page of · cdot research – west slope wildlife prioritization statement of work page 2 of 16 ......

CDOT Research – West Slope Wildlife Prioritization Statement of Work

of 16

RESEARCH STUDY PROPOSAL REQUEST ANDSTATEMENT OF WORK

05/24/16

IDENTIFICATION SECTION:

Study Title: West Slope Wildlife Prioritization Study (Wildlife Movement and Driver Safety: Prioritizing Effective Wildlife Mitigation on the West Slope, Regions 3 and 5)

Study Manager: Bryan Roeder, CDOT Research Branch4201 E. Arkansas Avenue, Shumate Bldg.Denver, CO 80222(303) 5124420

Champion(s): Mike Vanderhoof, CDOT Region 3 Environmental and Planning ManagerTony Cady, Region 5 Environmental and Planning Manager

Study Panel Leader: Mark Lawler (CDOT R5 Environmental)

Principal Investigator: TBD

Study Panel Members/Area of Employment: Jeff Peterson, (CDOT EPB Wildlife Program)Cinnamon LeviFlinn (CDOT R3 Environmental)David Swenka or representative, (CDOT HQ Traffic and Safety Engineering Branch)Tony Brindisi, (CDOT HQ Traffic and Safety Engineering Branch)Zane Znamenacek (CDOT R3 Traffic)Mike McVaugh (CDOT R5 Traffic)Mark Rogers (CDOT R3 Planning)Alison Deans Michael, (US Fish & Wildlife Service)Dean Riggs (CPW NW)Jon Holst (CPW SW)Brad Petch (CPW Sr. Wildlife Biologist Northwest Region)Michelle Cowardin, (CPW Area 9 Wildlife Biologist)? Brad Banulis, Colorado Parks and Wildlife (Montrose)

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND:

Colorado’s West Slope is home to several of the largest herds of migratory elk and mule deer in North America, among many other wildlife – a situation that is reflected in the high rate of wildlifevehicle collisions (WVCs). In 2013, the West Slope, encompassed by CDOT Regions 3 and 5 (Figure 1), accounted for 60% of state’s recorded WVCs (CDOT maintenance reports). Based on these data, Region 3 reported 48 10mile segments with greater than 10 WVCs per year and Region 5 reported 32 such segments – the highest and second highest levels in the state – with some segments tallying up to 95 carcasses per 10mile segment during the oneyear period. Of collisions that were reported to the Colorado State Patrol in 2013, the majority resulted in property damage only, while accidents resulting in injuries accounted for 5% and 9% of reported WVCs in Regions 3 and 5, respectively, and four incidents resulted in fatalities (Table 1). Note: this document uses the terms WVC and AVC (animal vehicle collision or animal vehicle conflict) interchangeably because both terms are used in the literature.


of 16

Figure 1: CDOT Transportation Regions. This project will have a regional focus, to be defined by the CDOT Region 3 and 5 boundaries.

Table 1: Human impact of reported WVCs in 2013 for Regions 3 and 5, based on Colorado State Patrol accident reports.

Property Damage Only Injury Fatality Total

Region 3 869 46 4 919Region 5 721 65 0 786

% of Statewide Total 50% 44% 100% 50%

Currently, CDOT addresses WVCs largely on a project by project basis, integrating mitigation as transportation projects arise in segments observed to have high WVCs. Currently, CDOT’s mitigation planning relies largely on State Patrol accident reports, which are thought to substantially underestimate the number of actual collisions – representing 50% or less of all WVCs even with large and easily identifiable animals such as deer (Huijser et al 2007. NCHRP Synthesis 370 Animal–Vehicle Collision Data Collection). To the extent possible planning and design may also incorporate the carcass counts recorded by CDOT maintenance personnel, however, these too are known to be inconsistently reported from one maintenance patrol to the next. When a transportation project falls in one of these recognized high WVC segments, transportation planners overlay WVC hotspots in the project area with partially mapped wildlife habitat and movement data available from Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) to identify potential mitigation sites. Yet this projectfocused approach does not consider how migratory ungulates and other wildlife that must cross roads move across the broader landscape to access seasonal resources or disperse to new territories – meaning that wildlife mitigation efforts do not necessarily


of 16

capture those areas outside proposed project limits where such mitigation could have the greatest impact on reducing WVCs and increasing driver safety.

The costs associated with WVCs continue to increase – the average cost per claim nationwide has risen to over $4,000 (Insurance Information Institute 2015. http://www.iii.org/factstatistic/deervehiclecollisions accessed March 2016). Based on this estimate, the cost of reported WVCs in 2013 alone was nearly $11 million for Regions 3 and 5. This number does not include the costs to CDOT for cleanup or the costs to taxpayers for emergency services. If we also factor in the cost of impacts to our wildlife populations and the economic costs of lost hunting and wildlife viewing (following Huijser, et al. 2009. Costbenefit analyses of mitigation measures aimed at reducing collisions with large ungulates in the United States and Canada: a decision support tool. Ecology and Society 14:15) the true cost of these WVCs is over $18.6 million, and much more when one accounts for the costs of unreported collisions. With such large monetary consequences and impacts to the state, the motoring public, and the damage to wildlife populations, it is imperative that CDOT and the State of Colorado devise more effective mechanisms for identifying and prioritizing highway segments for appropriate wildlife mitigation.

Interestingly, while WVC numbers tell a story of ongoing conflict between wildlife and motorists, a recent study by CPW notes that deer herds in Northwest Colorado have been on the decline since the 1980’s, citing habitat fragmentation as one of the causes of the population decline (http://cpw.state.co.us/learn/Pages/COMuleDeerStory.aspx). Colorado’s wildlife appeals to residents and visitors alike, drawing hunters, anglers, photographers and wildlife watchers from across the globe. Each year Colorado sees more than 357,000 deer, elk and pronghorn antelope hunters. Hunting and other wildliferelated activities contribute at least $5 billion to the state’s annual economy, and the declining size of Colorado’s mule deer population is a matter concerning many organizations, agencies and communities (CPW 2014. http://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Commission/2014/May/ITEM212013COEconImpactReport.pdf). CPW is leading the effort to address the issue and in December 2015 the Wildlife Commission adopted the “Colorado West Slope Mule Deer Strategy”. The focus of the strategy is to understand and work towards reversing the trend, and to restore mule deer populations to the state’s objective of 410,000 – 450,000 for all of Western Colorado. Currently, the mule deer population size falls more than 100,000 animals short of this goal.

While of great value to state and local economies, such a major increase in deer numbers presents an evergreater concern to CDOT, which is already confronted with high rates of WVC at current herd sizes. In addition, CDOT and CPW are both increasingly dealing with problems created by roadway fencing, which like any fence can present a barrier to wildlife movements including natural migration patterns, and impact wildlife management goals. WVCs and other wildlife conflicts hinder CDOT’s mission to provide safe, reliable and efficient transportation. As CPW works towards its goal of increasing the deer population in western Colorado, with attendant increases in elk and other wildlife populations, enhanced collaboration and partnership between CDOT and CPW in research, implementation and monitoring will be of growing importance to reduce WVCs and provide safer roads for wildlife and people alike.

OBJECTIVES OF STUDY:This research project is an analysis of wildlife and motorist conflicts designed to tackle these complex issues where the interests of Colorado’s transportation and wildlife agencies literally meet headon. Previous analyses in CO have identified wildlife corridors at a statewide scale; however, these broadbrush assessments did not produce outcomes that can directly inform mitigation planning. This West Slope regional approach will build upon these and other resources to provide a refined analysis of how wildlife populations, wildlife movement patterns, roadway infrastructure and travel demand overlap under current and projected scenarios to highlight regional mitigation priorities.


of 16

Consequently, the results of this research will provide an improved framework for mitigation decisionmaking, such that project planners can employ the most costeffective mitigation strategy for a given situation. Rather than taking a project by project approach, the results of this West Slope analysis can be overlaid proactively with upcoming project areas to immediately identify how mitigation dollars should be allocated across transportation projects for maximum effectiveness, and where it may be worth considering mitigation outside of project boundaries for the greatest impact on reducing WVCs and improving driver safety. Ultimately, the methodology created through this research project can be adopted by other CDOT regions facing these issues.

Approach

The research will consider both current patterns as well as anticipated trends in herd sizes based on CPW estimates and goals, and how these overlay with human population growth projections and associated changes in travel demand, including considerations for the extensive development of oil and natural gas resources in this region. Notably, the fastest growing counties in the state are rural counties. The effects of this growth on transportation infrastructure and traffic will have direct impacts on WVCs in these rural areas that are also home to the largest wildlife populations. The research project will proactively identify key highway segments that intersect important habitat and movement corridors for wildlife so that transportation project managers can effectively focus mitigation dollars in locations where they will have the greatest benefit for wildlife and people alike under current and future projected scenarios. In addition, the research will weigh the economic and ecological costs and benefits for deeper understanding of the value of wildlife mitigation. As such, the proposed research will support transportation project planning that meets the wildlife mitigation needs of today and into the future, and sets a precedence for improved coordination between CDOT in CPW at the intersection of wildlife and roads.

Regional Analysis Objectives:1. Bring together data and personnel from CDOT and CPW to work toward improved AVC

mitigation and interagency communication on the subject.2. Compile and map existing data and information, for example:

WVC data (CDOT accident records, including reports from local jurisdictions and Colorado State Patrol, CDOT maintenance reports).

Wildlife habitats, movement areas, populations, mortality, and herd data (CPW and other sources including collar data where practical).

Future travel demand due to factors such as exurban and energy development. 3. Conduct a regional prioritization of short highway segments where sitespecific, targeted wildlife

mitigation would result in the greatest safety improvements. Also include an evaluation identifying likely complicating factors with priority segments such as significant environmental impacts that may add cost or prohibit construction of mitigation features.

4. Calculate the types and costs of relevant mitigation implementation relative to the costs of wildlifevehicle collisions, including impacts to human safety and lost benefits to society.

Field Evaluation:

1. Conduct a field evaluation of the highest priority highway segments to corroborate the assessment findings and identify specific preliminary mitigation recommendations, including retrofit opportunities, in these key segments.

PRODUCT OF RESEARCH:The proposed research would result in the following products, which would feed directly into mitigation planning and design to improve safety and reduce conflicts with wildlife:


of 16

Regionwide map of current wildlife conflict zones, highlighting those areas with the greatest impacts to human safety and wildlife populations under current and future scenarios. The map will identify both primary and secondary priorities, such that mitigation dollars can be directed accordingly.

Comprehensive costbenefit analysis of wildlife mitigation for each prioritized highway segment, addressing human health and safety, wildlife concerns and societal benefits.

Recommendations for: o AVC mitigation within priority road segments, including retrofit opportunities and

fencing considerations. o Improvements CDOT and/or CPW can make to standardize the data used for AVC

decision making in CO including potential methodologies (or technologies) for CDOT Maintenance staff to easily collect roadkill data in a consistent manner statewide.

Best practices guidelines for integrating WVC mitigation and wildlifefriendly designs into transportation projects throughout the region and the state, including considerations for different species and under different circumstances.

A Decision Support Tool based on the above products. This should include a straightforward, replicable, methodology for analyzing existing data to produce directly implementable regional and local scale results resulting in identified highway segments with the greatest need for wildlife mitigation and should be applicable to any part of CO facing WVC problems.

EXPECTED BENEFITS OF STUDY:There are safety, economic and ecological benefits that can be derived from the completion of this research project. This research will allow safety engineers, project planners and environmental scientists to better identify wildlife conflict zones and create targeted mitigations to reduce WVCs. A reduction in WVCs translates into cost savings for CDOT, individual motorists, insurance companies, and society at large, as well as fewer human injuries and fatalities.

The research project will result in directly implementable mitigation recommendations at specific locations and best practices for incorporation into transportation projects in Regions 3 and 5, with applications across the state. Current research indicates that the cost of mitigation can quickly pay for itself in terms of the costs of collisions averted, and a comprehensive analysis of the specific costs and benefits in each prioritized highway segment will lend greater credibility when mitigation measures are incorporated into transportation projects in each of these priority areas. Further, the research proposes to improve CDOT’s practices in fiscally responsible wildlife mitigation planning and design, and support the procurement of funding to incorporate appropriate wildlife mitigation techniques into transportation projects in the areas where it will have the greatest benefit for CDOT, its partners, and the driving public.This research opportunity offers an excellent opportunity for partnership between CDOT and CPW as they seek to implement the Colorado West Slope Mule Deer Strategy. CPW has already expressed preliminary interest in collaborating on this research project, although additional conversations are needed to assess the potential for CPW to contribute matching funds to conduct this research and/or to facilitate mitigation implementation in priority locations. Other potential sources of complementary funding for this research project include the Mule Deer Foundation, the Colorado Mule Deer Association and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation.


of 16

Given the role of this research in informing targeted wildlife mitigation projects across Regions 3 and 5, mitigation implementation funds for future projects may be pursued through the FASTER Road Safety Fund.

Benefits of Proposed Research to CDOT beyond Previously Conducted Research Projects:

Earlier studies of habitat connectivity and roads in Colorado have sought to flag priority segments for CDOT for further consideration, but these efforts rarely result in directly implementable prioritizations and defined mitigation recommendations that can be incorporated into upcoming project planning and design costs or effectively directed mitigation funds.

Previous research includes: Identify the Best Locations along Highways to Provide Safe Crossing Opportunities for

Wildlife (Barnum 2003): This CDOT research project provided useful guidance for identifying wildlife roadcrossing locations based on landscape characteristics, however it does not identify and prioritize road segments for mitigation.

Linking Colorado's Landscapes, (SREP 2005): This FHWA and CDOT funded project was the first statewide effort in Colorado to identify and prioritize road segments based on wildlife habitat and movement as well as WVC hotspots. This project was a first cut at identifying connectivity zones, and was important in bringing greater attention to the issue of habitat connectivity and roads in Colorado. The project resulted in coarsely identified wildlife linkage areas across the state.

CSU Habitat Connectivity Studies, (Crooks et al. 2006) and Roads and Connectivity in Colorado: AnimalVehicle Collisions, Wildlife Mitigation Structures, and LynxRoadway Interactions (Crooks et al 2008): The CDOT and CSU research project (2006) built upon the Linking Colorado's Landscape project to identify highway segments that present either a human health and safety concern (due to WVCs) or a concern for specific species of conservation interest (Canada lynx and wolf). The results of this project were used to inform wildlife monitoring research of roadwildlife interactions along select road segments and wildlife crossing structures (Crooks et al. 2008); however, the resulting models were not useful at the regional scale to inform mitigation planning in project designs.

Wildlife Connectivity and Associated Wildlife Crossings for US Highway 160, (Ruediger 2014): A CDOT project in southwestern CO (CDOT Region 5) that provided analysis and recommendations for wildlife mitigation, including retrofit opportunities, along a 147‐mile portion of the US 160 corridor from Cortez, through Durango, and eastward to South Fork. It included a review of existing highway structures, stakeholder meetings, and recommendations.

Ongoing or recently completed research in CO and other states may provide information or methodology relevant to this project including, but not limited to, the following studies:

SH 9 Wildlife Overpass / Underpass Monitoring and the associated SH 9 Colorado River South Wildlife & Safety Improvements Partnership Project. These two projects involve coordination between CDOT and CPW (and other entities) to design, build, and monitor wildlife mitigation, including Colorado’s first two wildlife overpasses, along a 10 mile stretch of SH 9 south of Kremmling, CO. Preliminary results from the first year of monitoring may be available.

Methodology for Prioritizing Appropriate Mitigation Actions to Reduce WildlifeVehicle Collisions on Idaho Highways. (Cramer et al 2014). Idaho Transportation Department’s (ITD) study to reduce AVC and improve wildlife connectivity options across roads including a programmatic 13step WildlifeVehicle Collision Prioritization Process with cooperation and responsibilities for both ITD and Idaho Fish and Game (IDFG). A resulting MOU between ITD


of 16

and IDFG describes responsibilities for both agencies for identifying and acting on AVC hotspots.

Teton County (Wyoming) Wildlife Crossings Master Plan. (Cramer et al., in progress). A programmatic plan for identification and prioritization of potential wildlife crossing sites for major road sections in Teton County, WY.

Improving Animalvehicle Collision Data for the Strategic Application of Mitigation Strategies. (Donaldson, in progress). This Virginia DOT (VDOT) study aims to assist in developing a programmatic approach for AVC reduction statewide. This study will improve the quality and accessibility of VDOT’s AVC data and to make recommendations on how to best use the data to plan an effective AVC mitigation program. The findings will provide a foundation for future research to develop a programmatic approach to reduce AVCs in Virginia.

The purpose of this research is to produce prioritization results that can guide wildlife mitigation across Regions 3 and 5, and be directly integrated into future project plans and designs. As such, the research will result in decision support tools (Task 6), including preliminary mitigation recommendations for clearly delineated and prioritized highway segments as well as broader guidance for designing more wildlifefriendly roads wherever there are opportunities. This would be the first effort in Colorado to incorporate costbenefit analyses to help decisionmakers weigh the tradeoffs involved in mitigating at one site over another under two scenarios: current traffic volumes and road infrastructure, and future travel demand and potential road buildout.

Finally, this research effort is actively seeking to engage a variety of partners, including alignment with CPW's recently released Mule Deer Strategy, and new engagement with insurance companies and other entities that have a vested interest in reducing WVC and maintaining healthy wildlife populations. By developing these partnerships at the project outset, we seek to develop a research project of value to multiple interests with the anticipation that these partners may become further involved in working with CDOT to implement wildlife mitigation recommendations in the future upon completion of this research.

I. REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS:

CDOT is seeking proposals and cost estimates to perform and complete the items identified in this Request for Proposals (RFP). The proposal shall include a cover letter, introduction, technical section, cost section, and appendices as needed. Each of these sections is described in more detail below. The proposal, excluding appendices, is limited to 10 pages total, singlespaced, doublesided, 8.5” x 11” paper with at least one inch margins on all sides, typed with primary text in size 11 or 12 font.

Technical Section: a) Personnel. Proposer will supply a detailed list of project personnel and experience (by name) b) Approach (methods) c) Period of Performance

The period of performance for this work effort is expected to be approximately 1 year starting from the issuance date of the notice to proceed letter from CDOT Study Manager. The proposer needs to schedule in an additional 612 months in the final contract to account for unforeseen delays that often occur in the business of research for a total duration of contract to be between 18 24 months.

d) Schedule and timelines for each task/phase of the work The proposer shall provide a task by task description of work, start and completion time

for each task and the percentage of budget allocated to each task. This will be the basis for contract payment. Schedule should include time for decisions that must be made by


of 16

CDOT or the study panel during the research. Report writing should be itemized as a separate task.

A high level schedule aligning tasks and deliverables will be supplied by the proposer. Provide 4 weeks for any review periods required from the Study Panel Members.

(Schedule and tasks to be supplied by proposer)Task Month 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 …. 2 …….. 3 ....... 4 .….…………

e) Cost Proposal A detailed, taskspecific budget must be supplied by proposer. The contractor will be

reimbursed on a monthly or quarterly basis for the work completed and will not exceed the amount proposed.

Appendices:

As needed, relevant information specific to the nature of this project is to be included in the appendix. Specifically include experience with corridor or regional analysis of animal vehicle accidents, and wildlife movement patterns; highway AVC mitigation; interagency coordination; relevant study design; and AVC data and analysis. One page resumes for all key personnel must be included as an appendix.

II. SCOPE OF WORK:

The proposal will address the following tasks in accordance with the terms of the contract agreement:

Task 1. Work Plan DevelopmentDevelop a plan to address the scope of work including, scheduling a kick off meeting with the study panel to present and discuss the proposed plan and to solicit feedback from the panel members to refine the project approach. Partners, stakeholders, data sources, and potential additional sources of funding that may be pursued should also be described.

Task 2. Literature Review

This task will include research, documentation, summary and synthesis of the current state of the literature on the topic of this study, especially as relates to systematic approaches to prioritizing AVC mitigation.

PI will: o Synthesize information from relevant studies in the final report. o Stay updated on new developments in the field of wildlife crossings throughout the

project.o Perform all work on this project using the most uptodate methods and data available.

Task 3. Agency Interviews


of 16

This task includes preliminary and interim consultation, interviews and meetings with the following groups to coordinate potential issues related to the study, gather the best available data, brainstorm, and coordinate objectives and planning documents. It also includes identification of, and interviews with, other potential partners and stakeholders not listed:

a) CDOT Environmental, Planning, Engineering, Maintenance, and Traffic & Safety staff (CDOT Region 3 Grand Junction, CDOT Region 5 Durango, and CDOT HQ Denver)

b) Colorado Parks & Wildlife (CPW)c) US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)d) US Forest Service (USFS)e) Bureau of Land Management (BLM)f) And other relevant stakeholders

Task 4. Design and Conduct the Research ProjectInformed by the results of the literature review and the agency interviews, the selected PI will develop a process for prioritizing highway wildlife mitigation areas on the West Slope of Colorado (CDOT Region 3 and 5), that:

o Includes collaboration with CDOT and CPW o Builds on existing information, planning documents, travel demand, and relevant

conservation planso Is consistent with standard CDOT safety analyses, or coordinates any alternate approach

with CDOT Traffic & Safety staffo Collects, consolidates, and analyzes available data, to identify and validate AVC hotspot

segmentso Uses a GIS interface for data analysis and visualization of data layers to represent crash

data, roadkill data, migration corridors, highway system, etc. o Makes recommendations for maintaining, standardizing and/or updating the data and

decision support processProvides effective guidance for future activities for CDOT related to the topic. At a minimum, all items listed in the Objectives of Study, Expected Benefits of Study, and Product of Research sections of this statement of work must be addressed.

Results of all tasks and information related to objectives will be compiled, analyzed and summarized in the form of a decision support tool (Task 5) and technical research report (Task 6), including the relevant GIS information and supporting data. The report will include photographs if appropriate, analysis and synthesis of all research conducted, and recommendations.

Task 5. Decision Support Tool Develop a decision support tool for CDOT that is replicable, uses available information, and is based on or consistent with current CDOT methodology for prioritizing AVC hotspots and priority AVC mitigation areas. This tool should be usable by a variety of CDOT staff, to develop preliminary mitigation recommendations for clearly delineated and prioritized highway segments, and should include guidance for designing more wildlifefriendly roads wherever there are opportunities.

The decision support tool should be based on up to date information such as: traffic data and forecasts, travel demand, accident and roadkill data, wildlife data and planning documents (such as the Colorado West Slope Mule Deer Strategy), habitat data, local sitespecific variables, and cost benefit analysis of mitigation options including retrofits.

Task 6. Final Report and RecommendationsThe final report shall include specific recommendations for CDOT based on the results of the study related to the objectives, expected benefits, and product of research above. The final report will provide


of 16

direction for applying these recommendations at CDOT and for relevant stakeholders through appropriate venues, training, documents, or other appropriate approaches.

These recommendations should directly support the design of strategic and effective wildlife mitigation in highway segments identified as having the greatest benefit for human safety with additional benefits for wildlife health. In addition, the outcomes of this research will provide preliminary sitespecific mitigation recommendations for the highway segments identified as having the greatest costbenefit. These recommendations will directly inform project designs in these segments. Finally, the compiled best practices for mitigating WVCs may be used to guide transportation project planning and design wherever there are concerns regarding wildlife and motorist conflicts. As the research considers both current conditions and project growth and travel demand, the results of this research will be relevant to construction projects well into the future.

Task 8. ReportingThe PI will meet and consult with the research study panel at the project’s key milestones which should be identified in the proposal. Deliverables including meeting minutes, data, quarterly, annual, or interim reports, shall be presented as described below. Throughout the project the PI will maintain regular contact (no less than 4 times per year) with the Study Manager and Study Panel Leader to provide updates as necessary. See below for details on deliverables and reporting.

Task 7. Completion of StudyPrepare and deliver a presentation of the final results, findings, and recommendations to the study panel and relevant stakeholders in a PowerPoint format, at a location and time determined by the study panel (CDOT Headquarters in Denver or a West Slope CDOT office, or more than one location). Provide startup training on use of the Decision Support Tool. Present all final deliverables below.

III. PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR (PI) DELIVERABLES:

The PI will deliver the following products and services:

1. Quarterly progress reports – in Word format via email to the CDOT research study manager documenting progress made on each task and significant events. These reports must be prepared in accordance with CDOT Research branch requirements (Attachment A) and (http://www.coloradodot.info/programs/research/progress/view) and are due on the 15th following the end of each calendar quarter (April, July, October & January 15th). The PI shall immediately report to the CDOT Study Manager any problem(s) that may delay the completion of the research work according to the proposed schedule for prompt resolution. These reports will be delivered with any invoice and should be correlated with each other.

2. Annual Update and Meetings For projects that last more than one year, annual update meetings and detailed progress reports will be required. Additional meetings may be scheduled as necessary to address any issues that may arise.

3. Meeting minutes of all meetings held. The PI shall take all the meeting minutes and forward them to the CDOT Study Manager

for distribution to the study panel members and other stakeholders in CDOT. Meetings with the study panel must, at a minimum, be used for the following tasks:

discuss any projectrelated issues, particularly any alterations to the research approach; review and discuss progress of the project; and to seek guidance and direction in performing the various tasks included in this scope of work.


of 16

4. Cataloged Data and Photographs All photographs and data (GIS, traffic, AVC, or other) obtained or developed during the study should be provided to CDOT and CPW for their use.

5. Decision Support Tool The tool should provide a straightforward process for CDOT and CPW to follow that is replicable, uses available information, and is based on or compatible with current CDOT methodology for prioritizing AVC hotspots and priority AVC mitigation areas.

6. Draft and Final Research Report – A final report summarizing the research approach, methods, observations, results, findings, and recommendations will be prepared. This report must be prepared in accordance with CDOT Research Report Branch Reporting Requirements (see http://www.coloradodot.info/programs/research/procedures/view or request the latest requirements from the CDOT Study Manager).

The Draft Report shall be submitted in Word format at least 75 calendar days before the contract expiration date. The PI shall submit to the CDOT Study Manager one set of copies of all electronic files, photographs, and data generated for the project on compact disc(s) at the close of the study. All information and materials generated by the selected PI as part of the study shall become the property of CDOT.

The following items should be included in the report:a. CDOT Implementation Plan The report will make recommendations as to how CDOT

can implement research findings, incorporating lessons learned from this study and literature review. This may include training, presentations, specification changes, process changes, etc.

b. QA/QC Prior to delivery of any progress, draft, or final report, PI shall ensure that a proper QA/QC (Quality Assurance and Quality Control) process has been conducted for content, consistency, and editorial issues. For draft and final reports, a signed statement indicating that such a review has been conducted shall be included with submission. This helps ensure that the CDOT Study Panel review is efficient, concentrating on CDOT needs as opposed to editorial mistakes.

c. Final Presentation At the completion of the study, the PI shall give a final presentation to the CDOT study panel members and other interested parties invited by the CDOT Study Manager. The presentation will include slides in a PowerPoint format that is appropriate for presentations to CDOT management, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Transportation Research Board (TRB), and other national and state venues. The PI will provide a copy of the PowerPoint presentation to CDOT on compact disc or other media.

IV. CDOT DELIVERABLES:

CDOT will provide the standard report format that can be accessed at the following link: (http://www.coloradodot.info/programs/research/procedures/view).

CDOT will provide the quarterly progress report template (Attachment A). CDOT will provide traffic control if the study panel in consultation with CDOT Safety Officer

concludes that it is warranted for a specific monitoring or field survey activity.

V. Proposal Submissions

1. CONTRACTOR PROJECT PERSONNEL STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE: Provide statement of project personnel qualifications and experiences. Substitution


of 16

of project key personnel will require approval by CDOT study manager. Substitutes shall have at least equivalent qualifications to the initial key personnel approved by CDOT.

2. PROPOSED SCHEDULE OF TASKS: Provide a taskbytask plan to accomplish the work detailed in the scope, including the time in months required to accomplish each task and sequence for tasks that cannot be accomplished simultaneously. Include 6 months for Study Panel review and contractor revision of final report along with unforeseen delays that often occur with research projects.

3. PROPOSED START DATE: Assuming that NoticetoProceed will be issued not later than InsertDate, when will the project personnel identified be available to start the work?

4. PROPOSED PROJECT COSTS: Provide fixed price costs for each identified task. CDOT will provide a payment schedule in the contract for these tasks.

5. PROPOSAL PAGE LIMIT: Proposal will be no more than 15 pages including resumes.

6. RESPONSE DEADLINE: Email proposals to the project manager by Friday, InsertDate at 5:00 PM MDT. Responses received after this time may not be considered. Electronic submissions (MS Word or PDF) are preferred.

VI. Evaluation Criteria

1. The contractor team must include a nationally recognized expert in the subject of highway and wildlife interactions as demonstrated by published peer reviewed reports, or large scale studies published by CDOT or similar agencies or institutions.

2. The contractor team mist include a member with significant roadway engineering experience.3. The contractor must have five years of experience working with DOTs on highway/wildlife

mitigation placement and design, including a familiarity with the stateoftheart Wildlife Vehicle Collision mitigation as demonstrated by the proposed methodologies and past publications.

4. The contractor must have five years of experience with the analysis of highway corridors and wildlife movement patterns (particularly large North American ungulates, and species of concern in Colorado) relevant to animal vehicle collisions, highway permeability, and driver safety as demonstrated by references to reports and studies that they have conducted for CDOT or other agencies or institutions.

5. The contractor must have significant experience analyzing large data sets including traffic and safety data, GIS data, wildlife conservation plans, and wildlife movement.

6. The contractor must have significant experience with interagency coordination over a regional or large corridor scale.

7. The contractor must have experience with research methods relevant to this topic, and with writing a high quality research report as demonstrated by reference to past work and accomplishments.

The due date for proposals is InsertDate. To save paper and energy, your proposal may be submitted via email in a .pdf format (to reduce size). Email submittals are encouraged but not required. If submitting by United States Postal Service (USPS) or other postal mail, submit one unbound hard copy and one electronic copy on compact disc or other media.

Label the proposal “CDOT West Slope Regional Wildlife Prioritization Study”

Submit proposal to:

Bryan RoederColorado Department of TransportationEnvironmental Research Manager


of 16

4201 East Arkansas Avenue, Shumate BuildingDenver, CO [email protected]


of 16

Attachment A. Quarterly Progress Report Template

This page intentionally blank


of 16

COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONRESEARCH STUDY PROGRESS REPORT

Study TitleStudy No: xx.xxx

BackgroundReason for research, brief scope of work, and expected results.

Reporting Period: mm/dd/yy through mm/dd/yyStart: mm/dd/yy Contract Amount: $

Principal Investigator:First name last name, Org, phone

Study Manager:Bryan Roeder, CDOT, 3035124420

Study Panel Leader:

Study Panel Members:First name last name, Org, phone

FHWA Washington Contact:First name last name, Org, phone


of 16

MILESTONES

Planned % done

Achieved Description, Discussion, and Related Issues

mm/dd/yy

mm/dd/yy Add rows as needed.

mm/dd/yy Draft report (2 months prior to report publication)

mm/dd/yy Final Report publication

SIGNIFICANT EVENTS

mm/dd/yy – Discuss relevant issues not directly related to completing a specific milestone. (Activities and progress toward a milestone should be included in the table above.)

mm/dd/yy – older issue