FY 1999 proposal 9053
Contents
Section 1. General administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Budgets for planning/design phase
Section 5. Budgets for construction/implementation phase
Section 6. Budgets for operations/maintenance phase
Section 7. Budgets for monitoring/evaluation phase
Section 8. Budget summary
Reviews and Recommendations
Additional documents
| Title | Type |
|---|---|
| 9053 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Kirby (Atlanta) Dam Fish Ladder |
| Proposal ID | 9053 |
| Organization | Joint sponsors: USDA Forest Service, Boise National Forest - Idaho Dept. Fish & Game (USFS, BNF) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Tim Burton |
| Mailing address | 1249 Vinnell Way Boise, ID 83709 |
| Phone / email | 2083734100 / tim.burton/r4_boise@fs.fed.us |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 1999 |
| Province / Subbasin | Upper Snake / Mid Snake |
| Short description | Design and construct a fish ladder at Kirby Dam, near Atlanta, Idaho to restore approximately 56.6 miles of stream to spawning and early rearing of bull trout in the Middle Fork Boise River Basin. This project would restore 39% of their historic range. |
| Target species | |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 1999 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 1999 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 1999 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 1999 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 1999 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | Engineering and construction | $50,000 |
| Fringe | Overhead @ 20% | $50,000 |
| Supplies | Fish ladder | $175,000 |
| Subcontractor | Idaho Fish & Game | $0 |
| Other | $25,000 | |
| $300,000 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 1999 cost | $300,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 1999 budget request | $300,000 |
| FY 1999 forecast from 1998 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: Let contract in spring/summer 1998. Begin construction in October, 1998. Complete construction by end of calendar year 1998. Begin monitoring when bull trout begin migration in the spring of 1999. No constraints are anticipated other than weather.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
Technical Issue: Need better monitoring.Comment:
Presentation: The objective of this project is to restore passage at Kirby Dam (a hydropower dam owned by the Forest Service) for bull trout spawning and rearing in the Upper Middle Fork of the Boise River. This area has the best habitat in the basin and can produce excellent results. The Forest Service provided recommendations for bull trout passage. A preliminary design of fish ladder has been conducted. Kirby dam failed in failed in 1991 and passage was not provided over the new structure because of time constraints. Recent studies show the importance of migratory component of the bull trout population. Atlanta Power is a partner, along with BOR, USFS, and IDFG. The bull trout conservation plan for Idaho includes a plan for each key watershed which highlights the risks and threats.Questions/ Answers:
Have any other passage structures been considered? Answer: The preferred method is vertical slot fish passage. Joe Teeter looked at blasting for jump pools with limited ladders. The engineering was too difficult because of existing roadways etc. The best design is the one proposed.
Does this address specific Council Measures? Answer: I am not familiar with the Program. This is a new project that addresses weak bull trout populations that will go extinct above dam. It meets the criteria for a blocked area.
The original dam was built in 1906. What dams on the system were constructed prior to that date? Answer: None. The loss of fish would be due to Kirby Dam. The diversion dams were built after 1906.
What about the FERC license? Answer: Atlanta Power Company to serves 60 residents year round and will be required to get a FERC license.
Are brook trout present above or below dam? Answer: We only found brook trout in high lakes that have outlets, we are not finding them in other areas in big numbers.
Is there any cost-share? Answer: The Forest Service funds the NEPA work, IDFG is doing the design engineering. Atlanta Power will be getting a FERC license and could maintain the ladder.
What is the tie to the Federal Hydropower system? Answer: This dam blocked passage. The original dam had fish passage that didn't work. Fish had access to the spillway until 1915 but the upper country was blocked after that.
Screening Criteria: No. The proposed projects doesn't meet a specific Council Measure.
Technical Criteria: No. The proposal didn't demonstrate that adequate measures have been taken to prevent exotic species from using the ladder.
Programmatic Criteria: No. The proposal doesn't meet criteria 11, 15, 16,
General Comment: This looks like a worthwhile project. The Forest Service should apply for Bring Back Natives money.
This is not a BPA responsibility.
Comment:
See CBFWA Committee CommentsComment:
This is a poorly written proposal, but a good idea. The objective is biologically sound and should be done. Scientific background and justification are provided. The proposal should not be in the "Watershed" category.