Cover Image

Not for Sale

View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 24

The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement

Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 23
23 Statistical Analysis federal transportation agencies (n = 25, 5.6%), non-profit groups (n = 23, 5.8%), or other/unknown (n = 6, 1.3%). Each Survey results were analyzed using the SPSS software pro- person was asked to list his/her job title and area of specialty gram.221 Analyses of variance (ANOVA) were conducted for related to roads and wildlife. From these data, each partici- comparing mean values of each priority as rated by different pant was classified into one of seven different profession types classes of survey participants. The Levine statistic was first run (Table 3): engineers/analysts/GIS specialists (n = 61, 13.7%), to test for homogeneity of variance. When variances among planners (n = 13, 2.9%), natural resources-manager (n = 38, the different mean values of a priority among the different 8.6%), natural resources-non-profit (n = 23, 5.2%), natural participants were not equal (as shown by a significant Levine resources-planner (n = 187, 42.1%), natural resources- statistic), ANOVA was not used, and the Welch test, which researcher (n = 109, 24.6%), unknown (n = 11, 2.5%) or accounts for unequal variances, was used to test for signifi- other (n = 2, 0.5%). Natural resource professionals repre- cant differences in priority means. F-tests were used in cases sented 80.4% (357) of participants. where means met the equal variances assumption of ANOVA. The GamesHowell post hoc test was used to determine the locational significant differences between means as shown by Ranking of Priorities the ANOVAs and Welch tests. This particular post hoc test is Priorities were ranked for overall value, and then within designed to account for both unequal variances as well as un- the practice or research categories by classification (nation of equal sample sizes. origin, profession, and employer) of the participants. The rank of a priority was determined by adding all the scores Findings and Results submitted for that priority and calculating the mean value. For example, the top priority to incorporate wildlife mitiga- Survey Participants tion needs early in the planning processes received a total of The original pool of 497 individuals was initially invited via 441 rankings, ranging from 1 to 10. Those 441 values were email to participate in the survey. A total of 444 individuals summed, and then the mean was calculated as 8.96, making participated. Of those 444, 388 participants (87.3%) chose to it the highest ranked priority. Tables 4 and 5 summarize the identify themselves by submitting their email address. Of results. The top five priorities are: those 388 email addresses, 254 (65.5%) were identified as members of the original pool of invitees. Response rate of the 1. Incorporate wildlife mitigation needs early in the original invitees who gave their email addresses was 51.5%. DOT/MoT programming, planning, and design process; The actual response rate is unknown because 56 participants 2. Better understand the dynamics of animal use of mitiga- did not submit their email addresses. One hundred and tion structures (such as what works and what does not) thirty-four (30.2%) of the email addresses given did not and disseminate this information; match the original pool of invited participants' email ad- 3. Combine several animal-friendly mitigation methods dresses. These participants were invited by others to take the such as wildlife crossings, fences, escape ramps, and gates, survey and thus their participation created what is known as rather than relying on just one method; a snowball sample. 4. Use conservation plans and connectivity analyses to in- Participants represented all of the United States with the form the transportation programming/planning/design exception of Oklahoma, and the Canadian provinces and ter- process on where mitigation is needed and how it may be ritories with the exceptions of New Brunswick, Northwest carried out; and Territories, and Prince Edward Island. Of the 444 par- 5. Develop alternative cost-effective wildlife crossing designs ticipants, 403 (90.8%) were from the United States and and the principles upon which they are based. 36 (8.1%) were from Canada (Table 1). Five participants did not indicate their state/province of employment. Participants Priorities by Nation were asked to generalize the type of employer they worked for. Table 2 lists the number of survey participants employed Practice priorities. The United States and Canadian partic- by each type of employer. The majority of respondents (n = ipants ranked the first three priorities for practice identically: 183, 41.2%) were employed by a state/provincial transporta- tion agency. The second largest group of respondents were 1) Incorporate wildlife mitigation needs early in the those that worked for a federal natural resource agency (n = DOT/MoT programming, planning, and design process; 70, 15.8%). The remaining respondents worked for 2) Combine animal-friendly mitigation methods such as state/provincial natural resource agencies (n = 55, 12.4%), wildlife crossings, fences, escape ramps, and gates, rather universities (n = 45, 10.1%), consulting firms (n = 37, 8.3%), than relying on using a single method; and

OCR for page 23
24 Table 1. Number of survey respondents within each U.S. state and Canadian province. State # Participants State # Participants United States Alabama 3 Montana 24 Alaska 7 Nebraska 1 Arizona 33 Nevada 2 Arkansas 2 New Hampshire 5 California 73 New Jersey 2 Colorado 22 New Mexico 6 Connecticut 4 New York 9 Delaware 1 North Carolina 10 District of Columbia 8 North Dakota 2 Florida 7 Ohio 4 Georgia 10 Oklahoma 0 Hawaii 2 Oregon 15 Idaho 4 Pennsylvania 6 Illinois 2 Rhode Island 1 Indiana 1 South Carolina 8 Iowa 6 South Dakota 7 Kansas 5 Tennessee 3 Kentucky 4 Texas 14 Louisiana 2 Utah 16 Maine 3 Vermont 2 Maryland 3 Virginia 13 Massachusetts 4 Washington 3 Michigan 3 West Virginia 1 Minnesota 10 Wisconsin 2 Mississippi 1 Wyoming 22 Missouri 5 Unknown 5 Total # U.S. Participants = 408 Province # Participants Province # Participants Canada Alberta 7 Ontario 7 British Columbia 10 Quebec 3 Manitoba 3 Saskatchewan 1 Newfoundland and Yukon 3 1 Labrador Nova Scotia 1 Total # Canadian Participants = 36 3) Use conservation plans and connectivity analyses to in- Effective communication and collaboration among stake- form the transportation programming/planning/design holders was ranked fourth in the United States and fifth in process on where mitigation is needed and how it is to be Canada. The use of standard protocols for roadkill and carried out. animalvehicle collision data was ranked fourth in Canada. The incorporation of plans and schedules that can be accom- Table 2. Number of survey participants employed plished by maintenance crews was ranked fifth in the United by each type of employer. States (See Appendix A, Table 37). Employer Number of Participants Research priorities. In ranking the research priorities, Consulting 37 Federal Natural Resources 70 the two nations diverged to a greater degree than on ranking Federal Transportation 25 practice priorities. Participants from both countries ranked Non-profit 23 the need to better understand animal use of mitigation struc- State/Provincial Natural Resources 55 tures as the top research priority. The development of cost- State/Provincial Transportation 183 University 45 effective crossing designs was ranked second in the United Unknown 5 States and third in Canada. Canadians ranked the need for Other 1 standardized data collection of roadkill carcasses and WVCs Total 444 as their second research priority. In the United States, the third

OCR for page 23
25 Table 3. Professions of survey participants and the number of participants classed by profession category. Profession # Participants Engineers: engineers/analysts/GIS specialists-WVCs 61 Planners 13 Natural ResourcesManagers: Managers of resources, esp. wildlife managers 38 Natural ResourcesNon-profits: Non-profit personnel & consulting groups 23 Natural ResourcesPlanners: Planners, program managers, supervisors, coordinators, reviewers of environmental documents, providers of 187 expertise for mitigation, agency personnel with ecological background Natural ResourcesResearchers: Conducters of on-the-ground research, 109 usually wildlife related, agency and university personnel Unknown 11 Other 2 Total 444 Table 4. Ranking of practice priorities for transportation and wildlife for North America. Rank within Priorities for Practice Rank Practice Overall Incorporate wildlife mitigation needs early in the DOT/MoT programming, planning, and 1 1 design process Combine animal-friendly mitigation methods such as wildlife crossings, fences, escape 2 3 ramps and gates, rather than using one method Use conservation plans and connectivity analyses to inform the transportation 3 programming/planning/design process on where mitigation is needed and how it may be 4 carried out 4 Establish effective communication and collaboration among stakeholders 6 Incorporate into plans and schedules wildlife crossing options that can be accomplished by 5 8 maintenance crews simply by retrofitting existing facilities 6 Continued public and agency education on wildlife and roads issues 10 Use standardized and vetted protocols for collecting and recording roadkill carcass and 7 18 wildlife-vehicle colllision data 8 Incorporate standardized guidelines when conducting mitigation activities 19 Use standardized documentation schedules to record maintenance activities in order to 9 21 maintain crossings and fencing effectiveness over time 10 Develop and enhance agency websites to include standardized guidelines 24 Explicit mitigation legislation to help determine where and when mitigation is necessary, 11 25 and how it is to be carried out

OCR for page 23
26 Table 5. Ranking of research priorities for transportation and wildlife in North America. Rank within Priorities for Research Rank Research Overall Understand better the dynamics of animal use of mitigation structures (such as what works 1 2 and what does not) and disseminate this information Develop and summarize alternative, cost-effective wildlife crossings designs and the 2 5 principles they are based on Develop wildlife crossing structure designs and guidelines for the full suite of animals in an 3 7 area to help facilitate permeability for many species 4 Develop state-based habitat connectivity analyses for every state 9 5 Develop a standardized monitoring protocol to assess crossing effectiveness 11 Develop guidelines to decide when wildlife mitigation is necessary (both mandated and 6 12 voluntary) Develop standardized inventories of wildlife crossings by state for better management and 7 13 maintenance of these crossings, and to better assess the need for future crossing 8 Increase our understanding of the effects of road density on wildlife populations 14 Develop prototype animal/vehicle collision safety models to predict where wildlife-vehicle 9 15 colllision "hotspot" areas are and may be on future roads Improve ecosystem valuation for use in mitigation measures, to help establish mitigation 10 cost-effectiveness (such as monetary value of the reduction of wildlifevehicle collisions, or 16 increased landscape permeability) 11 Standardize spatially accurate roadkill carcass and wildlife-vehicle colllision data collection 17 Create a comprehensive synthesis document that establishes the indirect effects of roads 12 and road density on ecosystems, and how these cumulative effects may in turn influence 20 landscape permeability for wildlife Develop reliable methods to estimate how often wildlife are in or near the road to help 13 22 assess their potential in becoming involved in wildlifevehicle collisions Understand better the genetic consequences of the roaded landscape on animal 14 23 populations ranked research priority was the need to develop structure de- Priorities by Profession signs and guidelines to provide landscape permeability for the full suite of animals in an area, and the fourth ranked priority Practice priorities. Priorities were ranked among the three was the need to develop state-based connectivity analyses. In major classes of participants: engineers/analysts/GIS Specialists, Canada, the fourth ranked priority was the need to develop natural resource professionals (all types combined), and plan- guidelines for when wildlife mitigation was necessary. For the ners. Engineers, planners, and natural resource professionals all fifth research priority, U.S. citizens ranked the need to develop had the same top five practice priorities, but ranked differently protocols for judging the effectiveness of wildlife crossing, by profession. Different median values among the professions while Canadians ranked the need for the development of pro- are noted, with engineers generally rating each of the top five totype WVC models to predict priority hotspots (See Appen- priorities a lower median value, and planners rating all five top dix A, Table 38). priorities relatively high median values. Incorporating wildlife