrequent Low Moderate ModerateHigh High

Rare Lowest Low Moderate ModerateHigh

RSAs: COSTS AND BENEFITS 

RSA Costs 

Three main factors contribute to the cost of an RSA:

• RSA Team costs.

• Design team and Owner costs.

• Costs of design changes or enhancements.

The RSA Team costs reflect the size of the team and the time required for the RSA, which 

in turn are dependent on the complexity of the RSA project. For the RSAs in this case 

studies project, the following cost components are noted:

RSA teams consisted of groups between five and fourteen persons, but these teams 

were large since the RSAs served as training exercises for Federal, tribal, and state 

engineering staff, and also because there are multiple owners in some cases. Without 

the need for training, the RSA teams would more typically have been composed of three 

to four persons.

Opening and closing meetings, site visits, and RSA analysis sessions were conducted in 

a two- or three-day period for each RSA.

Prior to and following the on-site portion of the RSA, the time required for analysis (such 

as analysis of collision records, and research on applicable design standards or mitigation 

measures) and writing the RSA report averaged about 40 man-hours.
FEDERAL AND TRIBAL LANDS ROAD SAFETY AUDITS: CASE STUDIES

9

For this case studies project, additional RSA Team costs were incurred in travel and time 

for RSA Team leaders, who are consultants traveling from out of town. However, typical 

RSAs would employ local team members, and consequently entail only minor travel costs.

The design team and owner costs reflect the time required for staff to attend the start-up 

and preliminary findings meetings, and to subsequently read the RSA report and respond 

to its findings. In addition, staff time is required to compile project or site materials for the 

RSA team.

The final cost component is that resulting from design changes or enhancements, which 

reflect the number and complexity of the issues identified during the RSA. Suggested 

design changes and enhancements, listed in the Appendix (Tables A.1 through A.8) for 

each of the RSAs conducted for this case studies project, have focused on low-cost 

improvements or countermeasures where possible. Suggested improvements for the 

RSAs focused on improved signing and pavement markings, minor or moderate geometric 

changes (such as added auxiliary lanes at intersections), gateway treatments, and barrier 

improvements.

RSA Benefits 

The primary benefits of RSAs are to be found in reduced crash costs as road safety 

is improved. The costs of automotive crashes are estimated by the US Department of 

Transportation1 as:

• $3,000,000 for a traffic fatality.

• $2,290,000 for a critical injury.

• $565,000 for a severe injury.

• $175,000 for a serious injury.

• $45,000 for a moderate injury.

• $6,000 for a minor injury.

Other benefits of RSAs include reduced life-cycle project costs as crashes are reduced, 

and the development of good safety engineering and design practices, including 

consideration of potential multimodal safety issues and integrating human factors issues 

in the design, operations, and maintenance of roads.

1 Intersection Safety Issue Brief No. 15 (“Road Safety Audits: An Emerging and Effective Tool for Improved Safety”), issued April 2004 by 

Federal Highway Administration and Institute of Transportation Engineers.
FEDERAL AND TRIBAL LANDS ROAD SAFETY AUDITS: CASE STUDIES

10

It is difficult to quantify the benefits of design-stage RSAs, since they aim to prevent crashes 

from occurring on new or improved facilities that have no crash record. However, when 

compared with the high cost of motor-vehicle injuries discussed above, the moderate cost of 

a design-stage RSA suggests that changes implemented from an RSA only need to prevent 

a few low- or moderate-severity crashes for an RSA to be cost effective.

The benefits of RSAs on existing roads can be more easily quantified, since pre-and postimprovement collision histories are available. As an example, the Road Improvement 

Demonstration Project conducted by AAA Michigan in Detroit and Grand Rapids (MI), which 

is based on RSAs of existing high-crash urban intersections and implementation of low-cost 

safety measures, has demonstrated a benefit-cost ratio of 16:1. Another example of data on 

the quantitative safety benefit of RSAs conducted on existing roads comes from the New 

York DOT, which reports a 20 to 40 percent reduction in crashes at more than 300 high-crash 

locations that had received surface improvements and had been treated with other low-cost 

safety improvements suggested by RSAs.

The South Carolina DOT RSA program has reported a positive impact on safety. Early results 

from four separate RSAs, following one year of results, are promising. One site, implementing 

four of eight suggested improvements, saw total crashes decrease 12.5 percent, resulting 

in an economic savings of $40,000. A second site had a 15.8 percent increase in crashes 

after only two of the thirteen suggestions for improvements were incorporated. A third site, 

implementing all nine suggested improvements, saw a reduction of 60 percent in fatalities, 

resulting in an economic savings of $3,660,000. Finally, a fourth location, implementing 25 of 

the 37 suggested safety improvements, had a 23.4 percent reduction in crashes, resulting in 

an economic savings of $147,000.

The most objective and most often-cited study of the benefits of RSAs, conducted in Surrey 

County, United Kingdom, compared fatal and injury crash reductions at 19 assessed highway 

projects to those at 19 highway projects for which RSAs were not conducted. It found that, 

while the average yearly fatal and injury crash frequency at the RSA sites had dropped by 

1.25 crashes per year (an average reduction from 2.08 to 0.83 crashes per year), the average 

yearly fatal and injury crash frequency at the sites that were not assessed had dropped 

by only 0.26 crashes per year (an average reduction from 2.6 to 2.34 crashes per year). 

This suggests that RSAs of highway projects make them almost five times more effective in 

reducing fatal and injury crashes.
FEDERAL AND TRIBAL LANDS ROAD SAFETY AUDITS: CASE STUDIES

11

Other major studies from the United Kingdom, Denmark, New Zealand, and Jordan quantify 

the benefits of RSAs in different ways. However, all report that RSAs are relatively inexpensive 

to conduct and are highly cost effective in identifying safety enhancements.

THE FHWA CASE STUDIES: PROMOTING THE ACCEPTANCE OF 

RSAs

The RSAs in this case studies project have been well received by all participating agencies. 

There are several key factors that contribute to a successful RSA, the most obvious of 

which is working together to identify and solve road safety issues. Through a cooperative 

and coordinated effort, Federal, tribal, state, and local agencies can partner to enhance 

safety on our nation’s roads. There are also many unique conditions associated with 

RSAs conducted on or near Federal or tribal lands. Several key factors and lessons 

learned from the RSA case studies are discussed in the following sections.

Key Factors for Success 

The key factors described in this section are basic principles that should be considered 

on all RSAs of all facilities. 

1. RSA teams should be composed of a multidisciplinary group of experienced professionals willing and able to identify deficiencies and solutions to ensure safety problems on roads are addressed in a proactive manner.

The core disciplines on an RSA Team are traffic operations, geometric design, and road 

safety. Beyond these disciplines, all of the RSA teams in this case studies project included 

members who brought a range of backgrounds and specialties to the RSA, including:

•	 Specialist expertise: The RSA of tribal roads on the Navajo Nation included a 

representative from Indian Health Services to provide advice from a public health 

perspective. The public health representative was able to provide valuable information 

regarding road user demographics in the area as well as opportunities for educational 

improvements such as road safety campaigns. The RSA conducted for Patuxent 

Research Refuge included a Community Traffic Safety Team Coordinator. These 

representatives of the community are trained and experienced in conducting RSAs and 

bring a unique viewpoint to the team, very often centered on human factors principles.

•	 Enforcement: The RSA teams included traffic enforcement officers where possible, 

and consulted with enforcement staff where their full-time participation on the RSA 

Team was not feasible. Enforcement staff contribute knowledge regarding local driver 
FEDERAL AND TRIBAL LANDS ROAD SAFETY AUDITS: CASE STUDIES

12

behavior and road safety history, and can provide advice concerning the expected 

effectiveness of suggested improvements that rely on driver behavior to be effective. 

For example the RSA for the Red Cliff Band of the Lake Superior Chippewa included 

the police chief who was able to provide details on crashes and discuss enforcement 

challenges faced by the community.

•	 Road agency staff: RSA teams included members from the Federal or tribal road 

agency, state DOTs, local (e.g., county) transportation agencies, and FHWA field 

safety staff. These team members provided first-hand knowledge of local policies, 

practices, constraints, and resources. 

In this series of pilot RSAs, RSA Team members were recruited from the Federal or 

tribal agency, state DOTs, local agency, local enforcement, and FHWA. Federal or tribal 

agencies considering their own RSAs may consider these agencies, as well as staff from 

other Federal agencies or Tribes with whom they establish a reciprocal relationship, when 

looking to staff RSA teams. When staffing a team, the RSA Team leader should remember 

that the RSA Team should be independent of the project or site being assessed, as far 

as possible. While consultation with local involved staff is necessary to gain an adequate 

understanding of the project or site, the RSA Team should be made up of members who 

have little or no prior involvement with the specific project or site.

2. The safety benefits of proposed or existing facilities already in place are identified as

part of the RSA process and report.

As part of the RSA process, the team identified proposed improvements or measures 

already in place (prior to the RSA) that improve the safety of road users, such as 

paved shoulders, designated pedestrian/bicycle facilities, targeted traffic enforcement, 

educational campaigns, and institutional measures that provide ongoing support for 

transportation safety initiatives. Acknowledging proposed improvements and safety 

measures that have been implemented puts the RSA findings in an appropriate context, 

and acknowledges the efforts already done by the road agency to improve the safety of 

road users.

3. All RSA Team members need to be heard.

RSAs are conducted by an independent and multidisciplinary team. Each team member 

brings individual expertise and perspective to the RSA that they can pass along to their 

teammates. It is important to fully engage every team member to facilitate a free and open 

discussion of issues and suggested improvements, which will help ensure the success of 

the RSA. 
FEDERAL AND TRIBAL LANDS ROAD SAFETY AUDITS: CASE STUDIES

13

The RSA for the Navajo Nation in Red Mesa included team members from the Navajo 

DOT, Navajo police, Utah DOT, BIA, Indian Health Services, FHWA, and San Juan County. 

All members provided useful insights during the RSA process and several team members 

commented on the benefit of listening to and learning from their teammates who were 

able to provide a different perspective of the safety issues and potential improvements. 

For example, the member from Indian Health Services learned about road safety issues 

from a highway design perspective, and in return, was able to educate the team on road 

safety concerns from a public health perspective.

4. Candidate funding sources for suggested improvements are identified.

All of the Federal and tribal RSAs included suggestions for improvements to address 

safety issues. An important consideration in identifying and implementing road safety 

improvements is funding. The federal government provides funding assistance for eligible 

activities through legislative formulas and discretionary authority, including some 100% 

federal aid programs and programs based on 90/10 or 80/20 (federal/local) matches. The 

RSA Team can obtain up-to-date information on funding opportunities by referring to the 

following resources and visiting the following websites:

•	 Tribal Highway Safety Improvement Implementation Guide 

(http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep/tribaltrans/saf_guide.htm).

•	 Tribal Transportation Funding Resources 

(http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep/tribaltrans/ttfundresource.pdf).

• FHWA Discretionary Programs website

(http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/discretionary/proginfo.cfm).

The Tribal Highway Safety Improvement Implementation Guide advises that the 

implementation plan for a tribal highway safety improvement project (THSIP) or highway 

safety project will depend greatly on which funding sources the Tribes pursue, since each 

source has different program eligibility requirements. Some of the important government 

traffic safety-funding sources include:

•	 The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) and Surface Transportation 

Program (STP) federal-aid highway programs, administered by the state highway 

agency for projects that improve safety.

•	 Transportation enhancement funds administered by the state highway agency for 

projects involving pedestrian facilities and scenic highways.
FEDERAL AND TRIBAL LANDS ROAD SAFETY AUDITS: CASE STUDIES

14

•	 Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Program funds administered by the state highway 

agency to enable and encourage children to walk and bike to school.

•	 National Scenic Byway Program administered by the state highway agency which 

provides funding for roads designated either locally or nationally as having outstanding 

scenic, historic, cultural, natural, recreational, and archaeological qualities. Funds can 

be used for pedestrian and bicycle facilities along scenic byways.

•	 Indian Reservation Roads (IRR) Program jointly administered by BIA Division of 

Transportation and the FHWA Federal Lands Highway Office.

•	 Public Lands Highways Discretionary (PLHD) Program funds administered by the 

Office of Federal Lands Highway. PLHD funds are intended to improve access to 

and within Federal lands and are available for transportation planning, research, 

engineering, and construction of highways, roads, parkways, and transit facilities 

within Federal public lands.

•	 NationalHighwayTrafficSafetyAdministration(NHTSA)funds administered by the state 

Highway Safety Office and the BIA Indian Highway Safety Program Office, including 

the State and Community Highway Safety Grants Program (Section 402), Occupant 

Protection Incentive Grants (Section 405), Safety Incentive Grants for Safety Belt Use 

(Section 406), State Traffic Safety Information System Improvement Grants (Section

408), and Alcohol-Impaired Driving Countermeasures Incentive Grants (Section 410).

•	 Indian Health Service Injury Prevention Program for basic and advanced injury 

prevention projects, and for building tribal capacity for preventing any type of injury 

problem facing a tribal government.

Additional sources specific to each state may be available from the state department of 

transportation.

Lessons Learned

Over the course of the Federal and tribal lands RSA case studies project, the RSA teams 

identified eleven key elements that must be considered as agencies move forward with 

an RSA program.

1. The RSA Team must acquire a clear understanding of the project background and 

constraints.
FEDERAL AND TRIBAL LANDS ROAD SAFETY AUDITS: CASE STUDIES

15

At the RSA start-up meeting, a frank discussion of the constraints and challenges 

encountered in the design of the project, or operation of existing road, is critical to 

the success of the RSA. It is crucial that the RSA Team understand the trade-offs and 

compromises that were a part of the design process or the form of the present road. 

Knowledge of these constraints helps the RSA Team to identify mitigation measures that 

are practical and reasonable.

The RSA for the Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa included team members from 

the Red Cliff transportation agency and the Wisconsin DOT. The RSA was conducted on 

a section of WIS-13 (a state route) through the Red Cliff community. The state built the 

roadway and is responsible for major improvements such as resurfacing, while the Tribe 

is responsible for maintenance activities such as signing and pavement markings. Prior 

to the RSA, both agencies had identified improvements for this section of road, but the 

improvements did not coincide. There were also several mid- to long-range improvements 

planned for the area (e.g., relocating existing casino and new housing developments). 

The RSA provided an opportunity to combine aspects of the plans from both agencies 

to address the identified safety issues and assign responsibility to the respective parties. 

The RSA Team obtained a clear understanding of the desires and responsibilities of both 

parties as well as the planned developments in the area.

2. The involvement of multiple road agencies in the design, operation, and maintenance of roads on Federal and tribal lands can present a challenge, but can also 

help promote a successful RSA outcome.

There is a need for a high degree of coordination among the RSA Team on Federal and 

tribal lands because of the many agencies involved. Most of the roads assessed in this 

series of RSAs were under the joint jurisdiction of two or more road agencies at different 

levels, including: 

• The Federal Lands Management Agency or Tribal transportation agency.

• One or more state Departments of Transportation.

• Local (county) transportation agency.

When a road is under multiple jurisdictions, there are multiple interests involved. For 

example, FLMAs may have partial control over improvements (due to environmental and 

right-of-way constraints) even though they may not own or be responsible for maintaining 

the roadway. As such, it is important to identify ownership and jurisdiction, as well as the 

responsibilities of each agency on the team. 
FEDERAL AND TRIBAL LANDS ROAD SAFETY AUDITS: CASE STUDIES

16

Although relations between the representatives from these agencies ranged from civil to 

friendly on all RSAs conducted in this series, these multiple layers can result in a large 

and unwieldy RSA team, and may result in conflict between members of the team. At 

the same time, the involvement of multiple agencies was a distinct advantage in some 

Federal and tribal lands RSAs where participants were able to call upon resources within 

multiple agencies to make the RSA outcome as successful as possible.

The RSAs on Savannah Wildlife and Patuxent Research Refuges included state-owned 

roadways that travel through Federal lands owned by the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 

In these situations, the wildlife refuges do not own the roadways, but there are multiple 

voices of concern regarding any improvements to the roads. Environmental impacts are 

often a concern of the FLMAs, but there is also a concern for the safety of their visitors. 

In the case of the Savannah RSA, the Federal lands agency recognized the safety issues 

along the roadways within the refuge and helped to identify suggestions to improve 

facilities with minimal impact to the environment. The Patuxent Research Refuge has 

established an agreement with the state for certain maintenance responsibilities.

The RSA for the Navajo Nation in Red Mesa was conducted along N-35. The entire N-35 

corridor north of US-160 is a Federal Aid Highway. The portion of the roadway from milepost 

0 to milepost 18 is owned by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). The Phillips Oil Company 

paved the section of N-35 from milepost 18 to milepost 23, but road ownership remains 

the Navajo Nation’s. Funding for reconstruction and maintenance of N-35 comes from 

several sources, including the Indian Reservation Roads Program (IRR), Congressional 

earmarks, and the BIA road maintenance program. The funding for road improvements 

is administered by the Navajo Region Division of Transportation (NRDOT) through the 

IRR Program within the Federal Lands Highway Program. Funding for road maintenance 

comes from the Department of the Interior (DOI) and is also administered by the NRDOT. 

They have contracted San Juan County to maintain much of the roads in the county, 

including N-35. San Juan County is responsible for signing, pavement markings, and 

roadside mowing. While the ownership of the roadway is very complex and can present 

challenges, there are also benefits of multi-agency involvement. For example, funding 

for reconstruction and maintenance are limited for an individual agency, but the agencies 

identified options for pooling resources to implement the suggested RSA improvements. 

3. The RSA Team and Owner need to work in a cooperative fashion to achieve a successful RSA result. It is important to maintain an atmosphere of cooperation among 

all participants in the RSA process.
FEDERAL AND TRIBAL LANDS ROAD SAFETY AUDITS: CASE STUDIES

17

The RSA Team should be consistently positive and constructive when dealing with the 

facility Owner. Many problems can be avoided if the RSA Team maintains effective 

communication with the Owner during the entire RSA process (including the opportunities 

presented in the start-up and preliminary findings meetings) to understand why roadway 

elements were designed as they were, and whether mitigation measures identified 

by the RSA Team are feasible and practical. This consultation also gives the Owner a 

“heads-up” regarding the issues identified during the RSA, as well as some input into 

possible solutions, both of which can reduce apprehension (and therefore defensiveness) 

concerning the RSA findings.

The cooperation of the Owner is vital to the success of the RSA. An RSA is not a critical 

review of the Owner’s work, but rather a supportive review of the facility with a focus on 

how safety can be further incorporated into the existing facility or design. Cooperation 

between the RSA Team and Owner usually results in a productive RSA, since the RSA 

Team will fully understand the design issues and challenges (as explained by the Owner), 

and suggested mitigation measures (as discussed in advance with the Owner) will be 

practical and reasonable.

Support from the Owner is vital to the success of individual RSAs and the RSA program 

as a whole. It is essential that the Owner commit the necessary time within the project 

schedule for conducting the RSA and incorporating any improvements resulting from it, 

as well as the staff to represent the Owner in the RSA process (primarily the start-up and 

preliminary findings meetings).

The Cumberland Gap National Historic Park RSA included an examination of the 

Tennessee side approach to the Cumberland Gap Tunnel. This section is jointly owned by 

the Tennessee DOT and Kentucky DOT. The RSA process was enhanced by cooperation 

from the project owners. Specifically, the Tennessee DOT offered to conduct a speed study 

at a high crash location to evaluate if speeding was a factor in the crashes. In addition, 

the Tennessee DOT provided assistance by outlining their state process for performing 

RSAs and implementing improvements in their High Risk Rural Roads Program. The 

established RSA process allowed the RSA Team to better focus on other key elements 

of the RSA workshop such as the field investigation, crash data analysis, and safety 

measure selection. 
FEDERAL AND TRIBAL LANDS ROAD SAFETY AUDITS: CASE STUDIES

18

Similarly, on the Patuxent RSA, Maryland State Highway Administration, the facility 

Owner, provided information on established RSA policies, procedures, and RSA report 

formats. This enabled the RSA Team to more effectively use their time to discuss issues 

and opportunities for improvement.

4. A “local champion” can greatly help to facilitate the establishment of RSAs.

Wilson and Lipinski2

noted in their synthesis of RSA practices in the United States that the 

introduction of RSAs or an RSA program can face opposition based on liability concerns, 

the anticipated costs of the RSA or of implementing suggested changes, and commitment 

of staff resources. To help overcome this resistance, a “local champion” who understands 

the purposes and procedures of an RSA, and who is willing and able to promote RSAs 

on at least a trial basis, is desirable. Thus, measures to introduce RSAs to a core of 

senior transportation professionals can help to promote their wider acceptance. “Local 

champions” have been found within Federal and tribal road agencies, state DOTs, and 

FHWA field offices.

However, sometimes a local champion can emerge from a discipline other than the 

transportation field. For example, Indian Health Services (IHS) worked tirelessly to ensure 

an RSA was conducted for the Navajo Nation. Having detailed knowledge of the issues 

affecting the health and safety of people within their jurisdiction, IHS staff helped to identify 

potential RSA projects and RSA Team members to ensure maximum impact of the RSA. 

5. The RSA field review should be scheduled during regular recurring traffic conditions.

Where possible, the RSA Team should visit the project site when traffic conditions are 

typical or representative. For example, the RSA for the Red Cliff community included 

the primary road through their community as well as a local road that provides access to 

residential areas. Pedestrian safety, particularly for school children, was identified as an 

issue along these roads. Therefore, the RSA Team scheduled site visits during the school 

year and observed conditions during the morning and afternoon, coinciding with the start 

and end of the school day. As such, the team was able to observe pedestrian, bicycle, and 

bus activity along the routes and identify suggestions to enhance safety for all road users. 

In contrast, the RSA on the Navajo Nation was conducted in late August, nearing the 

end of the tourist season, but prior to the annual Shiprock Fair in October. The review of 

the crash data identified a substantial increase in crashes in October, coinciding with the 

Shiprock Fair. Consequently, the RSA Team was not able to observe traffic conditions 

2 Eugene Wilson and Martin Lipinski. NCHRP Synthesis 336: Road Safety Audits, A Synthesis of Highway Practice (National Cooperative 

Highway Research Program, TRB, 2004)
FEDERAL AND TRIBAL LANDS ROAD SAFETY AUDITS: CASE STUDIES

19

and driver behavior associated with the annual event. Although this did not significantly 

affect the RSA findings, scheduling the field review to observe recurring traffic conditions 

is preferable as it allows the RSA Team to see how these traffic conditions and road user 

behavior may affect safety.

6. The RSA field review should be conducted under various light and weather conditions when possible. 

The RSAs conducted as part of this series all included field visits during various conditions 

(i.e., day/night and AM/PM peak periods). When possible it is also important to conduct 

field visits during various weather conditions. Conducting field visits under various roadway 

and traffic conditions allows the RSA Team to observe road user behaviors under each 

scenario and identify potential safety issues. 

The Patuxent RSA was conducted during various conditions, including daytime, nighttime, and wet weather conditions. Drainage issues, including standing water near inlets 

and ponding in wheel ruts, were apparent based on the field review during wet weather 

conditions. The RSA Team also reviewed the study area during night-time conditions, 

which helped to identify the lack of visual guidance as a major safety issue. These issues 

would not have been easily detected if the field review was conducted during daylight 

and dry weather conditions only. As a result of the field review under various conditions, 

the RSA Team was able to conduct a more comprehensive review and incorporate this 

information in their suggestions for improvements.

The Red Mesa RSA Team also identified safety issues during day and night conditions. 

During the day, the team noted several signs that were dirty. Under further review during 

nighttime conditions, the RSA Team noted that the same signs were nearly illegible. The 

nighttime review helped to identify the severity of the issue related to sign maintenance.

7. RSAs establish relationships among agencies who don’t typically communicate with 

each other. 

Tribal agencies are responsible for the roadways within their jurisdiction, but there is 

often a shared responsibility with the state DOT because state roads often border or 

pass through tribal lands. The state may be responsible for construction of the roadway, 

but the Tribe is often responsible for maintaining the roadway. This requires an effective 

line of communication between the involved parties. The RSA process involves a formal 

safety evaluation by a multidisciplinary team, and for RSAs on tribal lands, the team often 
FEDERAL AND TRIBAL LANDS ROAD SAFETY AUDITS: CASE STUDIES

20

includes representation from the local Tribe and state DOT, among others. This provides 

an opportunity for the Tribe to discuss their issues and long-term visions with the state 

DOT and vice versa. As such, RSAs not only have the potential to enhance road safety, 

they have the potential to help establish better lines of communication and cooperation 

between the state DOT and the Tribe. 

The Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa is responsible for maintaining the signs 

and pavement markings on WIS-13 (a state route) through their community. During the 

RSA, it was discovered that the Wisconsin DOT and the Red Cliff Tribe had each identified 

improvements for WIS-13, but the two agencies’ plans did not coincide. The RSA process 

provided an opportunity for the agencies to establish a common vision for WIS-13 within the 

Red Cliff community and develop short-term, intermediate, and long-term goals. The RSA 

Team also identified safety issues on the existing facility and developed a list of additional 

improvements to include as part of the short-term, intermediate, and long-term goals. 

Overall, the RSA process provided an opportunity to enhance communication between 

the agencies and integrate planned improvements into a single vision. Throughout the 

course of the RSA process, the Red Cliff community, WisDOT, and BIA provided support 

and were open to suggestions for improvements. This attitude will help to maintain longterm communications and a commitment to improving safety for the Red Cliff community.

8. There may be opportunities to implement improvements by incorporating them with 

long-range plans. 

As part of the RSA opening meeting, the Team reviews data available for the study 

location such as traffic volumes and crashes. The RSA Team may also review long-range 

improvement plans. It is important for the RSA Team to understand the extent of the 

long-range plans so that they can identify how and when existing safety issues may be 

addressed. This also provides an opportunity for the RSA Team to identify additional 

improvements that were not previously identified in the long-range plans. 

During the RSA for the Navajo Nation in Red Mesa, the RSA Team identified several 

safety issues related to the narrow roadway width and lack of shoulders. Due to the 

limited annual funding for maintenance and roadway improvements, it was not practical 

to identify pavement widening as a short-term or intermediate improvement. However, 

there is a long-term resurfacing project along the corridor and the RSA Team identified 

opportunities to incorporate RSA suggestions as part of this long-range project. 
FEDERAL AND TRIBAL LANDS ROAD SAFETY AUDITS: CASE STUDIES

21

9. The geometric design of roadways on Federal and tribal lands are often not intended 

for the current traffic types and volumes.

Current use of roadways on Federal and tribal lands often exceed the intended use for 

which they were designed. Several of the RSAs conducted as part of this case studies 

series included roads that were designed for low-volume, passenger car use. As such, 

the lane and shoulder widths are relatively narrow and roadsides are often unforgiving. 

Due to local attractions (e.g., National parks) that are served by these roadways or the 

location of these roads in relation to commuter routes, there are increasing traffic volumes 

along these routes. 

The original purpose of Bear Camp Road in Oregon was for timber haul and for 

administration of Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management lands. However, the 

use and function of the road has evolved over time. At the time of the RSA, the road was 

being used by the public as a link between the interior of Oregon and the coast, and for 

commercial and recreational uses. Although the use and function of the road has evolved, 

its design, maintenance, and management has not. Consequently, the public was using a 

facility that was not designed for public use, and that did not incorporate safety features 

that the public generally expects or assumes.

The RSA for the Savannah National Wildlife Refuge in South Carolina included the review 

of a two-lane, rural road with limited lane widths and no paved shoulders. Pedestrian 

and bicycle activity along this route is generated by the refuge wildlife trails. The refuge 

would like to encourage further pedestrian and bicycle activity, but there are currently 

inadequate facilities along the roadway (i.e., no paved shoulders). This road also serves 

local traffic as well as large truck volumes from nearby factories, mills, and the Savannah 

Port. The truck volumes are expected to increase substantially when the Jasper Port 

opens. The mix of heavy truck traffic with pedestrians and bicyclists, coupled with limited 

geometrics, creates a significant safety concern.

The RSA in Red Cliff, Wisconsin included a section of WIS-13 through the Red Cliff 

community. While this road is a rural state trunk highway, it is a two-lane road with 

narrow shoulders and relatively high speeds. The route serves commuters between the 

communities of Bayfield and Red Cliff and also accommodates tourist traffic visiting local 

attractions such as the Isle Vista Casino, Town of Bayfield, and the Apostle Islands National 

Lakeshore (National Park). While pedestrian, bicycle, and ATV activity are generated by 

several nearby attractions, there are limited facilities to accommodate these user groups. 

The RSA Team identified options to create more of a community feel to the section of road 
FEDERAL AND TRIBAL LANDS ROAD SAFETY AUDITS: CASE STUDIES

22

through the Red Cliff community to help increase driver expectancy of pedestrians and 

bicyclists and potentially reduce vehicle speeds. The Team also identified opportunities to 

construct shared-use paths for pedestrians and bicyclists along the route.

The RSA for the Patuxent Research Refuge included a portion of Laurel Bowie Road. The 

road was constructed as a two-lane rural road, serving the Patuxent Research Refuge with 

several access points to the Refuge in the study area. The roadway has since become a 

heavily traveled commuter route between Laurel and Bowie. The roadway and roadside 

were not designed to accommodate the current use of the facility, which has manifested 

in a safety problem, including several fatal crashes.

10.There is a need and opportunity to incorporate pedestrian and bicycle improvements 

on Federal and tribal lands. 

There are multiple pedestrian and bicycle generators on Federal and tribal lands, but often 

a lack of adequate pedestrian and bicycle facilities. WIS-13 in Red Cliff, Wisconsin not only 

serves local pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle traffic, but also accommodates tourist traffic 

generated by the Isle Vista Casino and Apostle Islands National Lakeshore (National 

Park). There are limited shoulders and no sidewalks for pedestrians and bicyclists along 

WIS-13. Coupled with relatively high vehicle speeds, this creates a significant safety issue 

for pedestrians and bicyclists. 

The Savannah Wildlife Refuge generates significant pedestrian and bicycle activity, 

particularly along SC-170, which provides access to a wildlife viewing trail. Many visitors 

currently drive to the beginning of the Laurel Hill Wildlife Drive, park their vehicle, and 

continue by bike along the 4.5 mile drive. At the end of the drive, the bicyclists must either 

ride along SC-170 to return to their vehicle or backtrack the 4.5 miles against traffic on 

the one-way wildlife drive. The lane widths are narrow and there are no paved shoulders 

on SC-170. Coupled with the increasing volumes of heavy trucks, this creates an unsafe 

situation for pedestrians and bicyclists. The RSA Team identified several options for 

improving pedestrian and bicycle facilities within the refuge.

11. Animal control is an issue along many Federal and tribal land roads.

Animal-vehicle crashes vary by state and region. Deer are a primary concern in many 

states, but moose, elk, cows, and horses are a significant safety concern in Federal 

and tribal lands. There is a significant safety concern for motorists when the animals are 

large because crashes are often more severe. Animal-related crashes can be classified 

as wildlife or as domestic/livestock. The safety concerns may be similar among the two 
FEDERAL AND TRIBAL LANDS ROAD SAFETY AUDITS: CASE STUDIES

23

groups (i.e., large animals create a significant risk); however, the countermeasures to 

address the two categories can differ.

There are no assigned “keepers” of non-domestic animals (i.e., wildlife). Wildlife may travel 

long distances for food, mating, and migration. These animals often cross many roads in 

their travels. While animal fencing is an effective method for reducing animal crossings, it 

interferes with the animals’ desired route and disrupts their feeding, mating, and migration. 

The Deer-Vehicle Crash Information Clearinghouse identifies several countermeasures to 

address deer-vehicle collisions (http://deercrash.com/toolbox/index.htm). Many of these 

strategies can also be applied to address other types of animal crashes. For example, 

wildlife crossings (i.e., overpasses and underpasses) are identified as a strategy to address 

deer collisions, but have been constructed in many states to provide safe crossing routes 

for several other species ranging from frogs to bear. FHWA has developed a document 

and a website specifically focused on wildlife crossings or “critter crossings” as they are 

also known (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/wildlifecrossings/index.htm).

Domestic animals and livestock are also a safety concern, but someone is responsible for 

these animals. The risk of animal-vehicle collisions increases when domestic animals and 

livestock are allowed to roam free along the roadway. Installing and maintaining fencing 

along the road can help to reduce the number of animal-related crashes. However, it may 

be too costly for some agencies to install and maintain animal fencing. While enforcement 

and education efforts are not particularly useful to address wildlife crashes, they can help 

to address crashes related to domestic animals and livestock. Specifically, laws can be 

enacted and enforced to prohibit grazing within the right-of-way. Education campaigns 

can be employed to provide information related to animal control laws and stress the 

importance of keeping animals and drivers safe by minimizing potential conflicts.

Open grazing is allowed along N-35 on the Navajo Nation in Red Mesa, Utah. Coupled 

with a lack of animal fencing, animal crashes represent approximately 25 percent of 

crashes annually along the corridor. The Patuxent Research Refuge has animal fencing 

along the road to control animals and, as such, animal crashes are not a significant issue. 

The animal fence on the Patuxent Research Refuge is often struck, but these crashes are 

often much less severe than animal crashes and the fence is easily repaired. The fence 

collisions are partially attributed to roads that are not designed for current traffic use and 

non-recoverable slopes that lead to the fence.
FEDERAL AND TRIBAL LANDS ROAD SAFETY AUDITS: CASE STUDIES

24

CONCLUSION 

The Federal and tribal lands RSA case studies project sponsored by the FHWA Office 

of Federal Lands Highway and the Office of Safety has been well received by the 

participating FLMAs and tribal transportation agencies. The case studies project has 

exposed FLMAs and tribal governments to the concepts and practices of an RSA, and 

provided the opportunity for these agencies’ staff members to participate on the RSA 

Team as part of the process. This case studies document has summarized the results 

of each RSA, with the intent of providing FLMAs and tribal governments with examples 

and advice to assist them in implementing RSAs in their own jurisdictions. While safety 

issues vary from one transportation facility to another, these case studies provide a wide 

range of examples that demonstrate the usefulness of RSAs in solving safety problems 

on Federal and tribal lands.
FEDERAL AND TRIBAL LANDS ROAD SAFETY AUDITS: CASE STUDIES

A-1

APPENDIX A

CASE STUDY RSAs
FEDERAL AND TRIBAL LANDS ROAD SAFETY AUDITS: CASE STUDIES

A-2

RSA NUMBER 1

PINCKNEY ISLAND AND SAVANNAH NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGES:

RSA OF ENTRANCES TO CURRENT AND PLANNED REFUGE 

FACILITIES

SOUTH CAROLINA

Roads: existing two-lane and four-lane rural principal arterial roadways

RSA Sites: Pinckney Island National Wildlife Refuge

•	 existing entrance to wildlife refuge 

Savannah National Wildlife Refuge

•	 existing entrance to wildlife refuge maintenance facility

•	 existing entrance and exit for Laurel Hill Wildlife Drive

•	 proposed entrance to wildlife refuge visitor center

Environment: o urban/urbanized R suburban R rural

Owners: Savannah Coastal Refuges, South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT)

Road Safety Audit

Date of RSAs: 5 to 6 March 2008

RSA Stage(s): o planning/design stage R RSA of existing roads

RSA team: Savannah National Wildlife Refuge, Federal Highway Administration Eastern Federal 

Lands Highway Division (EFLHD), South Carolina Department of Transportation 

(SCDOT), US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.

BACKGROUND: 

The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) identified locations of concern on the two 

refuges. The purpose of this RSA was to identify safety issues at the locations and develop 

suggestions. 

Pinckney Island National Wildlife Refuge

The Pinckney Island National Wildlife Refuge is operated by the USFWS. The area of 

interest for the RSA was the entrance to Pinckney Island as shown in Figure A.1. The 

roadway that accesses the refuge is US-278 in Beaufort County, South Carolina. US278 is a four-lane principle arterial roadway owned by South Carolina DOT (SCDOT). 

This road serves as a commuter route and provides the only land access to Hilton Head 

Island. There is a relatively large amount of pedestrian and bicycle activity in this area due 

to the refuge. Currently, the level of service along US-278 is F (i.e., exceeding capacity), 

beginning just west of Pinckney Island due to the large traffic volumes accessing Hilton 

Head Island. The Beaufort County Comprehensive Transportation Plan describes plans 

to upgrade this section of US-278 from a 4-lane to a 6-lane section as part of the planned 

improvements to address 2025 needs. 
FEDERAL AND TRIBAL LANDS ROAD SAFETY AUDITS: CASE STUDIES

A-3

Savannah National Wildlife Refuge

The Savannah National Wildlife Refuge is also operated by the USFWS. The RSA 

study area was located near the junction of US-17 and SC-170 in Jasper County, South 

Carolina. More specifically, the Savannah National Wildlife Refuge study area included 

three locations, 1) the entrance to the Savannah National Wildlife Refuge maintenance 

facility, 2) the access points to the Laurel Hill Wildlife Drive, and 3) the entrance to the 

proposed visitor center. US-17 and SC-170 are two-lane principle arterial roadways 

owned by SCDOT. These roads serve local traffic as well as large trucks from the nearby 

factories, mills, and the Savannah Port. The level of service along US-17 and SC-170 is 

currently very good; however, the truck volumes are expected to increase substantially 

when the Jasper Port opens. The refuge generates pedestrian and bicycle traffic and 

refuge staff would like to encourage further pedestrian and bicycle activity.

ENTRANCE TO PINCKNEY ISLAND NATIONAL 

WILDLIFE REFUGE, SC

ENTRANCE TO SAVANNAH NATIONAL WILDLIFE 

REFUGE MAINTENANCE FACILITY, SC

ACCESS POINT TO LAUREL HILL WILDLIFE DRIVE AT 

SAVANNAH NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE, SC

PROPOSED ENTRANCE TO SAVANNAH NATIONAL 

WILDLIFE REFUGE VISITOR CENTER, SC

FIGURE A.1 VIEWS OF RSA SITES (PICKNEY ISLAND AND SAVANNAH 

COASTAL WILDLIFE REFUGES RSA)
FEDERAL AND TRIBAL LANDS ROAD SAFETY AUDITS: CASE STUDIES

A-4

KEY RSA FINDINGS AND SUGGESTIONS:

The key findings and suggestions of the RSA are summarized in TABLE A.1.

TABLE A.1 SUMMARY OF SELECTED SAFETY ISSUES AND SUGGESTIONS: 

PICKNEY ISLAND AND SAVANNAH NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE RSA

SELECTED SAFETY ISSUE

(Number and Description) SUGGESTIONS

1 Roadway Geometry:

•	 The lack of turn-lanes along SC-170 and 

US-17 at the access points increases the 

chance of conflict.

•	 Turn and acceleration lanes at the entrance 

along US-278 are relatively short. This 

issue is confounded by horizontal and 

vertical curves, which limit sight distance to 

and from the entrance. 

•	 construct right- and left-turn lanes at 

entrances

•	 install shoulder bypass lanes as alternative

•	 lengthen existing turn and acceleration lanes 

•	 consider potential underpass to eliminate leftturns and crossing movements at Pinckney 

Island

•	 trim vegetation 

•	 install intersection warning signs

•	 install advance guide signs or advance street 

name signs

2 Signage and Pavement Markings:

•	 Lack of guidance within the median opening 

at Pinckney Island.

•	 Faded pavement markings and missing 

raised pavement markers reduce visibility 

at night.

•	 Lack of signing at access points.

•	 Centerline is marked as a passing zone 

on US-17 at the entrance to the proposed 

visitor center.

•	 Inconsistent color of SCDOT guide sign for 

Savannah National Wildlife Refuge.

•	 delineate nose of median openings

•	 install STOP bars and double yellow 

centerlines in median openings

•	 install retroreflective signs and pavement 

markings

•	 replace missing raised pavement markers

•	 install post-mounted delineators along corridor

•	 install signs to warn motorists of turning and 

entering vehicles

•	 restripe US-17 as ‘no passing’ 

•	 replace green SCDOT sign for Savannah 

NWR, use brown background with white text

3

Traffic Congestion:

•	 Level of service F along section of US-278 

creates safety-related congestion issues.

•	 Parking facilities are over capacity at 

Pinckney Island.

•	 Nighttime events at Savannah NWR 

maintenance facility or Laurel Hill Wildlife 

Drive create safety issues.

•	 install traffic warning system to warn motorists 

of slow or stopped traffic

•	 increase capacity of parking lot

•	 continue policy of ‘no nighttime events’ at 

maintenance facility or Laurel Hill Wildlife 

Drive
FEDERAL AND TRIBAL LANDS ROAD SAFETY AUDITS: CASE STUDIES

A-5

SELECTED SAFETY ISSUE

(Number and Description) SUGGESTIONS

4 Roadside Design:

•	 Lack of paved shoulders along US-278, 

US-17, and SC-170.

•	 Rough transition from wildlife drive exit to 

SC-170.

•	 Pavement edge drop-offs.

•	 Damaged guardrail on southeast corner of 

entrance at Pinckney Island.

•	 Drop-offs on levees.

•	 Narrow bridge widths along SC-170.

•	 improve shoulder width, particularly on 

horizontal curves and at access points

•	 improve transition from wildlife drive exit

•	 improve maintenance practices to eliminate 

pavement edge drop-offs and stabilize 

shoulders; beveled “safety edge” 

•	 replace damaged guardrail

•	 install guardrail along sections of SC-170

•	 widen shoulders when bridges are replaced

5 Nighttime and Poor Visibility:

•	 Lack of nighttime guidance.

•	 Fog along US-278 and SC-170.

•	 install or replace raised pavement markers

•	 install high-visibility pavement markings

•	 install high-intensity signs

•	 delineate nose of median openings

•	 install double yellow centerline and STOP bar 

in median openings

•	 install fog-warning system

6 Bicyclists:

•	 No safe bicycle access between refuge and 

boat access area at Pinckney Island.

•	 Narrow bridge widths are safety hazard for 

bicyclists.

•	 provide better bike access

•	 consider underpass between Pinckney Island 

Refuge and boat access

•	 widen shoulders when bridges are replaced

KEY LESSONS LEARNED:

The RSA field review and team members can help to identify issues not apparent in

crash and traffic data. This RSA was conducted during various conditions, including AM 

and PM peak periods. Based on the field reviews during peak periods, it was apparent 

that congestion along US-278 was contributing to several of the crashes at and near the 

entrance to Pinckney Island. The RSA team actually observed a crash that had occurred 

moments before the team arrived at the site. From the field visit, it was also identified that 

left-turns to and from the entrance to the Pinckney Island Wildlife Refuge may be difficult 

and dangerous. The RSA team was able to incorporate this valuable information in their 

suggestions for improvements.

Many crashes in the Savannah National Wildlife Refuge study area were not reported 

as a result of the location of the vehicle. Run-off road crashes were noted as a particular 

concern by the staff at the refuge. Vehicles involved in run-off-road crashes along SC-170 

were not represented in the crash reports because once the vehicle leaves the roadway it 
FEDERAL AND TRIBAL LANDS ROAD SAFETY AUDITS: CASE STUDIES

A-6

enters Federal refuge property. The motorist is responsible for removing the vehicle and 

it is not reported by the police.

Furthermore, traffic volumes and truck volumes in particular are higher than originally 

intended for this type of roadway; therefore the RSA team suggested measures to provide 

more positive guidance to motorists on the roadway and provide a more forgiving roadside.

See also the discussion of “Key Factors for Success” and “Lessons Learned” in the main 

text.
FEDERAL AND TRIBAL LANDS ROAD SAFETY AUDITS: CASE STUDIES

A-7

RSA NUMBER 2

PATUXENT RESEARCH REFUGE:

RSA OF LAUREL BOWIE ROAD (MD 197) AND POWDER MILL ROAD

Roads: existing two-lane rural roadways

RSA Sites: •	 paved, rural, two-lane roads

•	 signalized intersection

Environment: o urban/urbanized R suburban R rural

Owners: Maryland State Highway Administration (MD SHA), United States Department of 

Agriculture, Patuxent Research Refuge

Road Safety Audit

Date of RSA: 5 to 6 December 2007

RSA Stage(s): o planning/design stage R RSA of existing roads

RSA team: staff from the Patuxent Research Refuge, Federal Highway Administration, Maryland 

State Highway Administration (MD SHA), VHB, and a Community Traffic Safety Team 

Coordinator

BACKGROUND: 

The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) identified locations of concern on the refuge. 

They voiced safety concerns on these roadways and requested this RSA through FHWA. 

There were four fatal crashes on this section of MD 197 between 2002 and 2006.The 

purpose of this RSA was to identify safety issues at the locations of concern and develop 

suggestions to address the identified safety issues.

The RSA included two roadways. The Laurel Bowie Road (MD 197) study area is over 

3 miles in length, located between Snowden Pond Road/Basswood Drive and Lemons 

Bridge Road in Prince George’s County, Maryland. Laurel Bowie Road (MD 197) is a 

two-lane east-west highway serving as a commuter route between Laurel and Bowie. 

The road is a State-owned facility that serves the Patuxent Research Refuge with several 

access points within the study area. 

The Powder Mill Road study area is over 2 miles in length, located between Springfield 

Road and Laurel Bowie Road (MD 197) in Prince George’s County, Maryland. Powder 

Mill Road is a two-lane north-south rural roadway. A portion of Powder Mill Road in 

the southern part of the study area is maintained by the United States Department of 

Agriculture while the northern part of the roadway is maintained by the Patuxent Research 

Refuge, a facility of the USFWS. Views of the study area are shown in Figure A.2.

The intersection of Laurel Bowie Road (MD 197) and Powder Mill Road is the only 

signalized intersection in the study area. MD SHA developed plans to upgrade this 

intersection which were reviewed by the RSA team as part of this RSA. The scope of the 
FEDERAL AND TRIBAL LANDS ROAD SAFETY AUDITS: CASE STUDIES

A-8

planned improvements included the construction of turn lanes, drainage improvements, 

and an upgrade in traffic signal equipment.

OLD LAUREL BOWIE ROAD AT MD 197, MD TYPICAL SECTION ALONG MD 197, MD

VIEW OF OLD LAUREL BOWIE ROAD, MD SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION OF POWDER MILL 

ROAD AT MD 197, MD

FIGURE A.2 VIEWS OF RSA SITES (PATUXENT WILDLIFE REFUGE RSA)
FEDERAL AND TRIBAL LANDS ROAD SAFETY AUDITS: CASE STUDIES

A-9

KEY RSA FINDINGS AND SUGGESTIONS:

The key findings and suggestions of the RSA are summarized in Table A.2. The issues 

are listed in order of priority as identified by the RSA team.

TABLE A.2 SUMMARY OF SELECTED SAFETY ISSUES AND SUGGESTIONS: 

PATUXENT WILDLIFE REFUGE RSA

SELECTED SAFETY ISSUE

(Number and Description) SUGGESTIONS

1 Signage and Pavement Markings:

•	 Intersection conspicuity.

•	 Sign conspicuity on curves.

•	 Passing zones are not clearly defined.

•	 Sign and pavement marking visibility.

•	 Vegetation obstructions.

•	 relocate advance intersection warning signs

•	 install stop bar 

•	 install supplemental stop signs

•	 reinstall chevron alignment signs

•	 consider eliminating passing zones

•	 define passing zones with appropriate signs

•	 upgrade signs and pavement markings

•	 trim vegetation

2 Nighttime Visibility:

•	 Little visual guidance at night.

•	 install post mounted delineators

•	 install raised pavement markers

•	 install high visibility pavement markings

3 Roadside Design:

•	 Pavement edge drop-offs.

•	 Height of existing guardrail.

•	 Unshielded slopes.

•	 Inconsistent shoulder width.

•	 Utility poles/fixed objects in clear zone.

•	 Sight distance restrictions.

Short-term:

•	 install object markers or reflective tape on 

objects closest to roadway

•	 review guardrail height 

•	 install guardrail to shield objects/slopes

•	 trim vegetation

Long-term:

•	 use beveled “safety edge” 

•	 consider shoulder stabilizing maintenance 

programs

•	 widen shoulders to 5 feet

•	 relocate utility poles

•	 move fence 

•	 conduct sight distance analysis using IHSDM
FEDERAL AND TRIBAL LANDS ROAD SAFETY AUDITS: CASE STUDIES

A-10

SELECTED SAFETY ISSUE

(Number and Description) SUGGESTIONS

4 Drainage:

•	 Poor drainage – standing water.

•	 Ponding water in wheel ruts.

Short-term:

•	 clean/repair clogged inlets

•	 install ‘Slippery When Wet’ signs (W8-5)

Long-term: 

•	 ensure adequate inlets

•	 eliminate curb

•	 increase capacity of culvert 

•	 resurface roadway to eliminate ruts

5

Access to/from Side Streets:

•	 Sight distance limitations. 

•	 Few available gaps in traffic for left-turning 

vehicles.

Short-term: 

•	 install advance warning signs

•	 consider transverse rumble strips or pavement 

markings

•	 relocate traffic sign 

Intermediate/Long-term:

•	 build bypass lanes at high-use gates

•	 consider two-stage crossings at unsignalized 

intersections

•	 consider intersection control beacon

•	 consider automated real-time detection

6 Effects of Roadway Curvature on Motorists:

•	 Potential difficulty staying within the lane.

•	 Off-peak speeding.

•	 install centerline rumble strips

•	 widen lane/ shoulder on curves

•	 conduct formal speed study

•	 increase enforcement and variable message 

sign speed trailer

•	 consider optical speed bars, PennDOT 

advance curve warning pavement marking and 

supplementary advisory speed markings at 

curves

•	 consider dynamic curve warning sign

Review of Planned Improvements

7

Intersection of Powder Mill Road and Laurel 

Bowie Road (MD 197):

•	 Driver expectation of traffic control and 

right-of-way assignment.

•	 Sight distance from Powder Mill Road for 

right-turning vehicles.

•	 Unsafe driver behavior including passing 

left-turning cars on the shoulder.

Short-term:

•	 relocate traffic sign that obstructs sight distance

•	 trim vegetation

•	 relocate right-turn lane stop bar

•	 implement signal timing changes

•	 change to full color operation on weekdays and 

weekends

Long-term:

•	 implement intersection improvement plan
FEDERAL AND TRIBAL LANDS ROAD SAFETY AUDITS: CASE STUDIES

A-11

KEY LESSONS LEARNED:

The RSAfield review should be conducted under various light and weather conditions when

possible. This RSA was conducted during various conditions, including daytime, nighttime, and wet weather conditions. Drainage issues, including standing water near inlets 

and ponding in wheel ruts, were apparent based on the field review during wet weather 

conditions. The RSA team also reviewed the study area during night-time conditions, 

which helped to identify the lack of visual guidance as a major safety issue. These issues 

would not have been easily detected if the field review was conducted during daylight 

and dry weather conditions only. As a result of the field review under various conditions, 

the RSA team was able to conduct a more comprehensive review and incorporate this 

information in their recommendations for improvements.

The benefit of an RSA on existing roads can be increased by reviewing planned

improvements or designs. RSAs of existing roadways are common on roads administered 

by FLMAs and tribal agencies since these roads tend to be in rural areas where funding 

may be scarce for maintenance or other upgrades. Improvement plans may have been 

developed that have a long construction cycle. The RSA provides an opportunity for a 

multidisciplinary team to examine the site and the proposed or planned improvements to 

ensure safety issues are addressed or incorporated into the future design.

See also the discussion of “Key Factors for Success” and “Lessons Learned” in the main 

text.
FEDERAL AND TRIBAL LANDS ROAD SAFETY AUDITS: CASE STUDIES

A-12

RSA NUMBER 3

RED CLIFF BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR CHIPPEWA:

RSA OF HIGHWAY 13 AND BLUEBERRY ROAD THROUGH RED CLIFF 

COMMUNITY

WISCONSIN

Roads: existing two-lane rural state trunk highway

RSA Sites: •	 paved, rural, two-lane roads

•	 unsignalized intersections

Environment: o urban/urbanized o suburban R rural

Owners: Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, Wisconsin Department of Transportation 

(WisDOT)

Road Safety Audit

Date of RSA: 20 to 21 May 2009

RSA Stage(s): R planning/design stage R RSA of existing roads

RSA team: Red Cliff Transportation Agency, Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT), 

Bureau of Indian Affairs, Red Cliff Police Department, Michigan Tribal Technical 

Assistance Program, and Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.

BACKGROUND: 

The Red Cliff Tribe identified locations of concern within the Red Cliff community. The 

purpose of this RSA was to identify safety issues at the locations of concern and develop 

suggestions to address or mitigate the identified safety issues.

The study area is located on tribal lands of the Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa. 

The study limits along Highway 13 include the area from Bresette Hill Road to the Buffalo 

Bay store, approximately 0.25 miles north of Blueberry Road as shown in Figure A.3. 

Highway 13 is a two-lane, rural State trunk highway, providing a north-south connection 

between the communities of Wisconsin Dells, Wisconsin Rapids, Marshfield, and Ashland. 

Locally, this road serves as a commuter route between the communities of Bayfield and 

Red Cliff and also accommodates tourist traffic visiting local attractions such as the Isle 

Vista Casino, Town of Bayfield, and the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore (National 

Park). Pedestrian, bicycle, and ATV activity in the study area is generated by the Isle Vista 

Casino, school bus stops, commercial developments, and residential areas. 

The study also included Blueberry Road from Highway 13 to Daley Road. Blueberry Road 

is a two-lane, rural local road, primarily serving residents of the Red Cliff community. 

Blueberry Road intersects Highway 13 near the Isle Vista Casino and continues north 

to Lake Superior. An additional 100 housing units are planned off of Blueberry Road (on 

Daley Road), which is expected to increase the population in Red Cliff to approximately 

2,000 by 2015, nearly a 50 percent increase. Other planned redevelopments in the area 
FEDERAL AND TRIBAL LANDS ROAD SAFETY AUDITS: CASE STUDIES

A-13

include a new medical clinic on the west side of Highway 13 at Pike Road and a new 

Casino facility to be located on the west side of Highway 13 near the existing facility. 

These new developments will increase traffic volumes within the study area and likely 

increase pedestrian activity. As such, it is necessary to anticipate the increased potential 

for conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles and develop short-, intermediate-, and longterm strategies to provide safe and efficient facilities for both pedestrians and vehicles.

In 2004, a separate safety evaluation was performed along Highway 13 in a joint effort 

between the WisDOT and the Red Cliff community. The goal of the study was to improve 

safety for pedestrians and motorists on and along Highway 13 from Bresette Hill Road to 

Aiken Road from an uncomfortable level of safety to a comfortable level by October 2005. 

Several safety issues were identified, including a lack of safety education for youths, 

speeding, lack of sidewalks, lack of signing, and a general lack of the 3 E’s (engineering, 

enforcement, and education). As part of this effort, recommendations were developed 

and strides have been made to enhance signing and markings and provide education at 

the Early Childhood Center (ECC) and community meetings. 

There are also several planned improvements for Highway 13 at various stages in the 

planning and design process. WisDOT has developed preliminary design plans for a 

pavement replacement project, including the portion of Highway 13 through the Red 

Cliff reservation. Improvements identified on the preliminary plans included pavement 

replacement, a right-turn lane for northbound Highway 13 at Blueberry Rd., and the 

provision of a sidewalk or walkable shoulder along portions of Highway 13. The Red 

Cliff community has also signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with WisDOT 

to incorporate sidewalks and lighting along Highway 13 within the study area. Prior to 

the RSA, the Red Cliff community completed a Transportation Enhancement Application 

(TEA) to apply for American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funding. The TEA 

included conceptual drawings to incorporate additional safety improvements and enhance 

continuity and connectivity for pedestrians and bicyclists throughout the area. Specifically, 

the TEA illustrated a trail, pedestrian lighting, pedestrian plazas, and streetscaping along 

Highway 13. The concept drawings also illustrated median islands and designated 

pedestrian crossings at the intersections of Highway 13 with Blueberry Rd. and Pike Rd. 

The TEA has since been approved and will move forward to design. With the approval 

of the TEA, the WisDOT project will now focus on the pavement replacement, and the 

ARRA-funded project will focus on the intersection, median, lighting, and pedestrian 

enhancements.
FEDERAL AND TRIBAL LANDS ROAD SAFETY AUDITS: CASE STUDIES

A-14

FIGURE A.3 AERIAL VIEWS OF RED CLIFF RSA SITES
FEDERAL AND TRIBAL LANDS ROAD SAFETY AUDITS: CASE STUDIES

A-15

KEY RSA FINDINGS AND SUGGESTIONS:

The key findings and suggestions of the RSA are summarized in Table A.3.

TABLE A.3 SUMMARY OF SELECTED SAFETY ISSUES AND SUGGESTIONS: 

RED CLIFF RSA

SELECTED SAFETY ISSUE

(Number and Description) SUGGESTIONS

1 Overarching Safety Issues:

•	 Pavement on Highway 13 is deteriorating, 

creating large cracks, pot holes, and unstable 

shoulders.

•	 Pavement markings are faded on Highway 13 

and Blueberry Road, limiting conspicuity.

•	 Inconsistent cross-section on Highway 13 

through study area.

•	 Lack of continuity and connectivity for 

pedestrians, bicyclists, and ATVs.

•	 Faded crosswalk pavement markings.

•	 Multiple access points for Isle Vista Casino 

create several conflict points.

•	 Multiple intersections in close proximity at 

Blueberry Road and Highway 13 create wide 

pavement surface with limited delineation.

•	 Drivers traveling northbound on Highway 13 

use shoulder as deceleration/turn lane.

•	 Run-off into the roadway and washout from the 

Isle Vista Casino parking lot into the ditch.

•	 determine schedule for DOT pavement 

replacement project 

•	 restripe Blueberry Road and coordinate 

restriping of Highway 13 with the mill and 

fill or pavement replacement project

•	 identify desired cross-section and 

coordinate vision with DOT pavement 

replacement project

•	 develop an overall ped/bike/ATV plan

•	 restripe crosswalks to increase conspicuity

•	 consolidate access at Isle Vista Casino

•	 provide better channelization through 

intersections of 1) Blueberry Road and 

Church Road and 2) Highway 13 and 

Blueberry Road

•	 provide better delineation of the edge of 

roadway and designate refuge areas for 

pedestrians at waiting areas

•	 mitigate run-off issues by consolidating 

access points at Isle Vista Casino

•	 install median along Highway 13 or a 

raised median throughout community with 

painted two-way left-turn lane and raised 

median at critical pedestrian crossings
FEDERAL AND TRIBAL LANDS ROAD SAFETY AUDITS: CASE STUDIES

A-16

SELECTED SAFETY ISSUE

(Number and Description) SUGGESTIONS

2 Intersection of Highway 13 and Pike Road:

•	 Crosswalk located in a passing zone, which 

creates major safety issue for pedestrians.

•	 Multiple access points, turning vehicles, bus 

stop, and pedestrian crossing increases driver 

workload and creates several conflict points.

•	 Multiple intersections in close proximity and 

few pavement markings create wide pavement 

surface and several conflicting movements.

•	 Lack of pavement markings through 

intersection, incorrect placement of STOP sign, 

and inconsistent pedestrian crossing sign.

•	 Inconsistent bus activity.

•	 restripe centerline, changing markings 

from passing zone to no passing zone and 

restripe crosswalk to increase conspicuity

•	 install advance pedestrian warning sign 

and consolidate access points

•	 consolidate access points and provide 

better channelization through use of stop 

bars, centerlines, and edgelines

•	 provide channelization (STOP bars, 

centerlines, edge lines), relocate STOP 

sign to right side of road, and replace 

pedestrian crossing sign to be consistent 

with other signs in the study area

•	 work with schools to better coordinate bus 

activity and install sidewalks or trails to 

connect bus stop locations

3 Blueberry Road Segment:

•	 Lack of paved shoulder along west side of 

Blueberry Road.

•	 Horizontal curve to the left (south of Bishop 

Lane) with limited unpaved shoulder, steep 

embankment, and trees at bottom of slope.

•	 install 4’ paved shoulder along west side 

of Blueberry Road and provide separate 

mixed-use trail parallel to Blueberry Road

•	 install post-mounted delineators along 

outside of curve

4 Highway 13 from Peterson’s Store to Pike Road:

•	 Location and condition of midblock crosswalk

north of entrance to Peterson’s store. 

•	 Crossing located in a passing zone.

•	 ATVs riding along Highway 13.

•	 relocate crosswalk to better align with 

store and upgrade signs and pavement 

markings to increase visibility and 

conspicuity of crossing

•	 restripe centerline to make area a no 

passing zone

•	 increase enforcement to limit ATV traffic on 

Highway 13 and consider opportunities for 

ATV parking so riders can park and walk to 

Peterson’s store

5 Highway 13 from Pike Road to Blueberry Road:

•	 ATVs crossing Highway 13.

•	 create ATV parking areas so riders may 

park and walk to destinations and create 

curbed cross-section to deter midblock 

ATV crossings

6 Highway 13 from Blueberry Road to Buffalo Bay 

Store:

•	 Location and width of access point to fire 

station.

•	 designate parking area at fire station to 

prohibit vehicles from parking close to 

Highway 13 where they obstruct sight 

distance
FEDERAL AND TRIBAL LANDS ROAD SAFETY AUDITS: CASE STUDIES

A-17

KEY LESSONS LEARNED:

RSAs establish relationships among agencies who don’t typically communicate with each 

other. The Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa is responsible for maintaining the 

signs and pavement markings on WIS-13 (a State route) through their community. During 

the RSA, it was discovered that the Wisconsin DOT and the Red Cliff Tribe had each 

identified improvements for WIS-13, but the two agencies’ plans did not coincide. The 

RSA process provided an opportunity for the agencies to establish a common vision 

for WIS-13 within the Red Cliff community and develop short-term, intermediate, and 

long-term goals. The RSA team also identified safety issues on the existing facility 

and developed a list of additional improvements to include as part of the short-term, 

intermediate, and long-term goals. Overall, the RSA process provided an opportunity 

to enhance communication between the agencies and integrate planned improvements 

into a single vision. Throughout the course of the RSA process, the Red Cliff community, 

WisDOT, and BIA provided support and were open to suggestions for improvements. This 

attitude will help to maintain long-term communications and a commitment to improving 

safety for the Red Cliff community.

See also the discussion of “Key Factors for Success” and “Lessons Learned” in the main 

text.
FEDERAL AND TRIBAL LANDS ROAD SAFETY AUDITS: CASE STUDIES

A-18

RSA NUMBER 4

RED MESA:

RSA OF N-35 THROUGH THE NAVAJO NATION

UTAH

Roads: existing two-lane rural highway

RSA Sites: •	 paved, rural, two-lane road

•	 unsignalized intersections

Environment: o urban/urbanized o suburban R rural

Owners: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Mobile Oil Company, San Juan County, Utah

Road Safety Audit

Date of RSA: 25 to 26 August 2009

RSA Stage(s): o planning/design stage R RSA of existing roads

RSA team: Navajo DOT, Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT), Navajo Nation Police 

Department, Indian Health Services (IHS), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 

Utah Division Office, FHWA Central Federal Lands Highway Division (CFLHD), San 

Juan County Roads, Bureau of Indian Affairs, San Juan County Sheriff Office, and 

Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.

BACKGROUND: 

The Navajo Nation and Indian Health Services identified the location of concern. The 

purpose of this RSA was to identify safety issues at the location of concern and develop 

suggestions.

The study area is located on tribal lands on the Navajo Nation in Red Mesa, Utah. The 

study limits include N-35 from milepost 18 to milepost 23 as shown in Figure A.4. N-35 is a 

two-lane rural road, providing a connection between Highway 163 (Town of Montezuma) 

in the north and Highway 160 in the south. This road serves as a commuter route from 

the northern towns of Bluff, Montezuma, and Aneth to communities and amenities in 

the south, including the town of Shiprock and the Red Mesa hospital. The Red Mesa 

Chapter House and several residential housing units are located along N-35. This route 

also accommodates tourist traffic visiting national parks and local attractions such as the 

Shiprock Fair.

There are several planned improvements for N-35 at various stages in the planning and 

implementation process. UDOT conducted a sign study along the N-35 corridor as part 

of the High Risk Rural Roads (HRRR) program, identifying several sign improvements. 

There is an ongoing effort to resurface N-35 from the Arizona state line to Highway 163 

through Federal earmarks; approximately six miles of the road have been resurfaced in 

Phase I and it is anticipated that six to seven additional miles will be resurfaced in each 

subsequent phase until the roadway is completed.
FEDERAL AND TRIBAL LANDS ROAD SAFETY AUDITS: CASE STUDIES

A-19

The entire N-35 corridor is a Federal Aid Highway. The portion of the roadway from 

milepost 0 to milepost 18 is owned by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). The Mobile Oil 

Company built and owns the section of N-35 from milepost 18 to milepost 23. San Juan 

County is responsible for maintaining the roadway, including signing, pavement markings, 

and roadside mowing. Funding for reconstruction and maintenance of N-35 comes from 

several sources, including the State gas tax, the Shiprock Transportation Agency, and 

Congressional earmarks. 

N-35 IN RED MESA, UTAH. PHOTO SHOWS LIMITED 

PAVEMENT WIDTH, LACK OF DELINEATION, AND 

CLOSE PROXIMITY OF ROADSIDE HAZARDS.

N-35 IN RED MESA, UTAH. PHOTO SHOWS 

THE ISSUE WITH OPEN GRAZING ALONG THIS 

ROADWAY.

FIGURE A.4 VIEWS OF RED MESA RSA SITE

KEY RSA FINDINGS AND SUGGESTIONS:

The key findings and suggestions of the RSA are summarized in Table A.4.

TABLE A.4 SUMMARY OF SELECTED SAFETY ISSUES AND SUGGESTIONS: 

RED MESA RSA

SELECTED SAFETY ISSUE

(Number and Description) SUGGESTIONS

1 Nighttime Visibility/Lack of Delineation:

•	 Faded pavement markings limit conspicuity 

during nighttime and wet weather conditions. 

•	 Limited guidance for drivers at night and within 

horizontal curves.

•	 refresh centerline with high-visibility 

pavement markings and install edgelines

•	 delineate curves and roadside hazards 

(e.g., embankments) with appropriate 

object markers or chevrons
FEDERAL AND TRIBAL LANDS ROAD SAFETY AUDITS: CASE STUDIES

A-20

SELECTED SAFETY ISSUE

(Number and Description) SUGGESTIONS

2

Maintenance Issues:

•	 Pavement edge drops create a “lip” along the 

edge of the pavement.

•	 Dirty/faded/illegible signs limit visibility and 

legibility of signs at night.

•	 Deterioration of pavement edge and erosion 

near culverts.

•	 improve maintenance and resurfacing 

practices to eliminate edge drops and 

create a beveled “safety edge”

•	 clean or replace damaged/dirty signs and 

employ educational campaigns targeting 

young drivers and their peers

•	 pave aprons at intersections and access 

points and stabilize slopes between 

intersections to prevent erosion

3 Animals on the Roadway:

•	 Horses, cows, and sheep were observed 

crossing and grazing along the roadway during 

daytime and nighttime conditions.

•	 utilize reflective ear tags, branding, or 

other strategies to increase conspicuity of 

animals at night

•	 install animal fence

•	 engage animal owners regarding economic 

loss and control of animals

•	 prohibit open range grazing with local 

enforcement

4 Inconsistent Roadway Width:

•	 Inconsistent pavement width through the study 

area creates a lack of driver expectancy and 

limits recovery room for errant vehicles.

•	 No paved shoulders and limited unpaved 

shoulders provide limited recovery room for 

errant vehicles.

•	 identify desired pavement width and 

coordinate vision with future resurfacing 

projects

•	 increase pavement width and delineate 

edge of lanes with edge line markings

5

Driver Behavior Issues:

•	 Speeding, seatbelt use, and alcohol were 

identified as factors contributing to crashes and 

crash severity.

•	 increase enforcement by building 

an additional substation and crosscommissioning officers

•	 develop and deliver high school driver 

education for road safety 

•	 offer media literacy for alcohol advertising 

in high schools

•	 develop and deliver community education 

targeting speeding and seatbelt use

•	 legalize sale of alcohol on Navaho Nation 

to reduce drinking and driving from store

6

Intersection Issues:

•	 Significant intersection skew creates sight 

issues for drivers on the cross road.

•	 Lack of intersection warning and delineation for 

cross roads.

•	 Lack of STOP signs on minor roads.

•	 pave aprons to eliminate intersection skew 

and create a cross-type intersection

•	 install delineators and intersection warning 

signs to better define access points

•	 install lighting at intersections
FEDERAL AND TRIBAL LANDS ROAD SAFETY AUDITS: CASE STUDIES

A-21

SELECTED SAFETY ISSUE

(Number and Description) SUGGESTIONS

7

Use of Traffic Control Devices:

•	 Type and placement of signs are inconsistent 

and inappropriate along the corridor.

•	 Horizontal and vertical curves limit sight 

distance through passing zones.

•	 incorporate sign improvements from the 

UDOT sign review

•	 review passing zones and change to “no 

passing zones” as appropriate

8

Roadside Hazards:

•	 Slopes adjacent to edge of roadway are 

unrecoverable or non-traversable.

•	 install warning signs or object markers as 

appropriate to delineate roadside hazards

•	 stabilize existing slopes to reduce erosion 

and prevent slopes from becoming steeper

•	 install guardrail at non-traversable slopes 

and at non-recoverable slopes that lead to 

non-traversable slopes

•	 reconstruct roadside to provide more 

forgiving slopes and increase pavement 

width to provide more recovery room 

9 Limited Sight Distance:

•	 Limited sight distance through horizontal and 

vertical curves.

•	 Horizontal and vertical curves limit sight 

distance through passing zones.

•	 install edgelines and/or post-mounted 

delineators to enhance guidance through 

horizontal and vertical curves

•	 re-stripe passing zones as appropriate

•	 consider redesign options to provide less 

severe horizontal and vertical curvature

KEY LESSONS LEARNED:

There may be opportunities to implement improvements by incorporating them with longrange plans. During the RSA for the Navajo Nation in Red Mesa, the RSA Team identified 

several safety issues related to the narrow roadway width and lack of shoulders. Due 

to the limited annual funding for maintenance and roadway improvements, it was not 

practical to identify pavement widening as a short-term or intermediate improvement. 

However, there is a long-range resurfacing project along the corridor and the RSA Team 

identified opportunities to incorporate RSA suggestions as part of this long-range project.

Animal control is an issue along many federal and tribal lands. Open grazing is allowed 

along N-35 on the Navajo Nation in Red Mesa, Utah. Coupled with a lack of animal fencing, 

animal crashes represent approximately 25 percent of crashes along the corridor. Open 

grazing presents a significant safety concern for motorists, particularly when the animals 

are large, such as cows and horses. Animal-vehicle collisions are also a financial and 

liability concern to ranchers.

See also the discussion of “Key Factors for Success” and “Lessons Learned” in the main 

text.
FEDERAL AND TRIBAL LANDS ROAD SAFETY AUDITS: CASE STUDIES

A-22

RSA NUMBER 5

ROGUE RIVER - SISKIYOU NATIONAL FOREST:

RSA OF BEAR CAMP COASTAL ROUTE

OREGON 

Road: existing one- and two-lane forestry road

RSA Site 65-mile Bear Camp Coastal Route (Josephine and Curry Counties, Oregon)

Project Environment: o urban o suburban R rural

Project Owners: US Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management

Road Safety Audit

Date of RSA: 19 to 21 August 2008

RSA Stage(s): R design stage R RSA of existing road

RSA team: Federal Highway Administration Oregon Division Office, US Forest Service, Bureau of 

Land Management, and Opus International Consultants

BACKGROUND: 

Bear Camp Coastal Route (shown in Figure A.5), partly in the Rogue River – Siskiyou 

National Forest, is under the jurisdiction of two federal agencies. The Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) administers the eastern part of the roadway as BLM Road 34-8-36, 

extending from Galice, Oregon to the 12 mile point. The Forest Service (FS) administers 

the western part as FS Road 23, extending from the 12 mile point to Agness, Oregon. 

This RSA was conducted on both the BLM and FS segments of the road, covering a total 

distance of about 65 miles. 

As a forest road, Bear Camp Coastal Route is intended primarily for timber haul and to 

administer FS and BLM lands. In practice, however, the road is open to the public for 

most of the year, and accommodates a range of users and vehicles. Enforcement is 

present on the road primarily for resource issues such as timber theft or drug activity. 

The geometric design of Bear Camp Coastal Route is characterized by a varying width 

(two narrow lanes on the BLM segment, one lane on the FS segment), very narrow or no 

shoulders, small-radius curves, steep grades, and limited sight distances. The road was 

built in the late 1950s by the Bureau of Public Roads (former name of Federal Highway 

Administration) to a contemporary standard for a forest road, but for not public use. 

Consequently, the road geometry generally does not meet current federal, state, or county 

standards for roads built for public use. However, road users, who usually drive on public 

roads designed to standard, typically expect any paved road open to the public to meet 

these standards. Public users may therefore be unprepared for the tight and relatively 

unforgiving geometry of the Bear Camp Coastal Route. This lack of driver expectancy 

may result in drivers “overdriving” the road, and consequently being unprepared for some 

of the hazardous conditions that they encounter. Some factors that may aggravate the 

issues associated with constrained geometry include limited signing and delineation, 
FEDERAL AND TRIBAL LANDS ROAD SAFETY AUDITS: CASE STUDIES

A-23

limited maintenance (including winter snow removal), an absence of night-time lighting, 

and the presence of large or long vehicles (including recreational vehicles and tractor 

trailers) driven by unfamiliar drivers. 

This in-service RSA focused on general issues associated with road safety along the 

route, rather than specific issues associated with specific sites.

FIGURE A.5-1 BEAR CAMP COASTAL ROUTE RSA SITE
FEDERAL AND TRIBAL LANDS ROAD SAFETY AUDITS: CASE STUDIES

A-24

FS SEGMENT (FS ROAD 23), SHOWING A SINGLELANE WITH NO TURNOUTS. FOG LINES ARE 

VISIBLE ON BOTH SIDES OF THE PAVEMENT, ALONG 

WITH REFLECTIVE DELINEATORS AT RIGHT.

BLM SEGMENT (BLM ROAD 34-8-36), NEAR THE 

INTERSECTION WITH PEAVINE/SERPENTINE 

SPRINGS ROAD. A SPEED LIMIT SIGN (25 MPH) IS 

POSTED AT RIGHT. THE UNMARKED PAVEMENT 

CAN ACCOMMODATE TWO LANES OF TRAFFIC.

FIGURE A.5-2 BEAR CAMP COASTAL ROUTE

KEY RSA FINDINGS AND SUGGESTIONS:

The key findings and suggestions of the RSA are summarized in Table A.5.

TABLE A.5 SUMMARY OF SELECTED SAFETY ISSUES AND SUGGESTIONS:

RSA OF BEAR CAMP COASTAL ROUTE 

SELECTED SAFETY ISSUE

(Number and Description) SUGGESTIONS

1

Winter Road Conditions: Bear Camp Coastal 

Route is not maintained for winter travel. Since 

the road remains physically open to traffic yearround, drivers may attempt to drive it during the 

times when travel is not advised. Three fatalities 

have resulted in 13 years when the road became 

impassable due to snow, stranding drivers who 

subsequently died of exposure or starvation.

•	 barricades or gates

•	 winter closure warnings for in-vehicle 

navigation systems and maps

•	 liaison with Oregon DOT for inclusion in on-line 

and 511 advisory report

•	 cell phone coverage

2

Roadside Hazards: Steep drop-offs and fixed 

objects (including trees and rock faces) are 

present close to the roadway along much of 

Bear Camp Coastal Route. The risks associated 

with off-road crashes are aggravated by narrow 

pavement width, an absence of shoulders, 

frequent horizontal curves and substantial 

gradients, poor visibility, winter road conditions, 

frequent rock falls, and pavement subsidence.

•	 post-mounted delineators, chevron signs, 

guardrail (including a stepped-assessment 

of and response to potentially hazardous 

locations to address the most critical sections 

first)

•	 fog lines

•	 safety edge

•	 shoulder reconstruction

•	 rockfall mitigation

•	 regular roadside brushing
FEDERAL AND TRIBAL LANDS ROAD SAFETY AUDITS: CASE STUDIES

A-25

SELECTED SAFETY ISSUE

(Number and Description) SUGGESTIONS

3

Signing: 

•	 Some warning signs appear to be in poor 

condition or are obstructed.

•	 Additional warning, regulatory, and/or guide 

signs may be beneficial. 

•	 Some signing appears to be obsolete. 

•	 sign survey

•	 signing upgrade plan (including sign 

consistency over entire route, uniform use 

of side street STOP signs, uniform use of 

dead-end signs or similar on side roads, and 

relocating signs to ensure proper visibility)

•	 daytime/night-time “lights on for safety” signs

4 Pavement Markings and Delineation: Delineation 

is absent or inconsistent, limiting driver guidance.

•	 fog lines

•	 review of delineation (included in sign survey)

5

Consistency between BLM and FS Segments: 

Bear Camp Coastal Route is under the jurisdiction 

of separate agencies, resulting in inconsistencies 

in the design, operations, and maintenance 

practices different between the two segments. 

These inconsistencies can, for example, affect 

the way that road conditions and hazards are 

identified and marked, contributing to issues with 

driver expectancy. 

•	 road management plan shared by both 

agencies

KEY LESSONS LEARNED:

Most, if not all, of the safety issues identified in this in-service RSA resulted from a

disconnection between the original purpose for Bear Camp Coastal Route and its eventual 

use. Resolving this disconnection was deemed crucial to addressing the safety issues in a 

coherent and effective way. The original purpose of Bear Camp Road was for timber haul 

and for administration of FS and BLM lands. However, the use and function of the road 

had evolved over time. At the time of the RSA, the road was being used by the public as 

a link between the interior of Oregon and the coast, and for commercial/recreational uses. 

However, although the use and function of the road had evolved, its design, maintenance, 

and management had not. Consequently, the public was using a facility that was not 

designed for public use, and that did not incorporate safety features that the public generally 

expects or assumes. Further, within the controlling agencies, the disconnection between 

the original purpose of the road and its eventual use generated further inconsistencies. 

For example, FS policy directed that the road should be snowplowed only for resource 

administration, not for public use. In practice, however, spring plowing was conducted in 

response to pressure for public access. These types of inconsistencies further distorted 

users’ expectations concerning the purpose, and therefore the design and maintenance 

standards, of Bear Camp Coastal Route. 

These disconnections had important safety implications (identified in Table A.5 above). 

To address these implications, the RSA team suggested that an updated and coherent 

management plan be developed for the Bear Camp Coastal Route. The RSA team 

suggested that the plan should be based on a unified management policy for the Route, 
FEDERAL AND TRIBAL LANDS ROAD SAFETY AUDITS: CASE STUDIES

A-26

and staff associated with Bear Camp Coastal Route should be supported in their efforts to 

adhere to it. The RSA team suggested that the management plan address the following:

• Resolve the disconnection regarding the official function and designation of Bear 

Camp Coastal Route.

• Ensure development of a plan for the intended long-term future use of the roadway 

with a minimum 20-year forecast period.

• Match the road’s maintenance level to available resources by basing needed 

investment on agreed service levels.

• Develop short-term and long-term development plans for the road that identified which 

users’ needs would be met, and identified and allocated the funding required to safely 

operate and maintain the road for these users.

See also the discussion of “Key Factors for Success” and “Lessons Learned” in the main 

text.
FEDERAL AND TRIBAL LANDS ROAD SAFETY AUDITS: CASE STUDIES

A-27

RSA NUMBER 6

EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS:

RSA OF THREE INTERSECTIONS

NORTH CAROLINA

Roads: existing two-lane and four-lane rural principal arterial roadways

RSA Sites: •	 intersection of Highway 19 and Wrights Creek Road

•	 intersection of Highway 19 and Goose Creek Road

•	 intersection of Big Cove Road and Acquoni Road

Project Environment: R urbanized o suburban R rural

Project Owners: Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians

Road Safety Audit

Date of RSA: 1 to 3 August 2007

RSA Stage(s): R design stage R RSA of existing roads

RSA team: FHWA North Carolina Division Office, FHWA Headquarters, Eastern Band of 

Cherokee Indians, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and Opus International Consultants

BACKGROUND:

The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians (EBCI) has approximately 14,000 enrolled 

members, many of whom live on the EBCI reservation in western North Carolina, centered 

around the town of Cherokee, NC. In addition to accommodating the tribe’s members, 

the EBCI reservation is home to a number of tourist attractions, including craft shops, a 

tourist-oriented theatre, and a large casino/hotel. 

This RSA focused on the following intersections on the EBCI reservation, shown in Figure 

A.6:

• State Highway 19, Wrights Creek Road, and Lucy Long Road

• State Highway 19 and Goose Creek Road

• Big Cove Road and Acquoni Road.

These intersections accommodated a range of users, including:

• local residents,

• employees who worked on the reservation, including international students employed 

at the casino/hotel who walked and cycled to and from work,

• visitors to the reservation’s sights, shops, and casino/hotel,

• long-distance travellers who were passing through the area.

Substantial expansion of the casino/hotel was being planned at the time of the RSA, and 
FEDERAL AND TRIBAL LANDS ROAD SAFETY AUDITS: CASE STUDIES

A-28

a traffic impact analysis was being conducted to study the impacts of the expansion. New 

“big box” commercial development was also being planned. This RSA was conducted 

to address safety issues associated with existing roads, to address the tribe’s concerns 

regarding both existing and possible future road users.

FIGURE A.6 RSA SITES: EBCI RESERVATION

KEY RSA FINDINGS AND SUGGESTIONS:

The key findings and suggestions of the RSA are summarized in Table A.6.

TABLE A.6 SUMMARY OF SELECTED SAFETY ISSUES AND SUGGESTIONS:

EBCI INTERSECTION RSA

SELECTED SAFETY ISSUE

(Number and Description) SUGGESTIONS

1 Signing and Pavement Markings: Worn or missing signs and 

pavement markings may limit driver guidance, especially at night.

•	 Maintenance Management Plan

•	 sign and pavement marking upgrade

•	 retroreflectivity assessment

•	 lane use signs for all exclusive turning 

lanes

•	 stop bars

2 Incomplete Crash Data System: Limited crash data may limit the 

tribe’s ability to compete for safety funding.

•	 introduction of a crash data system, or 

participation in the NCDOT crash data 

system

•	 liaison between Cherokee 

Engineering/ Planning and Cherokee 

Police Department

INTERSECTION OF 

HIGHWAY 19 AND WRIGHTS 

CREEK ROAD

INTERSECTION OF 

BIG COVE ROAD AND ACQUONI 

ROAD

INTERSECTION OF 

HIGHWAY 19 AND GOOSE 

CREEK ROAD
FEDERAL AND TRIBAL LANDS ROAD SAFETY AUDITS: CASE STUDIES

A-29

SELECTED SAFETY ISSUE

(Number and Description) SUGGESTIONS

3 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities on Highway 19: Pedestrians 

and bicycles travel in vehicle lanes along Highway 19, which 

has limited pedestrian and cycling facilities.

•	 establishment and maintenance of 

a network of continuous off-road 

facilities for pedestrians

•	 bike lanes

•	 widened paved shoulder

•	 accessibility for disabled pedestrians

•	 increased lighting along roadway

•	 rumble strips 

4

Absence of shoulder: Limited paved shoulders on Highway 19 

reduce the opportunity for drivers to regain control of an errant 

vehicle before striking roadside objects.

•	 shoulder stabilization

•	 paved shoulders

•	 safety edges

5 Intersection of Highway 19 and Wrights Creek Road:

• Trees close to the intersection obstruct the sight triangle on 

the northeast corners.

• Left-turn volumes on Highway 19 may exceed capacity of 

left-turn bays, resulting in vehicles slowing or stopping in 

the through lane.

• Traffic delays for vehicles on Wrights Creek Road entering 

Highway 19 may cause drivers to take risks when crossing 

or turning.

•	 tree trimming on northeast corner

•	 traffic count program to determine if a 

right-turn lane is warranted on Wrights 

Creek Road

•	 extension of left-turn lane to 

accommodate peak demand

6 Intersection of Highway 19 and 

Goose Creek Road:

• Passing zone on west leg may result in passing maneuvers 

close to and through the intersection.

• Large left-turn volumes observed on Highway 19 turning 

onto Goose Creek Road may result in long delays for 

through and turning drivers.

•	 evaluation of passing zone

•	 left-turn lane on Highway 19

7 Intersection of Big Cove Road and Acquoni Road:

• The absence of a continuous pedestrian network near 

the intersection may contribute to vehicle conflicts with 

pedestrians, including tourists and students from nearby 

schools.

• Uncontrolled access to roadside parking areas may 

contribute to conflicts between vehicles entering/leaving 

parking spaces and other road users, including pedestrians 

and through traffic.

•	 complete pedestrian network

•	 upgraded crosswalks

•	 request for NCDOT school evaluation

•	 pinned curbs

•	 diagonal parking spaces

•	 discussion of pedestrian 

improvements with local commercial 

operators
FEDERAL AND TRIBAL LANDS ROAD SAFETY AUDITS: CASE STUDIES

A-30

KEY LESSONS LEARNED:

When presenting the results of the RSA, the RSA team identified positive measures that

had already been implemented by the responsible road agencies (NC DOT, EBCI, and 

BIA) to improve safety. These measures included the tribe’s recent initiative to undertake 

its own pavement marking program; the implementation of oversized STOP signs at 

selected locations to improve intersection conspicuousness; and the use of high visibility 

midblock crosswalk markings in commercial areas. Acknowledging positive safety 

measures encourages these initiatives on the part of the road agencies, and helps to put 

the RSA findings in perspective.

An important consideration in identifying and implementing road safety improvements is 

funding. To help the tribe address the safety issues identified in the RSA, the RSA report 

included information on possible funding sources, such as the FHWA Tribal Highway 

Safety Improvement Implementation Guide. Funding for safety improvements could 

be sought from FHWA funds administered by the state (such as the Highway Safety 

Improvement Program, the Surface Transportation Program, and the Safe Routes to 

School Program), the FHWA Indian Reservation Roads Program (jointly administered 

by BIA DOT and the FHWA Office of Federal Lands Highway), the Indian Health Service 

Injury Prevention Program, and the BIA Indian Highway Safety Program.

See also the discussion of “Key Factors for Success” and “Lessons Learned” in the main 

text.
FEDERAL AND TRIBAL LANDS ROAD SAFETY AUDITS: CASE STUDIES

A-31

RSA NUMBER 7

CUMBERLAND GAP NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK:

RSA OF US ROUTE 25E

TENNESSEE

Roads: existing four-lane rural highway

RSA Sites: •	 paved, rural, four-lane, divided arterial

•	 interchange

•	 tunnel approach

Environment: o urban/urbanized o suburban R rural

Owners: Cumberland Gap Tunnel Authority, Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, Tennessee 

Department of Transportation (TDOT), and National Park Service

Road Safety Audit

Date of RSA: 14 to 15 November 2006

RSA Stage(s): o planning/design stage R RSA of existing roads

RSA team: Federal Highway Administration/Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division (EFLHD), 

FHWA Tennessee Division Office, Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT), 

Vaughn & Melton Consulting Engineers, Tennessee Highway Patrol

BACKGROUND: 

By letter from the Southeast Region (SERO) and Cumberland Gap National Historical 

Park (CUGA) dated August 28, 2006, the National Park Service (NPS) requested Eastern 

Federal Lands Highway Division (EFLHD) to coordinate a formal safety performance 

examination for the Tennessee side approach to the CUGA tunnels. The EFLHD 

coordinated and led this RSA to identify safety issues at the location of concern and 

develop recommendations to correct or mitigate the identified safety issues.

The study area is located on Federal Lands within the Cumberland Gap National Historical 

Park in Claiborne County, Tennessee. The study limits include US Route 25E beginning 

just north of the Harrogate town limits towards the tunnel, including the U.S. Route 58 

approach from the Wilderness Road Campground and Picnic Area entrance and the US 

58 / 25E interchange ramps as shown in Figure A.7. US Route 25E provides a connection 

between Kentucky and Tennessee near the southwest corner of Virginia.

Approaching the CUGA tunnels, US Route 25E is a rural, four-lane, divided arterial with 

a 24-foot traveled way in the northbound and southbound directions. The median width 

of approaching the tunnels is 60-feet, with 6-foot inside shoulders (2-foot paved width) 

and 12-foot outside shoulders (10-foot paved width). The cross section and horizontal 

and vertical alignment were compared to AASHTO standards and were found to meet 

or exceed minimum policy criteria for a design speed of 60 mph. The 2006 annual 

average daily traffic (AADT) volume is 23,740 vehicles per day as provided by Tennessee 

Department of Transportation (TDOT).
FEDERAL AND TRIBAL LANDS ROAD SAFETY AUDITS: CASE STUDIES

A-32

The posted speed limit approaching the tunnels is 45 mph, excluding periods when one 

of the tunnels is closed due to HAZMAT vehicle escort or during cleaning of one of the 

tunnels. Approximately 100 HAZMAT / oversize vehicles per day (about 600 per week) 

are escorted separate from main traffic through the tunnels. During the HAZMAT escort 

operation, traffic in the direction of the escort is stopped by a traffic signal mounted to an 

overhead variable message sign structure. The speed limit is reduced from 45 MPH to 35 

MPH when resuming normal traffic flow. During periods when one of the tunnels is closed 

for cleaning, both directions of traffic are diverted and maintained in the other tunnel and 

the speed limit is reduced to 25 MPH. A speed monitoring study was performed by TDOT 

on November 27 – 28, 2006. The 85th percentile speed (i.e., the operating speed) along 

the Tennessee approach to the tunnels is 54.4 MPH in the northbound lanes and 54.2 

MPH in the southbound lanes. This indicates that the majority of motorists exceed the 

posted speed limit. 

TDOT reviewed crash data along US Route 25E for two three-year periods, beginning 

one mile south of the tunnel entrance. From 2002-2004, five crashes occurred, resulting 

in two injuries. From 2003-2005, four crashes occurred, resulting in three injuries and one 

fatality. The crash rate for this segment is approximately 0.20 crashes per MVMT, which 

is less than the Tennessee statewide average rate of 0.80 crashes per MVMT for similar 

divided rural arterials.

US ROUTE 25E NORTHBOUND DIRECTION VIEW OF US ROUTE 25E NORTHBOUND 

APPROACH TO TUNNEL.

FIGURE A.7 VIEWS OF US ROUTE 25E RSA SITE
FEDERAL AND TRIBAL LANDS ROAD SAFETY AUDITS: CASE STUDIES

A-33

KEY RSA FINDINGS AND SUGGESTIONS:

The key findings and suggestions of the RSA are summarized in Table A.7.

TABLE A.7 SUMMARY OF SELECTED SAFETY ISSUES AND SUGGESTIONS: 

CUMBERLAND GAP NATIONAL HISTORIC PARK

SELECTED SAFETY ISSUE

(Number and Description) SUGGESTIONS

1

Location of recent fatal crashes:

•	 Both recent fatal crashes occurred at the 

crossover along the outside of a horizontal 

curve.

o Driving too fast for conditions.

o Pavement edge drop along the outside 

of curve.

•	 install chevrons along the outside of curve 

(consider using oversized freeway panel 

size of 36” x 48”)

•	 install rumble “stripes” along the outside of 

curve

•	 extend paved median shoulder from 4-ft 

to 8-ft total width and eliminate pavement 

edge drop (if shoulder is widened, install 

shoulder rumble “strips” rather than 

“stripes” along outside of curve

•	 install flexible cable median barrier 

(weathering steel W-Beam guardrail is an 

alternative)

2 Merge/Weave Area from US Route 58 Interchange 

to US 25E Northbound:

•	 Two sideswipe crashes resulted in injuries at 

this location.

•	 Gore area of US 58 interchange ramp to 

northbound 25E is located along the end of a 

horizontal curve.

•	 HAZMAT and Oversize truck entrance into the 

storage auxiliary lane at tapered end of Ramp 

“D” US 58 ramp.

•	 install additional merge sign in median 

area

•	 install centerline rumble strips along 

northbound US 25E between and through 

the two successive curves approaching the 

tunnel

•	 replace 25-ft of damaged corrosionresistant steel W-beam guardrail along 

Ramp D
FEDERAL AND TRIBAL LANDS ROAD SAFETY AUDITS: CASE STUDIES

A-34

SELECTED SAFETY ISSUE

(Number and Description) SUGGESTIONS

3 Interchange Area:

•	 Limited use of warning signs.

•	 Vehicles not stopping at the signalized stop bar 

location.

•	 Damaged and missing signs and flexible 

delineators.

•	 Limited use of guardrail to shield roadside 

hazards and protect roadside assets.

•	 Limited visibility of existing “Lane Ends” sign 

along 25E southbound approaching US 58 

bridge overpass.

•	 replace “BE PREPARED TO STOP” signs 

with special warning sign “STOP AHEAD 

WHEN FLASHING”, including flashing 

beacons to increase awareness of stop 

condition

•	 coordinate flashing condition to coincide 

with stopped condition at tunnel portal

•	 install additional chevron sign, replace 

damaged chevron sign, and replace 

missing delineator posts along inside of 

curve along Ramp B

•	 for chevron signs mounted on median 

concrete barrier, install mounting bracket 

for all chevrons on Ramp C side of barrier

•	 along Ramp C, install new chevrons and 

replace missing flexible delineators along 

outside of curve

•	 replace “Lane Ends” sign and replace 

missing flexible delineator posts along 

southbound US 25E

•	 install guardrail to shield sign structure 

support and electrical equipment and 

install chevrons along the outside of the 

curve to improve delineation

4 Overhead Variable Message Sign:

•	 Vehicles failing to stop at the overhead traffic 

signal.

•	 Vehicles failing to stop at the stop bar.

•	 Rear end crashes are the primary crash type at 

this location according to Park staff.

•	 reconfigure electronic speed limit signs 

to flashing mode when posted speed 

changes to 35 or 25 MPH

•	 replace 8-inch signal lenses with high 

visibility LEDs and strobe lights for red 

signal

•	 consider upgrading signal heads to black 

carbon with back plates and operate as 

steady burn solid circular green / yellow / 

red phasing

•	 install a fourth signal head mounted to the 

left VMS structure post

•	 use larger 12-inch signal lens for all new 

signal heads

•	 install “STOP HERE ON RED” signs

•	 turn off green lane use arrows on 

approaching VMS structures unless 

needed to advise motorists of a closure
FEDERAL AND TRIBAL LANDS ROAD SAFETY AUDITS: CASE STUDIES

A-35

SELECTED SAFETY ISSUE

(Number and Description) SUGGESTIONS

5

Miscellaneous:

•	 Guardrail terminal does not have object 

marker.

•	 It is not clear that motorists are not permitted to 

use crossover between HAZMAT auxiliary lane 

and Ramp C exit to make U-turns.

•	 Cumberland Gap sign at entrance to South 

Cumberland Drive obstructs sight distance and 

is not crashworthy.

•	 Missing delineator posts along US 25E and the 

US 58 Ramps.

•	 “Speed Limit 45” signs along westbound 58 are 

not mounted at appropriate height.

•	 Guardrail issues.

o Installed too low (below 27”).

o Post spacing and block-out type do not 

appear sufficient for high speed roadway.

o Damaged guardrail terminal.

•	 install object marker on guardrail terminals 

for delineation

•	 install an “EMERGENCY AND 

AUTHORIZED VEHICLES ONLY” 

regulatory sign at the crossover

•	 remove Cumberland Gap median sign

•	 install retroreflective delineator posts 

along mainline and Ramps B & C where 

curvature is sharp

•	 mount existing speed limit signs on new 

posts 7-ft above pavement edge

•	 replace guardrail with crashworthy 

standard W-beam guardrail

•	 replace damaged guardrail terminal with 

crashworthy terminal

•	 extend trailing end of guardrail

KEY LESSONS LEARNED:

The RSA field review and team members can help to identify issues not apparent in the

crash data. In addition to evaluating crash history to focus on safety problem areas, a 

comprehensive review of the approaches to both tunnel portals were reviewed in the 

field. The diverse backgrounds of the review team, including traffic operations and safety 

engineers, planners, and local law enforcement, were able to observe conditions that 

negatively effect traffic safety. The site investigation for the fatal crashes determined 

that countermeasures to reduce the frequency of a crash occurring, such as installing 

new chevron alignment signs, edge line rumble strips, and extending the width of the 

paved median can fit the context of this park road. Also, new median barriers were 

recommended to lessen the severity of a roadway departure crash. These safety 

countermeasure recommendations were a successful outcome of performing the field 

review with the audit team. In addition to reviewing the crash locations shown in the data, 

the field review team observed several locations within the corridor where traffic safety 

may be improved, including opportunities to improve guardrail terminals, new signing and 

delineation, and improvements to the advance overhead variable message signs alerting 

traffic to changed traffic flow conditions. 
FEDERAL AND TRIBAL LANDS ROAD SAFETY AUDITS: CASE STUDIES

A-36

There may be opportunities to foster partnerships between owner agencies and implement 

improvements by incorporating them with long-range plans. TDOT was very cooperative 

in the audit process, and offered and conducted an independent speed monitoring study 

at the location of the fatal crashes. Also, TDOT provided assistance by outlining their 

state process for performing audits and implementing improvements in their High Risk 

Rural Roads Program. This established process allowed the audit team to better focus 

the field investigation and crash data evaluation on tried and proven safety mitigation 

countermeasures. The National Park Service was pleased with the efforts and the 

safety improvement recommendations and indicated they will seek ways to incorporate 

improvements in the long-range program of future projects.

See also the discussion of “Key Factors for Success” and “Lessons Learned” in the main 

text.
FEDERAL AND TRIBAL LANDS ROAD SAFETY AUDITS: CASE STUDIES

A-37

RSA NUMBER 8

UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE (USFS):

USFS FOREST DEVELOPMENT ROAD 90 ROAD (LEWIS RIVER ROAD)

WASHINGTON

Roads: existing two-lane rural highway

RSA Sites: •	 paved, rural, two-lane road

•	 unsignalized intersections

Environment: o urban/urbanized o suburban R rural

Owners: Gifford Pinchot Forest (US Forest Service), Skamania County, Washington

Road Safety Audit

Date of RSA: 30 September to 1 October 2008

RSA Stage(s): o planning/design stage R RSA of existing roads

RSA team: Western Federal Lands Highway Division (WFL), Gifford Pinchot Forest (US Forest 

Service), Skamania County, Washington

BACKGROUND: 

The Gifford Pinchot Forest and Skamania County identified the location of concern as 

part of a call for forest highway safety projects. The purpose of this RSA was to identify 

safety issues at the location and develop suggestions.

The study area is located on Federal lands in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest in 

Washington. The study limits include Forest Development Road 90 (FDR 90, Lewis River 

Road) from milepost 0 to milepost 19 as shown in Figure A.8-1. Lewis River Road is a 

two-lane rural road, providing a connection between SR 503 in the west (near Cougar) 

and Curly Creek Road in the east. This road also provides access to Mount Saint Helens 

National Volcanic Monument sites (e.g., Ape Cave Road at MP 3.5 and Windy Ridge Road 

and Spirit Lake off FDR 25), boating on Swift Reservoir, fishing on Swift and the Lewis 

River, and other recreational activities in area. It is a primary arterial access connecting 

to SR 12 in Randle via FDR 25 and to SR 14 at Carson via Curly Creek Road and the 

Wind River Road. These access points provide numerous additional camping, hunting, 

fishing, hiking and wilderness access opportunities on USFS lands. There are also some 

PacifiCorp (Pacific Power) campgrounds and parks along Lewis River Road. Residential 

and year-round access has increased in recent years due to some logging lands being 

sold for development. The connectivity of the north and south loops to SR 12 and SR 

14 also make it a favorite driving for pleasure route for motorcycles and also for some 

automobile clubs.
FEDERAL AND TRIBAL LANDS ROAD SAFETY AUDITS: CASE STUDIES

A-38

FIGURE A.8-1 LEWIS RIVER ROAD RSA SITE
FEDERAL AND TRIBAL LANDS ROAD SAFETY AUDITS: CASE STUDIES

A-39

The traffic volume along this route is approximately 1,300 vehicles per day with increased 

motorcycle usage. The traffic volume decreases toward the east end of the corridor. Local 

agency representatives also observed and indicated a marked increase in motorcycle 

traffic and year-round traffic. There were 36 documented crashes along this corridor in 

the six-year period from 2000 to 2005. The 36 crashes included two fatal crashes and 

nearly half of the crashes (17 out of 36) involved motorcycles. Many of the crashes are 

related to speed and negotiating curves; there were no reported intersection-related 

crashes. While many of the crashes are curve-related, the RSA team noted that there 

is good use of centerline markings, curve warning signs, chevrons, and large arrows 

along the entire route. The US Forest Service (USFS) also invested $150,000 in leveling 

pavement subsidence sections that are a significant recurring problem at numerous 

locations between the Canal Bridge and the FDR 25 intersection.

Despite limited funds and resources, the USFS and Skamania County have done a good 

job in managing and maintaining Lewis River Road. Since 2005, the road has been 

plowed by the County during the winter because the USFS does not receive adequate 

maintenance funding for a road crew during the winter for rock fall, plowing, and other 

needs that arise. There is a complex three-party agreement for clearing the road in winter 

conditions. Lewis River Road is designated as a volcanic disaster escape route. The route 

provides access to County, USFS, and residents/businesses for medical emergencies, 

forest and residential fire emergencies, and for law enforcement services. The access also 

provides significant economic benefits to local communities from the tourism generated 

by the Mount Saint Helens Volcanic National Monument and many other Gifford Pinchot 

National Forest recreation sites. 

View of the limited recovery area and close proximity of steep 

rock slopes along Lewis River Road.

View of a curve along Lewis River Road with existing curve 

warning signs.

FIGURE A.8-2 VIEWS ALONG THE LEWIS RIVER ROAD RSA SITE
FEDERAL AND TRIBAL LANDS ROAD SAFETY AUDITS: CASE STUDIES

A-40

KEY RSA FINDINGS AND SUGGESTIONS:

The key findings and suggestions of the RSA are summarized in Table A.8. Figure A.8-2 

provides views along the study corridor, illustrating some of the safety issues.

TABLE A.8 SUMMARY OF SELECTED SAFETY ISSUES AND SUGGESTIONS: 

LEWIS RIVER ROAD RSA

SELECTED SAFETY ISSUE

(Number and Description) SUGGESTIONS

1 Signing:

•	 Limited visibility of signs due to fading and 

vegetation.

•	 Improper placement and mounting height of 

signs.

•	 Inconsistency in signing among curves and 

for opposite directions through the same 

curve.

•	 upgrade signs to meet current retroreflectivity 

requirements

•	 combine and relocate guide signs at FDR 25 

intersection

•	 increase the size of warning signs and consider 

installing additional curve warning signs and 

arrows as appropriate

•	 evaluate use of intersection signs for private 

driveways and access roads

2

Delineation:

•	 While the centerline is newly painted, the 

edgelines are faded.

•	 Delineators are not installed along outside of 

all curves.

•	 refresh edgeline pavement markings

•	 install delineators along the outside of curves

•	 delineate roadside hazards that are not 

protected by guardrail

•	 evaluate use of recessed centerline pavement 

markings through curves and potentially along 

the entire route

3

Guardrail/Barriers:

•	 Low mounting height and non-crashworthy 

terminals.

•	 Outdated guardrail with potentially rotting 

wood posts.

•	 Potential inadequate transitions at bridges.

•	 adjust the mounting height of guardrail to meet 

current standards

•	 replace deficient terminals

•	 evaluate old guardrail posts and replace as 

necessary

•	 replace/upgrade transitions to bridge rail as 

necessary 

4 Bridges

•	 Inconsistent bridge designs along corridor.

•	 Lack of delineation on bridge rail and 

approach.

•	 Potentially inadequate transitions to bridge 

rail.

•	 upgrade transition connections at bridge rails as 

necessary

•	 delineate bridge rail and approaches

•	 install ‘no fishing from bridge’ signs on Canal 

Bridge

•	 upgrade bridge rail and connections to current 

standards when replaced
FEDERAL AND TRIBAL LANDS ROAD SAFETY AUDITS: CASE STUDIES

A-41

SELECTED SAFETY ISSUE

(Number and Description) SUGGESTIONS

5

Geometric Standards:

•	 Current roadway alignment and width is 

appropriate for the intended use and terrain.

•	 Deteriorated pavement condition.

•	 Pavement edge drops.

•	 it is unlikely that realignment will have a 

significant impact on crashes

•	 provide a pavement overlay where possible and 

consider the use of cold in-place recycling or 

sub-excavation if necessary

•	 repair pavement edge drops during resurfacing 

efforts

6

Pull-outs:

•	 Inconsistent design and provision of paved 

and gravel pull-outs along the corridor.

o Several pull-outs exist along the west 

end of the corridor (west of FDR 25).

o Limited pull-outs are provided along the 

east end of the corridor.

•	 consider flattening/leveling paved and gravel 

pull-outs

•	 construct additional pull-outs along the east end 

of the corridor

•	 consider paving pull-outs that are currently 

unpaved

7

Crashes:

•	 Many crashes are associated with vehicle 

speeds (too fast for conditions).

•	 Many of the crashes occurred within curves.

•	 Many of the crashes are motorcycle-related.

•	 improve signage and delineation

•	 consider educational opportunities to address 

motorcycle safety concerns

8

Rockfall:

•	 Rockfalls are an issue throughout the corridor.

o Limited opportunities for fallout ditches 

due to terrain.

o Vegetation on slopes may prelude the 

use of rockfall fences in certain areas.

o Old concrete barrier remains where 

rockfall is/was an issue.

•	 conduct geotechnical study to determine how 

best to manage rockfall areas

•	 remove unneeded barrier and repair broken 

sections or install new barrier

•	 clean out areas behind concrete barrier and at 

base of rockfall cliffs

•	 scale weathered rock by hand or long reach 

backhoe

•	 consider installing rockfall fencing along slopes

•	 consider rock scaling and cut-slope eyebrow 

work between FDR 25 and Curly Creek Road

9 Slump Areas:

•	 Patched and leveled pavement subsidence / 

slump areas act as speed humps.

•	 Chronic subsidence location at MP 10.

•	 Issues at locations with guardrail.

o Pavement edge drop-off.

o Gap before the rail.

o Rail height has been compromised by 

the increased depth of asphalt. 

•	 conduct geotechnical study for the deeper, 

historic slumps

•	 site-specific report assessments are needed to 

determine best, long-term solutions
FEDERAL AND TRIBAL LANDS ROAD SAFETY AUDITS: CASE STUDIES

A-42

KEY LESSONS LEARNED:

Many of the safety issues identified in this in-service RSA resulted from changes in the

original purpose for Lewis River Road and its current use. The original purpose of Lewis 

River Road was for timber haul, for access to Mt. St Helens National Volcanic Monument, 

and for administration of FS lands. However, the use and function of the road has evolved 

over time and there are more residential activities and year-round traffic. Although the 

use and function of the road have evolved, its design, maintenance, and management 

have not. Consequently, the public is using a facility that is not designed or maintained 

for year-round public use or for residential purposes. These types of inconsistencies 

further distorted users’ expectations concerning the purpose, and therefore the design 

and maintenance standards, of Lewis River Road.

There may be opportunities to implement improvements by incorporating them with longrange plans. During the RSA for the Lewis River Road, the RSA Team identified items 

related to rockfall issues and bridge improvements. The rockfall issue is being addressed 

through a detailed geotechnical study that will provide guidance on how to manage the 

rockfall areas in the long run. Due to the limited annual funding for maintenance and 

roadway improvements, it was not practical to identify bridge replacement as a shortterm or intermediate improvement. Instead, extensive bridge improvements or complete 

replacement should be considered in long-range transportation plans.