PO Box 201001 Helena, MT 59620-1001 Montana Department of Transportation

Memorandum

To:	Distribution

Prepared By:	,

Date:

Subject:	MDT Wildlife Accommodation Decision Report (WADR) [ProjectNumber] [Project Name] UPN [UPN] Work Type Work Type

Approved:	_______________________________ Date: ______________________ [Bureau Chief] Bureau Chief

This memo documents decisions and justification to Accept, Modify, or Reject recommendations made in the Wildlife Accommodations Recommendation Memo (WARM) for the subject project, dated Click to choose a date. Recommendations Accepted or Modified will be advanced to the project design phase. The following individuals were involved in evaluation(s) of the WARM recommendations:

Name	Title

WARM Recommendations: [Provide a brief summary of each of the recommendations identified in the WARM. For multiple recommendations, include the description, response, and justification for each recommendation prior to documenting the next.]

Recommendation #1 – Name. Insert a brief summary of the recommendation (type and location) including the purpose and need of the recommended accommodation. Mention if a recommended wildlife accommodation is intended to benefit a federally listed species under the Endangered Species Act or special status species under other federal, Tribal, or state requirements.

[Select one of the following responses for each of the recommendations identified in the WARM. Provide ample justification to document the decision].

Accepted. [Provide concise direction to the project team for including the wildlife accommodation into the project design. Clarify what functional areas need to provide future input (geotechnical, road design, right-of-way, hydraulics, district, maintenance, etc.).]

Example: Accepted. Design a bridge meeting the recommended dimensions at Station XXX+XX Design exclusionary wildlife fencing (8-foot) to the recommended limits. Include four jump-outs within the exclusionary fence at locations to be determined. Include electro-mats at the fence ends in coordination with the vendor. The crossing and associated features need to be discussed in detail with the adjacent landowner to identify and address their concerns.

Accepted Modified. [Modified Accommodations meet the intent and scope of the original recommendation but alter the design to achieve feasible inclusion in the project. Provide a summary of why the original recommendation was deemed infeasible as proposed and subsequently modified. Provide a clear description of the proposed modification(s). Provide concise direction to the design team for including the modified wildlife accommodation into the project design. Clarify what functional areas need to provide future input (geotechnical, road design, right-of-way, hydraulics, district, maintenance, etc.).]

Example. Accepted Modified. A bridge was recommended at Station XXX+XX. A bridge at this location was deemed infeasible for several reasons. Geotechnical subsurface investigation has determined that there are weak subsurface soils present that would require an excessively deep foundation to support a bridge. Additionally, the project is in a seismically active area requiring special design considerations for a bridge. Lastly, due to the proximity of irrigation facilities and cultivated land, an off-set temporary detour is not desirable. There are no feasible alternate detour routes and closing the roadway is not an option due to the traffic volumes. The Design Team has agreed that a 12’h x 20’w box culvert is feasible at this location and would provide the necessary opening for wildlife movements. A box culvert can be built under phased construction, which will allow traffic to be maintained on the existing roadway. Guardrail should be considered to keep the culvert length as short as possible.

Design a 12’h x 20’w box culvert and include exclusionary wildlife fencing (8-foot) to the recommended limits. Include four jump-outs within the exclusionary fence at locations to be determined. Include electro-mats at the fence ends in coordination with the vendor. These crossing and associated features need to be discussed in detail with the adjacent landowner to ensure their concerns are appropriately addressed.

Rejected. [Provide a summary of why the original recommendation was deemed infeasible. Provide clear justification and rationale for not incorporating this wildlife accommodation into the project.]

Example: Rejected. The recommendation for an underpass at Station XXX+XX has been deemed infeasible for several reasons and will not be advanced to the design phase. An underpass appropriately sized for wildlife crossing would require a significant grade raise at this location. A grade raise would result in impacts to adjacent irrigation facilities and an historic building. A grade raise would also be problematic due to the proximity of several private approaches and would negatively affect sight distance due to the existing vertical curve and the county road intersection just north of this location. Additionally, high ground water elevations are documented in this area which may cause constructability issues and result in seasonal flooding of the proposed structure. Alternate sites in proximity to the recommended location are not feasible for similar reasons.

Accepted Alternate Accommodations. [Alternate Accommodations are wildlife accommodations that were not originally included in the WARM. They do not meet the intent or scope of the original recommendations in the WARM but were determined by the Design Team to be feasible wildlife accommodation options for inclusion in the project. Provide concise direction to the Design Team for including the alternate wildlife accommodation(s) into the project development process. Clarify what functional areas need to provide future input (geotechnical, road design, right-of-way, hydraulics, district, maintenance, etc.).]

Alternate Accommodation #1: Wildlife friendly fence

Example. Although the wildlife crossing structure recommended in the WARM has been rejected for the reasons stated above, wildlife friendly fencing is proposed to be negotiated with the adjacent landowner(s) to provide improved permeability for wildlife movements in this area.

Alternate Accommodation #2: Static wildlife signage with seasonal activation

Example. “Wildlife Crossing – Next 2 Miles” signage will be installed at Station XXX+XX and Station XXX+XX to address public concerns for elk movements that came to light after the WARM was completed. A flashing beacon or LED border attached to the signs will be activated seasonally from October 1st to April 30th. Further coordination with Maintenance regarding the seasonal activation of the beacons is required.

[Identify any anticipated effects to the project schedule and document if wildlife accommodation decisions introduce potential risk into the project delivery.]

If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact [MDT Project Design Manager or Consultant Project Manager] at [telephone number, email].

Distribution:

, District Administrator

Stephanie Brandenberger, Bridge Bureau Chief
James A. Combs, Highways Engineer
Gabe Priebe, Traffic and Safety Bureau Chief
Robert Stapley, Right-of-Way Bureau Chief
Jake Goettle, Construction Engineer
Lynn Zanto, Rail, Transit, & Planning Division Administrator
Jeff Jackson, Geotech & Pavement Bureau Chief
Jon Swartz, Maintenance Division Administrator , District Preconstruction Engineer , District Projects Engineer , District Construction Engineer , District Construction Operations Engineer , Maintenance Chief , District Hydraulics Engineer , District Bridge Engineer , District Geotech Engineer , District Project Development Engineer

Link to MDT’s Wildlife Accommodations Process Research Study Final Report and Desk Guide:

https://www.mdt.mt.gov/research/projects/env/wap.shtml