FWS

Transportation Program

Safety Analysis Toolkit

Draft Report

Prepared for:

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Federal Highway Administration

July 2013
 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

FWS TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM SAFETY ANALYSIS TOOLKIT

July 2013 Safety Analysis Toolkit

i Draft Report

1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................1

1.1 Purpose .......................................................................................................................................1

1.2 Relationship to Safety Management System ...........................................................................1

1.3 How to Use this Toolkit .............................................................................................................2

2. SAFETY ANALYSIS PROCESS .............................................................................................................3

2.1 Safety Analysis Process .............................................................................................................4

2.2 Partner Agency Roles and Responsibilities.............................................................................5

3. IDENTIFICATION OF SAFETY ISSUES.................................................................................................7

3.1 Identification of Safety Issues...................................................................................................7

3.2 Common Safety Issues and Concerns......................................................................................9

4. SAFETY ANALYSIS TOOLS ...............................................................................................................11

4.1 Road Safety Audit (RSA) – General.......................................................................................12

4.2 Road Safety Audit – Intersection Study.................................................................................15

4.3 Road Safety Audit – Corridor Study .....................................................................................17

4.4 Unit Level Safety Analysis ......................................................................................................19

4.5 Issue Specific Safety Analysis .................................................................................................23

4.6 Customized Analysis................................................................................................................25

5. IMPLEMENTATION ...........................................................................................................................26
 

ACRONYMS

FWS TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM SAFETY ANALYSIS TOOLKIT

July 2013 Safety Analysis Toolkit

ii Draft Report

DOT Department of Transportation

FARS Fatality Analysis Reporting System

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

FLH Federal Lands Highway

FWS Fish and Wildlife Service

FWS-IMARS FWS Incident Management and Analysis Reporting System

MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act

NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

RATE Regional Alternative Transportation Evaluation

RIP Roadway Inventory Program

RSA Road Safety Audit

SMIS Safety Management Information System

SMS Safety Management System
 

July 2013 Safety Analysis Toolkit

1 Draft Report

1. INTRODUCTION

The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and Federal 

Highway Administration (FHWA) work closely 

together to continually improve safety on the 

transportation system that serves the National Wildlife 

Refuges and Fish Hatcheries. The FWS and FHWA 

have developed a Safety Management System (SMS) 

that can be used to identify, prioritize, mitigate, and 

track the performance of transportation safety 

investments for the FWS transportation system. To 

complement the SMS and provide tools for analyzing 

safety issues within the FWS transportation system, 

the Safety Analysis Toolkit was developed. The 

Toolkit includes discussions on the roles and 

responsibilities of partner agencies, the safety analysis 

tools that can be used to study safety issues, and the 

steps for implementing countermeasures that have 

been identified.

1.1 Purpose 

The Safety Analysis Toolkit will support the FWS 

efforts to identify, analyze, and mitigate safety issues 

on the FWS transportation system. The Toolkit 

presents a safety analysis process that emphasizes the 

strong coordination that should occur between FWS 

Field Station Managers and Staff, FWS Regional Transportation Coordinators, and the FHWA Safety 

Discipline Team. Each of these partners plays an important role in identifying, analyzing, and 

developing countermeasures to address safety issues in National Wildlife Refuges and Fish Hatcheries. 

The information in the Safety Analysis Toolkit is also intended to assist the FWS with developing a 

consistent procedure for determining the appropriate safety analysis type and to encourage a consistent 

level of safety analysis across the FWS. The Toolkit provides a description of a number of types of 

safety analysis tools that should be carefully considered when analyzing a safety issue. It provides 

guidance on what type of analysis to use and discusses the basic steps involved with each. Every field 

station and every safety issue will be different and at times none of the specific study types discussed 

will be a perfect fit for the analysis of a safety issue. The Toolkit encourages using a combination of 

studies as needed to address safety issues when appropriate. 

The safety analysis process presented in this Toolkit is a key step in meeting the FWS goal of 

eliminating crashes on the FWS transportation system. The safety analysis process emphasizes 

identification of safety issues before crashes occur and promotes coordination between FWS and 

FHWA to work closely together to analyze safety issues and identify countermeasures if required.

1.2 Relationship to Safety Management System

The SMS establishes an annual process to collect and store safety data in order to identify transportation 

safety issues at FWS field stations. While some of the data collected in the SMS will include crash 

reports or other objective information from traffic and safety studies, much of the data collected in the 

SMS is subjective data compiled from surveys and other input from field stations. Regardless of the 

source of a safety issue identified in the SMS, the safety analysis process discussed in the Safety 

Analysis Toolkit can be used to move the safety issues identified in the SMS forward by providing a 

process to determine if a safety study is needed an if so, what type of safety study is appropriate. 

Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge Source: USFWS
 

July 2013 Safety Analysis Toolkit

2 Draft Report

When a safety issue originates from a field station, the SMS database should be reviewed to determine if 

additional information is available in the database that is related to the safety issue. For example, the 

SMS database may have a record of a crash from the FWS Incident Management and Analysis 

Reporting System (FWS-IMARS) at the same location, or concerns about the location may have been 

noted on past Regional Alternative Transportation Evaluation (RATE) surveys. This type of 

information would be valuable when determining if a study is needed to address the safety issue. 

The SMS database will also be available to the FWS Regional Transportation Coordinators and the 

FWS Field Station Manager. As additional safety data is added the SMS database each year, it should 

be periodically reviewed to determine if there are safety issues noted in the databases that should be 

considered for a safety study.

1.3 How to Use this Toolkit

As stated earlier, the Safety Analysis Toolkit is intended to assist the FWS with developing a consistent 

procedure for determining the appropriate safety analysis type and to encourage a consistent level of 

safety analysis across the FWS. The Safety Analysis Toolkit should primarily be used as a guideline in 

selecting the type of safety analysis tool to be used for safety issues that appear to need further analysis. 

Use of the process and guidance provided in the Safety Analysis Toolkit should allow for more 

consistency in how safety issues are identified for analysis as well as more consistency in which type of 

analysis is used.

It is important to note that the Safety Analysis Toolkit provides guidance but does not provide 

requirements on which safety issues to study or which type of study to select. The final decisions 

should be based on the expertise, experience, and local knowledge of FWS, FHWA, and other partner 

agency staff members. When safety issues are identified at the field station level, it is strongly 

encouraged that as a first step the FWS Field Station Managers and Staff contact the FWS Regional 

Transportation Coordinators, and that the FHWA Safety Discipline Team also be brought in to partner 

with FWS.

The Safety Analysis Toolkit should be considered in conjunction with the Four E’s of Safety: 

engineering, education, enforcement, and emergency medical services. While many of the safety 

analysis studies may be inclined to consider engineering solutions for safety issues, it is important to 

also consider how education, enforcement, and emergency medical services may be used to address 

safety issues as well. These can often provide very cost effective solutions and may address a safety 

issue as well or better than an engineering solution. Very often the best solution may lie in some 

combination of two or more of the Four E’s of Safety and all four should be considered as part of every 

safety analysis.
 

July 2013 Safety Analysis Toolkit

3 Draft Report

2. SAFETY ANALYSIS PROCESS

The FWS and FHWA Federal Lands Highway (FLH) have defined a general process that should be 

considered when safety issues are identified on FWS transportation facilities. The process relies on a 

strong partnership between FWS Field Station Manager, FWS Regional Transportation Coordinators, 

and the FHWA FLH Safety Discipline Team. An overview of the process is presented in the figure 

below, and the process as well as the roles and responsibilities of the partner agencies are discussed in 

more detail in Section 2 of this report.

Safety Analysis Process

Note: The safety analysis process presented above emphasizes the need to involve FWS Regional Transportation Coordinators as soon as a 

safety issue is identified. Decisions on the need for a safety study as well as the type of study performed should be made by FHWA FLH 

Safety Discipline Team Lead in close coordination with the FWS. Although the process above provides general guidance for selecting the 

appropriate study type, each safety issue is unique and will need to be carefully reviewed to determine the most appropriate course of action 

to address the issue.
 

July 2013 Safety Analysis Toolkit

4 Draft Report

2.1 Safety Analysis Process

The FWS and FHWA FLH have defined a general process that should be considered for safety issues

that arise on the FWS transportation system. The process relies heavily on a high level of cooperation 

between the FWS Field Stations, FWS Regional Transportation Coordinators, and the FHWA FLH 

Safety Team. Each of these will both lead and support the various steps that should occur from the 

initial identification of safety issues through project implementation if applicable. The key steps in the 

process are discussed in more detail below.

Identification of Safety Issues – Safety issues may be identified at the field station, regional, or 

national level within the FWS. While some issues, such as a missing stop sign, will be most 

appropriately addressed by field station staff, other may require more in-depth analysis to determine the 

cause of the issue and develop countermeasures that adequately address the issue. As a first step, 

whenever safety issues arise that cannot be readily addressed by field station staff, it is recommended 

that the FWS Regional Transportation Coordinator be contacted.

Contact the FWS Regional Transportation Coordinator – The FWS Regional Transportation 

Coordinators will act as the primary contact point for addressing safety issues that cannot be readily 

addressed at the field station level. The FWS Regional Transportation Coordinators will be able to 

share experiences of other FWS field stations that may have had similar safety issues, they will be aware 

of existing policies and programs available to address safety issues, and they will act as the primary 

point of contact between FWS and the FWHW FLH Safety Discipline Team.

Determine if a Safety Study is Needed – The determination of the need for a safety study should be 

made with close coordination between the FWS Field Station Staff, FWS Regional Transportation 

Coordinators, and the FHWA FLH Safety Discipline Team Lead, with the FHWA FLH Safety 

Discipline Team Lead taking the lead role in making this determination. Depending on the issue, a field 

review may be needed to make this determination and to gather additional information in order to 

determine the appropriate study type.

Determine Appropriate Study Type – Based on information available, the FHWA FLH Safety 

Discipline Team Lead, in coordination with the FWS, will determine the type of safety analysis study 

that should be completed in order to address the safety issue. There should be flexibility in this process 

as each safety issue is unique. In many cases a customized analysis approach may be selected to 

adequately address an issue. For example, a unit level safety analysis may be selected for a Refuge to 

address multiple safety issues, but it may also be determined that a road safety audit (RSA) should be 

performed at several intersections within a Refuge to address specific concerns at intersections that have 

had a history of crashes.

Complete Study and Develop Recommended Countermeasures – The study and development of 

recommended countermeasures will be led by the FHWA FLH Safety Discipline Team Lead. Key steps 

include:

 Formation of the Safety Team

 Data Collection and Assembly

 Develop Recommended Countermeasures

The safety team could include members of the FWS Field Station Staff, FWS law enforcement, local 

law enforcement, state departments of transportation (DOTs), and local DOTs or public works in 

addition to the FHWA FLH Safety Discipline Team Lead and the FWS Regional Transportation 

Coordinators.
 

July 2013 Safety Analysis Toolkit

5 Draft Report

Data collection and assembly will generally be the responsibility of FWS Field Station Staff who will 

have the most history on the safety issues at a field station. The FWS National SMS Specialist should 

also be consulted to identify any safety issues, crash reports, or other safety data that may be available in 

the FWS SMS.

Recommendations will be made by the safety team with the FHWA FLH Safety Discipline Team 

Leader taking the lead role in making recommendations to FWS.

Project Implementation – Implementation of recommendations from safety studies will ultimately 

depend on priority of the need, availability of funding, and jurisdictions involved. The implementation 

will be led by the FWS Field Station Manager but tracked by the FWS Regional Transportation 

Coordinators. Project implementation information should also be provided to the FWS National SMS 

Specialists so that the improvements can be monitored and tracked for performance measurement.

Performance Monitoring – As part of the FWS SMS, the FWS National SMS Specialist will monitor 

any locations with safety improvements to determine if a measurable difference in safety can be 

identified.

2.2 Partner Agency Roles and 

Responsibilities

The FWS and its partner agencies each play a critical 

role in providing a safe transportation system within 

the FWS field stations. Close cooperation and 

partnerships between these agencies will allow FWS 

to continue to provide the safest transportation 

system possible. The key partners involved in the 

safety analysis process include:

 FWS Regional Transportation Coordinator

 FWS Field Station Manager

 FWS National SMS Specialist

 FWS Law Enforcement

 FHWA FLH Safety Discipline Team Lead

 State Departments of Transportation

 Local Law Enforcement

 Local DOTs or Public Works Departments

In the diagram to the right, the basic steps of the 

safety analysis process are identified along with the 

lead agency or agencies that are responsible for each 

step. The FHWA FLH Safety Discipline Team Lead 

has been identified with many of the lead roles, but it 

is expected that they will coordinate very closely 

with the FWS Regional Transportation Coordinators 

and the FWS Field Station Manager throughout the 

safety analysis process. 

On the table on the following page, the specific roles 

of the most common partner agencies have been 

documented. While the FWS and FHWA are 

generally involved in safety work at FWS field 

stations, it will also be important to engage state and 

Safety Analysis Process Lead Roles
 

July 2013 Safety Analysis Toolkit

6 Draft Report

local partners. For example, RSAs are defined as formal safety performance evaluation of an existing or 

future road or intersection by an independent, multi-disciplinary team. RSAs include state DOTs and

local law enforcement officers in the process to provide an independent evaluation of safety issues from 

other agencies and disciplines. These partners can offer new perspectives and ideas on addressing 

safety issues.

Partner Agency Roles and Responsibilities

Partner Agencies Roles and Responsibilities

FWS Regional Transportation 

Coordinator

Co-Lead – Identification of Safety Issues 

Determine Appropriate Study Type

Develop Recommended Countermeasures

Project Implementation

FWS Field Station Manager

Co-Lead – Identification of Safety Issue

Lead – Determine Appropriate Study Type

Co-Lead – Data Collection and Assembly

Develop Recommended Countermeasures

Lead – Project Implementation

FWS National SMS Specialist

Co-Lead – Data Collection and Assembly

Lead – Performance Monitoring and Tracking 

(Included as part of overall role to maintain SMS)

FWS 

Local Law Enforcement

Data Collection and Assembly

Develop Recommended Countermeasures

FHWA FLH Safety Discipline Team 

Lead

Lead - Determine if Safety Study is Needed 

Lead – Determine Appropriate Study Type

Lead – Formation of Safety Team

Lead – Develop Recommended Countermeasures

Project Implementation

State DOTs

Local DOTs

Public Works Departments

Data Collection and Assembly

Develop Recommended Countermeasures

Permitting and Approval

Project Implementation
 

July 2013 Safety Analysis Toolkit

7 Draft Report

3. IDENTIFICATION OF SAFETY ISSUES

The identification of safety issues can occur on a national, regional, or local level. On a national level 

road safety issues will be identified and compiled in the SMS. Regionally the FWS Regional 

Transportation Coordinators will review the SMS database as well as share experience gathered from 

other safety studies to identify potential safety issues at field stations. Locally, safety issues are more 

likely to be identified through less formal means, relying on experience within the field station as well 

as reports and information from staff, law enforcement, and visitors to the field station. Safety issues 

should include not only safety issues on the FWS transportation system, but also safety issues on roads 

that provide access to National Wildlife Refuges and Fish Hatcheries. In this section some of the 

sources of information that can be reviewed to identify safety issues are discussed and a broad overview 

of common safety issues is provided.

3.1 Identification of Safety Issues

One of the goals of FWS is to eliminate crashes on the FWS transportation system. In 

order to achieve this goal the FWS must be proactive in identifying potential safety 

issues and taking the appropriate steps to mitigate those issues as needed. Ideally 

safety issues are identified and mitigated before a crash ever occurs. 

At the national level, the FWS is developing a SMS. The goal of the SMS is to ensure 

that safety is considered on the FWS transportation system and to improve safety on 

that system through the project selection and development process. The SMS will 

consider safety on the entire transportation system, not just roadways. It will include 

transit, bicycle facilities, water-based transportation facilities, aviation facilities, and 

trails in addition to roadways. 

The SMS will utilize existing sources of crash and safety data to build a SMS 

database. These sources include the FWS-IMARS, surveys completed through the 

Long Range Transportation Plan process and other planning efforts, surveys 

completed at part of the FWS Roadway Inventory Program (RIP), and information 

from the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) Fatality Analysis Reporting 

System (FARS). In some cases statewide crash databases may also be reviewed to determine the crash 

history at particular locations.

Safety issues identified in the 

SMS can occur on both a 

project level and a program 

level. Project level safety 

issues will be resolved on a 

case by case basis following a 

study and development of 

finalized countermeasures. 

Program level safety issues 

may be addressed across the 

FWS when a repeated issue is 

noted. By taking notes and 

documenting complaints 

locally, and then passing those 

notes along to Regional 

Transportation Coordinators, 

program level safety concerns 

may be discovered earlier and 

A crash is not 

required in order 

to report a 

transportation 

safety issue. The 

goal should be to 

identify and 

address safety 

issues before any 

type of crash 

occurs on the 

transportation 

system.

SMS Data Collection Sources
 

July 2013 Safety Analysis Toolkit

8 Draft Report

resolved in a more timely matter.

The SMS will be reviewed on an annual basis to identify safety issues. The SMS will be available to 

the FWS Regional Transportation Coordinators to determine if there are safety issues that should be 

considered for additional study.

At the local level, identifying road safety issues will be an ongoing task that will require gathering of 

information from many sources. In the diagram below, the sources of data that may assist the FWS 

Field Station Staff with identifying safety concern are identified. These include local sources of data, 

such as field observations or coordination with local law enforcement, as well as sources of data 

available to local staff through the SMS, such as crash data from the FWS Law Enforcement FWSIMARS. While there are many safety issues that can be addressed at the local level, such as a missing 

stop sign or damaged guard rail, whenever a safety issue exists without a clear solution the FWS Field 

Station Staff are encouraged to contact the FWS Regional Transportation Coordinators to determine if 

the issue should be considered for a safety study.

Data Inputs for Identifying Safety Issues

Finally, at all levels it is important to note that safety issues should not just be considered on FWS 

transportation facilities. Safety issues on transportation facilities that provide access to National 

Wildlife Refuges and Fish Hatcheries should also be identified and reviewed with the FWS Regional 

Transportation Coordinators to determine if safety studies should be conducted. The Moving Ahead for 

Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) transportation legislation included dedicated funding for the 

Federal Lands Access Program. This program provides funds for projects on Federal Lands access 

transportation facilities that are located on or adjacent to, or that provide access to Federal Lands but are 

not owned by the FLMA. 
 

July 2013 Safety Analysis Toolkit

9 Draft Report

3.2 Common Safety Issues and Concerns

Safety issues can vary and each situation should be uniquely evaluated. However, within the FWS there 

are some commonly reported safety issues. Below is a summary of some of those issues. Although this 

is not an exhaustive list, it does provide some insight into the types of issues that may be expected to 

arise on the FWS transportation system.

Aviation

Safety issues for aviation at FWS field stations will largely consist of safety on runway and airfields. 

Issues may involve interaction with wildlife or appropriate levels of clearing for adjacent vegetation.

Bicycles

Bicycle safety includes well marked trails and paths as well as signed crossing points. Primary points of 

concern are locations where bicycles interact with motorized vehicles; this includes intersections, 

insufficient sight distance around curves for vehicles to see bicycles, and narrow roads with insufficient 

width for vehicles to pass.

Bridges

While integrity of bridge structures is often the most serious safety concern, other safety issues with 

bridges may include insufficient width for two-way traffic, lack or guardrail, low clearance, waterways 

overflowing onto the bridge deck, and unsafe conditions due to winter weather.

Parking Lots

Parking lots can present 

unique safety concerns. Lack 

of striping, poor signage, 

ingress and egress issues, poor 

internal circulation patterns, 

and vehicle-pedestrian 

conflicts can all be potential 

causes for accidents and/or 

crashes even at low vehicular 

travel speeds. 

Pedestrians

Similar to bicycles, safety 

issues can arise in any location 

where pedestrians frequently 

interact with motorized 

vehicles. Lack of adequate 

signing and pavement 

markings at crossings can be a 

safety issue, as well as roads 

without adjacent sidewalks or trails that require pedestrians to walk in the roadway.

Roadway Design

There are a significant number of roadway elements that may present safety issues. These include poor 

drainage, lack of guardrail or safety barriers, poor pavement quality, or inadequate pavement markings.

Kenai National Wildlife Refuge Source: Steve Hillebrand, FWS 
 

July 2013 Safety Analysis Toolkit

10 Draft Report

Roadway Intersections: Field Station Egress and Ingress

Ingress and egress to field stations can pose safety issues, particularly when vehicles that accelerate or 

decelerate slowly (such as large RVs and vehicle towing boats) are presented with potential conflicts 

with fast moving vehicles on state or county roads that provide access to the field station. Common 

safety issues include lack of acceleration or deceleration lanes, inadequate signage or pavement 

markings, nearby at-grade railroad crossings, or the need for a traffic signal.

Roadway Intersections: Internal Field Station Intersections

Internal field station intersections may have many of the same safety issues as intersections at the field 

station entrances. Other common safety issues may include inadequate horizontal or vertical sight 

distance, lack of clear right-of-way, narrow roadways, or poor pavement conditions.

Roadway Pull-out

Informal parking along roadways can 

create safety issues. These may occur 

along auto tour routes or locations 

where there are scenic view pull-outs 

that are not adequately signed. High 

speeds can cause safety issues at these 

locations as well as limited sight 

distance.

Security Issues

Security related safety issues may 

involve unauthorized users or vehicle 

types on roadways, and the enforcement 

of roadway regulations.

Water Based Transportation

Water based transportation safety issues 

may include such issues as boat ramp 

safety or boat to boat crashes on 

waterways. 

Weather

Weather related safety issues that may need to be addressed include roadway flooding, ponding of water 

on roadways, icy conditions, temporary closures due to snow, or fog. 

Wildlife-Vehicle Collisions

Reducing wildlife-vehicle collisions not only improves safety but also serves an important part of the 

FWS mission of conservation of wildlife. Roadway fencing, grade separated wildlife crossings, and 

improved signage are all considerations if wildlife-vehicle collisions present a safety issue at a field 

station.

Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge Source: Kimley-Horn
 

July 2013 Safety Analysis Toolkit

11 Draft Report

4. SAFETY ANALYSIS TOOLS

In Section 2 of this document a safety analysis process was presented that provides recommended steps 

for moving from the identification of a safety issue to analysis of the issue to project implementation. In 

Section 4, the determination of the appropriate safety analysis study is discussed. Discussion is 

included on four unique types of safety analysis tools: Intersection RSAs, Corridor RSAs, Unit Level 

Safety Analysis, and Issue Specific Safety Analysis. The need for a customized analysis to address 

unique safety issues is also discussed. 

Safety Analysis Process

(Safety Analysis Study Type Determination)

The determination of the appropriate study type will generally be led by the FHWA FLH Safety 

Discipline Lead in close coordination with the FWS Regional Transportation Coordinators and FWS 

Field Station Manager. The FHWA FLH Safety Discipline Lead will also take the lead on completing 

the safety analysis, however assistance may be sought from local and regional transportation experts as 

well as consultants to assist with performing the safety analysis. 

In the remainder of Section 4, each of the safety analysis study types are described in more detail. The 

general timeframe to complete each study, the team used for each study, the commitment required from 

the FWS field stations, and reasons for selecting each type of study are discussed.
 

July 2013 Safety Analysis Toolkit

12 Draft Report

4.1 Road Safety Audit (RSA) – General

RSAs are a common and valuable tool used to analyze safety on roadway intersections and corridors. 

The FHWA defines an RSA as a “formal safety performance evaluation of an existing or future road or 

intersection by an independent, multi-disciplinary team.” The FHWA has developed a Road Safety 

Audit Toolkit for Federal Land Management Agencies and Tribal Governments. The Safety Analysis 

Toolkit provides information regarding what an RSA is, when an RSA should be considered and how an 

RSA should be conducted. A brief summary of information found in that document is provided here. 

RSAs may be used on any type of facility and during all stages of the project development process; 

additionally, RSAs consider potential safety issues for all road users under all conditions. Attention

should be given to travel conditions such as darkness, severe weather, peak travel times, special events, 

or other factors that may not normally exist at the site. 

RSAs Are: RSAs Are Not:

Focused on road safety

A formal examination

Proactive in nature

Conducted by a multidisciplinary team

Conducted by a team that is independent of the 

operations, design, or management of the facility

Conducted by a qualified team

Broad enough to consider the safety of road users of 

the facility

Qualitative in nature

A means to evaluate the design of a facility

A check of compliance with standards

A redesign of a project

A means of rating one design option over another

A means of ranking or justifying one project over 

another

A safety review

A crash investigation (although the crash history of an 

existing facility is reviewed)

Source: FHWA Road Safety Audit Toolkit for Federal Land Management Agencies and Tribal Governments

Many factors may lead to the decision to request the preparation of an RSA. Common factors may 

include a high crash frequency, high profile crash types, or significant changes in traffic characteristics

or patterns (current or expected). Other factors may include unique design proposals for the area or a 

major change in adjacent or surrounding land uses.

RSA project scopes should generally remain small, including no more than one to two miles of corridor 

or no more than four to five intersections, if possible. Limiting the scope allows RSAs to be completed

expeditiously. Typical RSA field work can be completed in one or two days, with one week being a 

standard maximum. If an RSA includes a corridor longer than two miles or a large number of 

intersections to be assessed the timeframe for completion of the project, particularly the amount of time 

required for field work, may increase dramatically.
 

July 2013 Safety Analysis Toolkit

13 Draft Report

Completing an RSA is an 8 step process which is 

outlined in the FHWA Road Safety Audit Guidelines. 

Responsibility of each step is assigned to either the 

project owner or the RSA Team lead as illustrated in 

the figure at left. The project owner would most 

likely be the FWS, represented by the FWS Field 

Station Manager as well as the FWS Regional 

Transportation Coordination. If a safety issue was 

identified on a road that provided access to a field 

station but was not owned by the FWS, the project 

owner would be the owning and operating agency

such as a State DOT or a County Public Works 

Department. The RSA Team will most likely be led 

by the FHWA FLH Safety Discipline Team. 

A summary of the 8 steps are provided below.

Step 1 – Identify Project or Existing Road for 

RSA: As noted in Section 2.1, the need for a RSA 

will be determined through close coordination 

between the FWS Field Station Staff, FWS Regional 

Transportation Coordinators, and the FHWA FLH 

Safety Discipline Team Lead. The FHWA FLH 

Safety Discipline Team Lead will take the lead role in 

making this determination.

Step 2 – Select Independent and Multidisciplinary 

RSA Team: The FHWA FLH Safety Discipline 

Team Lead will select the RSA Team. RSA Team 

members should be independent of the road 

operations and the design of facility to eliminate 

potential bias. RSA members can include individuals 

with expertise in road safety, traffic operations, road 

design, road maintenance, transportation planning, 

law enforcement, public outreach, community organizations, and user groups such as cyclists, hikers, 

boaters, or all-terrain vehicle users. A recommended best practice is to use the smallest team possible 

that still brings the necessary knowledge and experience for the location and safety issues being 

reviewed. In general, teams should consist of a maximum of five people, although more people may be 

involved in the Kick-Off meeting discussed in Step 3 when information is initially being gathered for 

the RSA.

Step 3 – Conduct Kick-Off Meeting to Exchange Information: The Kick-Off meeting will provide 

an opportunity for the Project Owner and RSA Team to understand the purpose, schedule, and roles and 

responsibilities of all participants. The meeting also allows the RSA Team members to ask specific 

questions of the Project Owner regarding the safety issues.

Step 4 – Perform Field Reviews under Various Conditions: The field review should be performed 

during various conditions, such as day and night as well as peak and non-peak visitor times. Certain 

conditions such as special events and severe weather may not exist or may not allow the RSA Safety 

Team to safely perform the safety review but those types of conditions should be considered to the best 

of the RSA Team’s ability. 

Road Safety Audit Process
 

July 2013 Safety Analysis Toolkit

14 Draft Report

Step 5 – Conduct RSA Analysis and Prepare Report Findings: The RSA report should include a 

summary of the safety issues and suggestions for countermeasures. Prior to preparing the report the 

RSA Team may meet with the Project Owner to discuss the preliminary findings.

Step 6 – Present RSA Findings to Project Owner: This step provides an opportunity for the RSA 

Team and Project Owner to discuss the RSA findings. The Project Owner may make recommendations 

for additional or alternative countermeasures. 

Step 7 – Prepare Formal Response: The Project Owner should review the RSA findings and prepare 

a formal response that outlines what action they plan to take with respect to each safety issue identified 

in the RSA findings.

Step 8 – Incorporate Findings into the Project when Appropriate: The Project Owner will be 

responsible for taking the necessary steps to implement the agreed-upon safety improvements. An after 

action review may also be scheduled to allow the RSA Team to evaluate the effectiveness of the safety 

improvements and evaluate if other measures are needed.

The field review described in Step 4 above will typically only take a few days to complete, but the entire 

process may take several months to several years to complete depending on the size and scope of the 

recommended safety improvements. In general, an estimate of approximately one to three months to 

complete Steps 1 through 7 would be reasonable, with Step 8 varying widely depending on the 

recommended safety improvements. 

Additional details about the steps can be found in the Roadway Safety Audit Toolkit for Federal Land 

Management Agencies and Tribal Governments.
 

July 2013 Safety Analysis Toolkit

15 Draft Report

4.2 Road Safety Audit – Intersection Study

An intersection RSA is one in 

which one or more 

intersections are audited, but 

the corridor between them is 

not audited. An intersection 

RSA will use the eight-step 

process described in Section 

4.1 regardless of size, scale, 

or number of intersections 

audited. 

The timeframe for the field 

review will most likely be 

limited to a single day for a 

single intersection and up to a 

week for multiple intersections. The total time of the RSA, from the initial formation of the safety team 

until the findings are presented to the project owner, is expected to take approximately one to three 

months. 

The RSA team will be made up of independent multidisciplinary experts representing road safety, traffic 

operations, road design, road maintenance, transportation planning, law enforcement, public outreach, 

community organizations, and user groups. The number of representatives on the RSA team will vary 

depending on the size and complexity of the RSA. For a single intersection RSA with low volumes, it is 

likely that a smaller RSA team would be used compared to an RSA that included a series of high 

volume intersections.

FWS field stations

where RSA’s are 

performed may be 

asked to have facilities 

and law enforcement 

staff participates on the 

RSA team. In some 

cases, representatives 

of visitor services or 

special use groups such 

as cyclists may also be 

asked to participate. 

The local knowledge 

the field station staff 

can bring to the RSA 

team is extremely 

valuable in helping the 

RSA team understand 

the safety issues and 

developing feasible 

countermeasures. 

Intersection RSAs 

should be considered at 

any location where 

Road Safety Audit – Intersection Studies

A formal safety performance evaluation of an intersection by an 

independent multidisciplinary team.

Timeframe One to three months

Team Independent multidisciplinary RSA team 

including safety, traffic, maintenance, and law 

enforcement expertise 

Field Station Commitment Facilities and law enforcement staff to assist 

with field review of all intersections

Reason for Use Crashes or safety issues identified at one or 

more intersections

Savannah and Pinckney Island National Wildlife Refuges Road Safety 

Audit

The Savannah and Pinckney Island NWR RSA examined safety issues at the 

entrances to both refuges as well as at two other locations at the Savannah 

NWR.

The RSA included a review of existing 

geometric conditions, traffic data, and 

crash data. Based on this review six safety 

issues were identified, including roadway 

geometry, signing and pavement markings, 

traffic congestion, roadside design, night 

time and poor visibility, and bicyclists. 

Roadway geometry was determined to be the most critical issue and 

recommendations for countermeasures included installation of new turn lanes, 

lengthening of existing turn and acceleration lanes, addition of a shoulder 

bypass lane, and the installation of signage to improve locations where 

horizontal and vertical curvature limits sight distance. Recommendations also 

included non-engineering solutions, including increased education and 

enforcement.

Source: FWS
 

July 2013 Safety Analysis Toolkit

16 Draft Report

crashes or safety concerns are limited to one or more intersection specific issues. Following the 

implementation of any of the recommended countermeasures, an after action review should be 

considered to evaluate the effectiveness of the recommendations.
 

July 2013 Safety Analysis Toolkit

17 Draft Report

4.3 Road Safety Audit – Corridor Study

A corridor RSA focuses on a 

segment of a corridor, a full 

corridor, or multiple 

corridors. It may include 

one or more intersection as 

part of the study. A corridor 

RSA will also use the eightstep process described in 

Section 4.1 regardless of 

length or number of 

corridors being audited. 

The timeframe for the field 

review will vary quite a bit 

depending on the length and 

number of corridors. The 

field review may take as 

little as one day for shorter 

corridors and up to a week 

or more for longer corridors. The total time of the RSA, from the initial formation of the safety team 

until the findings are presented to the project owner, is expected to take approximately two to four 

months. 

The RSA team will be 

made up of independent 

multidisciplinary experts 

representing road safety, 

traffic operations, road 

design, road maintenance, 

transportation planning, 

law enforcement, public 

outreach, community 

organizations, and user 

groups. The number of 

representatives on the RSA 

team will vary depending 

on the size and complexity 

of the RSA. For a single 

low volume two-lane 

corridor it is likely that a 

smaller RSA team would 

be used compared to an 

RSA that included a series 

of longer high volume 

corridors with turn lanes, 

pull-outs, or other unique 

features. 

FWS field stations where 

RSA’s are performed may 

Road Safety Audit – Corridor Studies

A formal safety performance evaluation of a corridor by an independent 

multidisciplinary team.

Timeframe Two to four months

Team Independent multidisciplinary RSA team 

including safety, traffic, maintenance, law 

enforcement expertise 

Field Station Commitment Facilities and law enforcement staff to assist 

with field review of all intersections

Reason for Use Crashes or safety concerns identified along a 

corridor. Corridor studies may also be 

appropriate even if a safety issue is only 

identified at a single location, because that 

issue may exist elsewhere on a corridor even 

though it is not identified.

Patuxent Research Refuge Road Safety Audit

The Patuxent Research Refuge RSA included two 

corridors that intersect at the Patuxent Research 

Refuge in Prince Georges County, Maryland. Both 

corridors are over two miles in length. These 

corridors had 126 reported crashes between 2002 

and 2006, including four fatal crashes. 

A crash analysis was completed and field visits were 

conducted during both daytime and nighttime. 

Several safety issues and corresponding suggestions 

were identified as part of the study. The safety 

issues were categorized into seven categories: 

signing and pavement marking, nighttime visibility, 

roadside design, drainage, access to and from side 

streets, effects of roadway curvature on motorists, 

and genera intersection safety concerns.

These categories and their associated safety issues were prioritized based on 

how critical they were to the safety of the corridors. Signing and pavement 

markings were determined to be the most critical within the study area. The 

suggested improvements for signing and pavement markings included the 

addition of stop bars, the duplication of stop signs, the replacement or 

relocation of damaged or poorly located signs, and the trimming of 

vegetation around signage.

Source: FWS
 

July 2013 Safety Analysis Toolkit

18 Draft Report

be asked to have facilities and law enforcement staff participates on the RSA team. In some cases, 

representatives of visitor services or special use groups such as cyclists may also be asked to participate. 

The local knowledge the field station staff can bring to the RSA team is extremely valuable in helping 

the RSA team understand the safety issues and developing feasible countermeasures. 

It can be expected that a corridor RSA will likely lead to a larger number of recommendations than 

might result from an intersection RSA. In some cases the recommendations for countermeasures will 

need to be prioritized as shorter-term recommendations that may be able to be implemented in the shortterm to address any immediate safety issues, and long-term recommendations that may require 

additional project planning, design, or programming of funding. 

Corridor RSAs should be considered at any location where crashes or safety concerns have been 

identified along a corridor. A corridor study may also be appropriate even if a safety issues is only 

identified at a single location. If similar conditions exist at other locations along a corridor they should 

be reviewed as part of the RSA to determine if the safety issue is broader than a single location. For 

example, if several crashes have occurred at one curve on a road, that curve may be the only safety issue 

identified. But if similar curves exist on the corridor, even if there have not been any crashes, those 

curves should be included as part of the RSA so that countermeasures, such as improved curve warning 

signs, can be consistently implemented along the entire corridor. 

Following the implementation of any of the recommended countermeasures, an after action review 

should be considered to evaluate the effectiveness of the recommendations. 
 

July 2013 Safety Analysis Toolkit

19 Draft Report

4.4 Unit Level Safety Analysis 

A unit level safety analysis is 

intended to study safety issues

throughout a field station. A 

unit level safety analysis 

should be considered when a 

field station has had a 

significant number or broad 

spectrum of safety issues 

identified throughout (rather 

than a limited number of

safety issues identified at

intersections or on corridors.) 

This type of safety analysis 

may also be recommended 

even if no major safety issues have been identified; regularly assessing safety on a unit wide level may 

help to prevent future incidents by identifying and mitigating potential safety issues.

Unlike RSAs, there is not a formal process 

established for developing unit level safety analysis. 

However, many of the steps that are recommended 

for a unit level safety analysis are very similar to an 

RSA. Below are some of the steps that should be 

considered when developing a unit level safety 

analysis. Similar to the process for RSAs, the 

Project Owner represents the FWS field station.

Step 1 – Identify Project: As noted in Section 2.1, 

the need for any type of safety analysis should be 

determined in close coordination between the FWS 

Field Station Staff, FWS Regional Transportation 

Coordinators, and the FHWA FLH Safety Discipline 

Team Lead. The FHWA FLH Safety Discipline 

Team Lead will take the lead role in making this 

determination.

Step 2 – Select a Multidisciplinary Safety 

Analysis Team: Unit level safety analysis can 

cover a wide range of safety issues. It is important 

to select a team that represents not only traffic, 

safety, and law enforcement but also other safety 

issues that may have been identified on a Region. 

Examples include expertise in wildlife management 

if there are a large number of wildlife-vehicle

collisions, expertise in boating safety if there are 

safety issues at boat ramps or on waterways that 

serve as a means of transportation, or expertise in 

aviation for refuges whose primary means of access 

are through planes.

Unit Level Safety Analysis

A comprehensive analysis of safety issues throughout a unit or field station.

Timeframe Three months to one year

Team Multidisciplinary team including traffic, safety, 

and law enforcement expertise 

Field Station Commitment Facilities and law enforcement staff to assist 

with identification and field review of hot 

spots throughout a field station.

Reason for Use Crashes or safety concerns identified 

throughout a field station. 

Unit Level Safety Analysis Process
 

July 2013 Safety Analysis Toolkit

20 Draft Report

Step 3 – Conduct Kick-Off Meeting: The 

Kick-Off meeting will provide an opportunity 

for the Project Owner and Safety Analysis 

Team to understand the purpose, schedule, and 

roles and responsibilities of all participants. 

The meeting also allows the Safety Analysis 

Team to better understand safety issues that 

may exist throughout the Refuge through 

discussions with field station staff and law 

enforcement. 

Step 4 – Conduct Preliminary Analysis: 

Preliminary analysis should be conducted to 

identify hot spots where crashes have occurred 

or where there appears to be a high potential 

for crashes. Analysis could include a review 

of all available data in the SMS database, a 

review of crashes available through FWS law 

enforcement, a review of the statewide crash 

database, discussions of existing hot spots 

with field station staff and law enforcement, 

and a field review existing routes. The KickOff meeting will provide an opportunity for 

the Project Owner and RSA Team to 

understand the purpose, schedule, and roles 

and responsibilities of all participants. The 

meeting also allows the RSA Team members 

to ask specific questions of the Project Owner 

regarding the safety issues. Step 4 may occur 

in conjunction with Step 3.

Step 5 – Perform Field Review at Hot 

Spots: The Safety Analysis Team should 

perform a field review of the identified hot 

spots within a field station to determine causes 

of safety issues and potential countermeasures. 

The field review may include a combination of 

site specific reviews as well as corridor 

reviews. 

Step 6 – Conduct Safety Analysis and 

Prepare Report: The Safety Analysis Team 

will prepare a safety analysis report which will 

include recommendations for safety 

improvements. A unit level safety analysis 

may include a large number of 

recommendations, some of which may require 

planning and programming of funds. The 

report should specify recommendations for 

short-term improvements to address immediate safety issues as well as recommendations for long-term 

improvements that may require additional project planning, design, or programming of funding. Prior 

to preparing the report the Safety Analysis Team may meet with the Project Owner to discuss the 

preliminary findings.

William L. Finley National Wildlife Refuge 

Road Safety Audit

Safety concerns, including poor sight distance, high 

traffic speed, high volumes of traffic stopping 

abruptly, and drainage issues led to a unit level RSA 

on William L. Finley National Wildlife Refuge. The 

RSA focused primarily on the two highest volume 

roads within the refuge as well as adjacent county 

roads that provide access to the refuge. 

Seven locations were identified as hot spots and 

were assessed in more detail. These hot spots 

included two intersections, a roadway with wildlife 

viewing activities, a roadway that floods, two 

parking lots, and a pedestrian crossing. Each of 

these locations was reviewed in greater detail and 

specific recommendations were made.

Recommended improvements at each location 

were identified as priorities using two strategies: 

safety and cost benefits. This double prioritization 

of the recommendations highlighted the 

improvements that could have the largest impact 

on safety for the smallest cost.

Recommended improvements included strategies 

such as the relocation of the access point of a 

refuge road to improve sight-distance, installation 

of speed limit signs and increased enforcement by 

the county to reduce speeding, drainage 

improvements to reduce flooding, and the addition 

of a pull-out for wildlife viewing. 

Source: Atkins
 

July 2013 Safety Analysis Toolkit

21 Draft Report

Step 7 – Present Safety Analysis Finings to Project Owner: The Safety Analysis Team will present 

the findings to the Project Owner and the recommendations should be discussed. The Project Owner 

may make recommendations for additional or alternative countermeasures. 

Step 8 – Prepare Formal Response: The Project Owner should review the unit level safety analysis

findings and prepare a formal response that outlines what action they plan to take with respect to each 

safety issue identified in the unit level safety analysis.

Step 9 – Incorporate Findings into the Project when Appropriate: The Project Owner will be 

responsible for taking the necessary steps to implement the agreed-upon safety measures. An after 

action review may also be scheduled to allow the Safety Analysis Team an opportunity to evaluate the 

effectiveness of the suggestion countermeasures and evaluate if other measures are needed.

The timeframe for the field review will vary quite a bit depending on the size of the field station and the 

number of safety issues and hot spots that are identified. The preliminary analysis discussed in Step 4 

can also require a large investment of time depending on the availability of crash data and the amount of 

time dedicated to identifying hot spots within the unit. The total time of the unit level safety analysis, 

from the initial formation of the safety team until the findings are presented to the project owner, is 

expected to take approximately three months to one year. 

The Safety Analysis Team assembled for the unit level safety analysis should be a multidisciplinary 

team that represents not only traffic, safety, and law enforcement, but also other expertise that can 

address unique safety issues that may have been identified at a field station. Examples include expertise 

in wildlife management if there are a large number of wildlife-vehicle collisions, expertise in boating 

safety if there are safety issues at boat ramps or on waterways that serve as a means of transportation, or 

expertise in aviation for refuges whose primary means of access are through aviation. The number of 

representatives on the Safety Analysis team will vary depending on the size of the field station and 

complexity of the safety issues. 

Hagerman National Fish Hatchery Road Safety Audit

This unit level RSA was conducted on roads that 

provide access to the Hagerman National Fish 

Hatchery as well as three permitted facilities 

whose access is provided through the fish 

hatchery property. An increase in traffic had 

been observed in recent years on the FWS roads 

which prompted the RSA. The RSA focused on 

general issues associated with road safety to, 

from, and within the hatchery. FWS roads were 

analyzed as well as access and parking for fishing 

at an adjacent lake. 

Three main safety issues were identified as a result of this RSA: road improvements, signing 

improvements, and administration improvements. Road improvements included widening, 

conversion of some streets to one-way operation, and culvert improvements. Improved signing was 

recommended to reduce confusion for the vehicles accessing the permitted facilities located on the 

hatchery property, such as the University of Idaho Hagerman Fish Culture Experiment Station. A 

speed study and a traffic study were also recommended in order to identify and document traffic 

patterns, speed, and roadway usage. Finally, administration improvements were recommended to 

improve partnering and mediation between the permitted facilities on the hatchery property. 

Source: FWS
 

July 2013 Safety Analysis Toolkit

22 Draft Report

Safety improvement recommendations from the unit level safety analysis will vary from quick and 

simple improvements, such as adding a sign, to more involved recommendations that require advanced 

programming of funds and a design process, such as paving a section of roadway. The safety analysis 

report should specify recommendations for short-term improvements to address immediate safety issues 

as well as recommendations for long-term improvements that may require additional project planning, 

design, or programming of funding. An opinion of probable cost for each improvement should be 

developed. Improvements should be identified for each hot spot, but also categorized to develop a total 

recommended cost for improvement in key categories such as signing, striping, paving, and guardrail 

improvements. Those categories can also be classified into short, medium and long term improvements.

A unit level safety analysis can be very helpful even if specific issues have not been identified at a field 

station. A thorough safety analysis of a field station may identify high potential locations where crashes 

are most likely to occur in the future. The field station and FWS Regional Office can work together to 

begin developing a program to access funds and address locations considered to have the highest 

probability of a crash. 

After the implementation of any of the recommended countermeasures, an after action review should be 

considered to evaluate the effectiveness of the recommendations.
 

July 2013 Safety Analysis Toolkit

23 Draft Report

4.5 Issue Specific Safety Analysis

An issue specific safety 

analysis is the study of a 

safety issue that has been 

identified at the field station, 

regional, or national level. 

Examples of issues which 

might require a safety 

analysis include speeding, 

bicycle or pedestrian safety, 

wildlife-vehicle collisions, 

and severe weather issues. 

An issue specific safety 

analysis can be challenging to 

define as the study could vary 

widely depending on the 

issue and if it is being studied 

at the field station, regional, or national level. 

Regardless of the safety issue, performance of an issue specific safety analysis should include the four 

E’s of safety: engineering, education, enforcement, and emergency medical services. Many of the 

issues that may be investigated may best be solved through a combination of two or more of the four 

E’s.

The timeframe to complete 

an issue specific safety 

investigation will vary 

based on the issue being 

studied as well as the size 

and scale of the study. 

Issues limited to a single 

refuge will likely take 

much less time to analyze 

than an issue that has been 

identified on a regional or 

national level. Often the 

countermeasures to address 

an issue specific safety

analysis may be complex 

and require the 

participation of partners to 

develop non-engineering 

solutions. 

A multidisciplinary team 

should be assembled to 

perform the issue specific 

safety analysis. The team 

will vary quite a bit 

depending on the issue or

issues being studied. The 

safety analysis team should 

Issue Specific Safety Analysis

A comprehensive analysis of a single safety issue in on field station, across an 

entire region, or service-wide.

Timeframe Three months to one year

Team Multidisciplinary team including expertise in 

the issues being studied

Field Station Commitment Minimal commitment, particularly if study is 

regional or national. Law enforcement staff or 

facilities staff may be asked for assistance.

Reason for Use One or more safety issue appearing at multiple 

locations across a field station, Region, or on 

the National Level. 

Wildlife Mitigation and Human Safety for the Sterling Highway MP 58-79 

Project

The Sterling Highway is a rural two-lane highway that bisects the Kenai 

National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. The segment from MP 58-79 had 

historically experienced a high rate of wildlife-vehicle collisions. In 

anticipation of a planned reconstruction project on this segment, a study was 

performed in order to identify ways to reduce wildlife mortality, restore 

wildlife connectivity, and improve human safety through the reconstruction.

Several years prior to reconstruction over 60 moose and caribou were 

outfitted with GPS collars and their migration patterns were tracked. A 

hotline was also set up for the motoring public to report wildlife sightings 

along the Sterling Highway. A six mile segment was identified that contained 

almost half of the wildlife-vehicle collisions and a majority of the GPS 

crossings and hotline sightings.

Recommendations along this six 

mile section included fencing 

along with a wildlife overpass 

near MP 73, a wildlife underpass 

near MP 71, and a wildlife 

“crosswalk” near the ends of the 

fenced section. Additional 

crossings for large mammals 

were also recommended at 

other strategic locations along 

the corridor. Source: FHWA
 

July 2013 Safety Analysis Toolkit

24 Draft Report

not be limited to a particular number of people and if needed, additional expertise should be brought in 

as needed to be sure all potential solutions are considered. 

Issue specific studies will generally require more time from field station staff if the study is limited to a 

single refuge or fish hatchery. If an issue is being studied at the regional or national level there would 

be less impact expected on field station staff, however some field station staff may be asked to serve as 

part of the issue specific safety analysis team.

Expected results for this type of study will reflect the specific issue being studied. Recommendations 

may include broad changes implemented at the regional or national level, or smaller changes focused on 

local needs if the study is limited to one field station. An issue specific safety analysis is also likely to 

have recommendations which may go beyond traditional engineering solutions. These 

recommendations will rely on other partners to implement, such as a stricter enforcement of speed limits 

on a refuge or a public outreach and education campaign. Regardless of the recommendation, if 

possible FWS and FHWA should attempt to monitor the impact of changes that are made on safety at 

each affected field station.
 

July 2013 Safety Analysis Toolkit

25 Draft Report

4.6 Customized Analysis

Each field station is unique and not all safety issues will be able to be adequately studied using one of 

the safety analysis tools presented in Sections 4.1 through 4.5. The combination of safety issues that 

may exist at a field station or within a region may necessitate the use of a customized analysis to 

appropriately address the safety issues that have been identified.

Determining an appropriate customized analysis will be dependent on the expertise and experience 

within the FWS and FHWA. An early partnership between the FWS Field Station Manager, FWS 

Regional Transportation Coordinator, and FHWA FLH Safety Discipline Team Lead will allow the 

FWS and FHWA to closely review the safety issue and determine the best course of action to study the 

issue or issues that have been identified. 

Customized analysis may include a mix of traditional traffic engineering tools, such as a traffic signal 

warrant analysis or sight distance analysis, as well as unique approaches that may be warranted. The 

same general approach should be followed for customized analysis as for the other safety analysis tools 

discussed in Section 4.1 through 4.5. This approach includes:

 Develop a partnership between the FWS Field Station Manager, FWS Regional Transportation

Coordinator, and FHWA FLH Safety Discipline Team Lead to assess the safety issue and determine 

if a safety study is needed.

 Assemble a team of experts to assist with the study.

 Work closely with the field station to analyze the safety issues and develop recommended 

countermeasures.

 Present findings and provide an opportunity for the safety analysis team and the project owner to 

discuss the findings.

 Monitor the impacts of the implemented recommendations on safety.
 

July 2013 Safety Analysis Toolkit

26 Draft Report

5. IMPLEMENTATION 

Identification and implementation of safety improvements should involve a team approach with 

expertise from the FWS and FHWA FLH. The FWS Regional Transportation Coordinators and FHWA 

FLH Safety Discipline Team Leads will serve as key partners to identify the appropriate type of safety 

analysis tool to use to address safety issues, conduct the safety analysis, and implement 

recommendations to mitigate safety issues.

Initiation

As shown in the Safety Analysis Process diagram presented in Section 2, the first step for any field 

station to initiate a safety analysis effort after identifying a safety issue should be to contact the FWS 

Regional Transportation Coordinator responsible for the Region where the field station is located. FWS 

maintains a current list of Regional Transportation Coordinators, located at the following address: 

http://www.fws.gov/refuges/roads/contacts.html

The FWS Regional 

Transportation Coordinator 

will bring in expertise from 

the FHWA FLH and work 

with the field station manager 

to identify other expertise, 

such as law enforcement or 

State DOT officials, if needed

for an RSA or other type of 

safety analysis.

Timeframe

Each safety issue is different 

which makes it challenging to 

identify a timeframe for 

completing a safety analysis, 

but in general the types of 

safety analysis tools

identified in the Safety 

Analysis Toolkit should be 

complemented anywhere 

from as short as one month 

for a single intersection RSA, 

to as long as one year for unit 

level and issue specific safety 

analysis. The timeframe for 

the actual implementation of 

the safety countermeasures

that are recommended 

through the various safety 

analysis efforts will also vary 

widely. Recommendations 

may include short-term 

improvements that can be 

quickly implemented to 

address immediate safety 

Success Story: US Highway 93 Wildlife Mitigation in Montana

The US Highway 93 Wildlife Mitigation project in Montana is one of the 

most extensive wildlife-sensitive highway safety design efforts in the 

United States. Wildlife mitigation issues have been documented and 

studied along Montana Highway US 93 since the early 1980’s. Since that 

time, numerous studies have been completed by a variety of agencies, 

and a comprehensive set of countermeasures has been implemented. 

These countermeasures are aimed at improving safety for the traveling 

public as well as wildlife by reducing wildlife-vehicle collisions and 

allowing wildlife to move safely across the highway and the surrounding 

landscape. 

Specific countermeasures include the reconstruction of over 76 miles of 

road and the installation of 81 fish and wildlife crossing structures, 

including one overpass. Over 16 miles of linear wildlife exclusion fencing 

has also been installed and there are numerous installations of wing 

fencing throughout the corridor. Jump-outs have been installed to allow 

wildlife to safely exit the roadway if they do become trapped between the 

fences and wildlife “crosswalks” have been implemented to notify 

motorists when wildlife has crossed onto the roadway.

This project was completed using 

numerous safety studies, which 

were used to identify to the 

appropriate locations for each 

specific type of crossing and for the 

installation of fencing. The project 

is currently being studied for its 

effectiveness and results will not 

be available until 2015, however, 

the project is regarded as a success

for its grand scale, collaborative 

efforts, and its use of creative 

solutions. Source: FHWA
 

July 2013 Safety Analysis Toolkit

27 Draft Report

needs at minimal cost, such as relocating signs or adding striping to roadways, as well as longer-term 

recommendations such as the addition of turn lanes that may require programming of funds before they 

can be implemented.

Outputs

The results of an RSA or other safety analysis will most commonly be a series of recommendations for 

implementation at the field station to address the identified safety issues. These recommendations may 

range from simple projects that can be implemented using maintenance staff, to larger capital projects 

that may require more extensive design and construction efforts, to additional studies that might be 

needed before a safety concern can be fully addressed. FWS field stations will be asked to review the 

recommendations that result from a safety analysis study and prepare a formal response regarding how 

they plan to address the recommendations. 

Implementation

The safety analysis tools identified in this toolkit will provide the FWS with a series of 

recommendations to address safety issues. The involvement of the FWS Regional Transportation 

Coordinators and the FHWA FLH early in the process will assist the field stations with prioritizing and 

programming the recommended safety projects that result from the safety analysis effort. While funds 

for larger capital improvements may not be immediately available, incorporating these projects into the 

project programming process as early as possible is important so that they may be implemented as soon 

as possible. Following implementation, the FWS should monitor the performance of the improvements 

to determine if the countermeasures have had the desired impact on safety.