1. There is a larger ecological footprint associated with the physical footprint of roads - planners and managers need to consider the broad landscape rather than the one-dimensional road corridor. 
  2. The effects of road mortality can be felt in 1-2 generations, while barrier effects take several generations to manifest. 
  3. Animals need to move through the landscape, disperse freely, and recolonize areas to be part of viable populations. 
  4. How much connectivity is necessary for wildlife, and what imposes a barrier to connectivity are difficult questions, especially for rare, elusive species. 
  5. Mitigation means to reduce the impact - not restore to pristine conditions. 
  6. There is a need for more systematic monitoring of measures in order to devise functional wildlife crossing structure systems and implement transportation plans based on well-founded science. 
  7. Mitigating highways is most economical during upgrades rather than going back to retrofit. 
  8. Bridge reconstructions are excellent cost-effective opportunities to mitigate roads for wildlife and fisheries concerns. 
  9. There's no one-size-fits-all solution for crossing structures, but certain habitat elements (e.g., cover) can be designed into passages to meet passage requirement needs. 
  10. Wildlife crossing structures are built to last. Therefore, managing human activity and development is critically important for sustained effectiveness over the long term. Long-term land use plans adjacent to crossing structures need to be compatible with wildlife conservation plans and corridor requirements.