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 26
16 key word columns (such as "GIS") to collect all responses dent and chief scientist, sent an e-mail to Natural Heritage that pertained to that subject. Responses were reviewed in the employees through a listserv e-mail service, asking for par- corresponding subject area column, and tallied for presenta- ticipation in the survey. The final deadline for participation tion in this final report. In an effort to give a fair representa- in the survey was May 23, 2008. tion of all states, the number of agencies responding to a need was tallied rather than the actual number of respondents. This was done because some agencies' single response represented Results--Respondents feedback from multiple individuals, whereas other states had several individuals submit separate responses. Forty-nine states had at least one agency respond to the survey. There were 103 respondents who sent replies to the survey: Survey Recipients these people represented 46 state DOT agencies, 37 state fish and wildlife agencies, three Natural Heritage state programs, Every U.S. state DOT and state fish and wildlife agency was two replies from the U.S. Forest Service, and one reply from approached to participate in this survey. Each agency was the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. The response asked to submit one response per agency, with the option to rate can be calculated in several ways. If one looks at the over- ask multiple employees to contribute. State DOT potential all state response rate, 49 of 50 states participated, for a 98% survey respondents were first selected based on AASHTO response rate. The survey was presented to 50 state DOTs and state representatives for the Standing Committee on the 50 state fish and wildlife agencies or Natural Heritage pro- Environment (SCOE), of which each state DOT has at least grams. The overall response rate for those 100 requests was one member. Representatives' contact information was 83%. State DOTs' response rate was 92%. State fish and wild- taken from the AASHTO SCOE website. The initial e-mail life agencies' response rate was 74%. It is unknown how many request to participate was sent on February 15, 2008, and a state Natural Heritage programs received the request to par- follow-up e-mail was sent on March 13 to these individu- ticipate, so their responses are included with the state wildlife als. A third attempt was made on April 23. After three "no agencies. State agencies that responded are represented in a responses" (no reply to the survey request) from e-mails sent map in Figure 2. Agency response was often a result of multi- to these individuals, DOT professionals were selected from ple professionals responding within an agency with their ideas those who participated in a previous NCHRP survey as part brought together in one file. A single response was the result of the project, (NCHRP 25-27) NCHRP Report 615: Evalua- of the thoughts and work of anywhere from one person to as tion of the Use and Effectiveness of Wildlife Crossings (Bis- many as, in the case of Florida, 11 people within the agency, sonette and Cramer 2008). In cases in which no response environmental resource agencies, or consulting companies that was received from these contacts, phone calls were made in work with the DOT. Respondents were assured their responses May to the specific DOT environmental office to identify would be anonymous. Their comments are presented in this the person most likely to know ecological survey needs of document, at times quoted directly, but only with the individ- the agency. Every DOT environmental office that had yet to ual respondent's identification given as a resident in a region respond by each of the request dates mentioned previously of the United States. Permissions were requested and granted was contacted through these efforts. from state agencies that were directly identified. State fish and wildlife agency potential participants were selected from the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agen- cies' contact list of all state fish and wildlife agency direc- tors. Panel member Ron Regan, the resources director for this association, sent the initial e-mail to these directors asking for participation in the survey on January 31, 2008. In March, wildlife professionals in states with no responses were selected from those who participated in the previ- ously mentioned NCHRP survey (NCHRP 25-27). In cases in which no response was received from these contacts, phone calls were made in April and May to the specific state wildlife agency to identify the person most likely to know ecological survey needs of their DOT. Every state fish and wildlife agency that did not respond by the dates of request mentioned earlier was contacted through these efforts. FIGURE 2 Map of agency respondents by state. Note: D = response received from state department of transportation; W = response received from state fish and Natural Heritage program professionals were contacted wildlife agency or Natural Heritage program office. There were to participate in this survey at a later stage. On May 14, panel 46 state DOT agencies and 37 state fish and wildlife agencies member Bruce Stein, at the time NatureServe's vice presi- that responded.