1 

Photo credit: Bureau of Reclamation 

November 2019 

Produced by Federal Highway Administration – 

Western Federal Lands Highway Division for the 

Bureau of Reclamation
2 

(This page intentionally left blank) 
3 

Table of Contents 

Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... 5

1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 7

1.1 Location and Study Area .................................................................................................. 7

1.2 Background ....................................................................................................................... 7

1.3 Scope of this Report ......................................................................................................... 7

1.4 Methodology .................................................................................................................... 9

1.5 Existing Plans and Projects ............................................................................................... 9

2 Existing Conditions ................................................................................................................ 11

2.1 Physical Features ............................................................................................................ 11

2.1.1 Site Layout and Landscape ...................................................................................... 11

2.1.2 Hydraulics ................................................................................................................ 11

2.2 Operations and Maintenance ........................................................................................ 15

2.3 Usage .............................................................................................................................. 15

2.4 Traffic.............................................................................................................................. 15

2.5 Utilities and Water Rights .............................................................................................. 16

2.6 Safety .............................................................................................................................. 16

2.7 Demographics and Economics ....................................................................................... 16

2.8 Environmental Setting .................................................................................................... 17

2.8.1 Floodplains .............................................................................................................. 17

2.8.2 Hazardous Materials ............................................................................................... 18

2.8.3 Cultural, Historic and Recreational Resources........................................................ 18

2.8.4 Biological Resources ............................................................................................... 18

2.8.5 Wetlands and Waters of the US ............................................................................. 19

2.8.6 Water Quality .......................................................................................................... 19

2.8.7 Other Environmental Considerations ..................................................................... 20

3 Goals and Objectives ............................................................................................................. 21

3.1 Goal 1: Provide transportation facilities that improve public safety, accommodate 

future visitor growth and increased recreational activities, and reduce maintenance needs . 21
4 

3.1.1 Objectives................................................................................................................ 21

3.2 Goal 2: Provide a climate for economic growth ............................................................ 21

3.2.1 Objectives................................................................................................................ 21

3.3 Goal 3: Minimize adverse impacts to the environmental, cultural, and scenic 

characteristics of the study area. .............................................................................................. 22

3.3.1 Objectives................................................................................................................ 22

4 Potential Improvements ........................................................................................................ 23

4.1 Overlook ......................................................................................................................... 23

4.2 Administration Site ......................................................................................................... 26

4.2.1 Initial Build .............................................................................................................. 26

4.2.2 Full build-out ........................................................................................................... 26

4.3 Campground Option A/Day Use Sites in Lower Area ..................................................... 29

4.4 Campground Option B on Rim ....................................................................................... 29

4.5 North Side ....................................................................................................................... 32

4.6 Northeast Boat Ramp ..................................................................................................... 32

4.7 Sign Map ......................................................................................................................... 32

5 Funding options ..................................................................................................................... 36

5.1 Federal Lands Access Program ....................................................................................... 36

5.2 Federal Lands Transportation Program ......................................................................... 37

5.3 Transportation Alternatives/Surface Transportation Block Grant ................................ 38

5.4 Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation Grants and Funding .................................. 40

6 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 43

7 References ............................................................................................................................. 44
5 

Executive Summary 

The purpose of this report is to summarize the study of the transportation characteristics of the 

Teton Dam site and provide potential improvements to the site. 

Construction of the Teton Dam was completed in 1976 . On its first fill on June 5, 1976, the dam 

failed causing a catastrophic event leading to the loss of 11 lives and millions of dollars in 

property damage. Since the failure, the physical infrastructure at the dam site has aged and 

deteriorated and is in need of repair. In 2018, Reclamation initiated a working group known as 

the Teton Recreation Coalition (TRC) in an effort to rehabilitate the Teton Dam site. 

The main access to the site is from the south, where Teton Dam Road leads to the site from 

Highway 33. See Figure 1-2 for an overview of the site and the areas with higher priority for 

improvements. 

Usage at the site is varied and is mainly recreational. Recreational uses of the site includes: 

fishing, boating (hard-side boats and rafts), camping, hunting, wildlife viewing, hiking, and 

sightseeing. Because of the sporadic use and enforcement presence, trespassing and vandalism 

are concerns at the site. 

Based on the input of Reclamation, the TRC, and information gathered by WFL, the following 

goals and objectives were developed specific to transportation on the site: 

Goal 1: Provide transportation facilities that improve public safety, accommodate future 

visitor growth and increased recreational activities, and reduce maintenance needs. 

Goal 2: Provide a climate for economic growth. 

Goal 3: Minimize adverse impacts to the environmental, cultural, and scenic characteristics 

of the study area.

Potential improvements were developed to address areas of concern and satisfy project goals, 

described below: 

Overlook: improve aesthetics of site, change geometrics to allow adequate turning 

radius for large vehicles; stripe parking lot, improve overlook point, add path to 

administration site, add toilet. 

Administration Site: (Improvements are shown in phases: the initial build, and a 

potential full-build) mill and install paving for a portion of the site (for initial build), add 

picnic area, add pavilion shelter.
6 

Campground Option A/Day Use Sites in Lower Area: Develop primitive camping/picnic 

sites, widen and resurface road, construct parking areas, , construct boat ramps, add 

toilet, install gates and boulders to restrict vehicular access to approved areas. 

Campground Option B on Rim: Develop camping sites, resurface the portion of road 

that accesses campsites. Install gates and place boulders to restrict access to the shaft 

house areas where public use is prohibited. 

North Side: Install gate, boulders and “Road Closed” sign. 

Northeast Boat Ramp: Recondition and resurface 12-foot wide road, construct boat 

ramp, develop picnic areas. 

Sign Map: Install Teton Dam Recreation Area sign at intersection of Highway 33 and 

Teton Dam Road, informational and directional signage within the site. 

The report also outlines some funding opportunities and potential next steps. 
7 

1 Introduction 

1.1 Location and Study Area 

The Teton Dam site is located in Fremont and Madison Counties, Idaho, approximately 1.5 miles 

north of Highway 33, on Teton Dam Road. The latitude and longitude coordinates are 

43.904778, -111.538861. The Study Area is defined as the US Bureau of Reclamation 

(Reclamation) property on both sides of the Teton River (see Figure 1-1 for a map of the site). 

1.2 Background 

The Teton Project was authorized by Congress in 1964 authorizing the Bureau of Reclamation 

(Reclamation) to build a dam and manage the Project, including providing for basic public 

outdoor recreation facilities. The Teton Dam was constructed from 1972 to 1976. On June 5, 

1976, on its first fill, Teton Dam failed causing a catastrophic event leading to the loss of 11 lives 

and millions of dollars in property damage. The Teton Dam failure led to Reclamation’s Dam 

Safety Program which helps ensure the physical integrity of Reclamation dams and in the longterm stability of dams to protect lives and property. The program has been adopted throughout 

the United States and worldwide. 

After the failure, investigations were conducted which removed some of the remaining material 

of the Dam. Reclamation has been managing the site since the failure, but the area has 

remained basically unchanged. Over time, the physical infrastructure at the dam site has 

experienced damage from the public and is in need of repair. 

In 2018, Reclamation initiated a working group in an effort to rehabilitate the Teton Dam site. 

The group, known as the Teton Recreation Coalition (TRC), established a charter (See Appendix 

A) that outlined its purpose and goals. 

1.3 Scope of this Report 

Reclamation approached Federal Highway Administration-Western Federal Lands Highway 

Division (WFL) to provide a study on the transportation characteristics of the site. WFL used 

discussions with Reclamation and the TRC as a guides to determine what to include in this 

report. Generally, the report is outlined as follows: 

 Introduction 

 Existing Conditions 

 Goals and Objectives 

 Improvement Options 

 Conclusion 

This report is intended to be provide an assessment of transportation conditions on the site, 

and provide a suite of transportation options for potential future improvements. 
 ́

This map is provided as-is and may contain representationsof property boundaries. It is intended for general referenceonly. None of the parties involved in preparing this map ordata contained herein warrant or represent information to becomplete and accurate, and cannot be held responsible forerrors or omissions.Filename: Teton_Canyon_Rec_Area_Overview_110818 Prepared by: dchan Date Plotted: 11/8/2018 

0 0.25 0.125

Miles

Teton Canyon

Recreation Area

Non-USBR LandUSBR Land Boundary

Figure 1-1
9 

1.4 Methodology 

WFL began coordination with Reclamation on this study in October 2018, holding a conference 

call to obtain background information on the area and site, discuss Reclamations goals for the 

project, and a general project schedule. 

WFL also reviewed documents that Reclamation provided detailing information about the site 

and surrounding areas. A list of those documents is included in Section 7 References. 

Additionally, a group of Brigham Young University-Idaho students produced a senior capstone 

project that focused on one section of the site—the overlook and former administration 

building area. 

WFL Project Manager, Seth English-Young, attended a site visit and a meeting of the TRC in 

November 2018. During that visit WFL gathered information on the existing conditions at the 

site and the goals of the Coalition for the project. The TRC charter includes useful information 

on the purpose, goals and considerations of the Coalition. 

Conference calls were set up throughout the project and WFL called into TRC quarterly 

meetings when possible. During the February 2019 TRC meeting, the Coalition provided a 

ranking of the highest priority areas within the site, listed below in order and shown on Figure 

1-2: 

1. Overlook area 

2. Former administrative office area 

3. Lower area near river 

4. Road at NE portion of site that accesses boat/raft take-out 

WFL Project Manager and a Design Engineer conducted a site visit in April 2019 to obtain site 

information. Madison County also provided GIS data to WFL during that visit. 

WFL staff utilized the information gathered from various sources to produce this report in 

coordination with Reclamation, Madison County, and other members of the TRC. 

1.5 Existing Plans and Projects 

Reclamation produced the Teton River Canyon Resource Management Plan in 2006 to “provide 

management direction for lands and waters under Reclamation jurisdiction in the vicinity of 

Teton River Canyon.” Reclamation also produced the Henrys Fork Basin Study Report in 2015 to 

“assess current and future water supply and demand in the Henrys Fork Basin and adjacent 

areas that receive water from the basin, and to identify a range of potential strategies to 

address any projected imbalances.” 
 ́

This map is provided as-is and may contain representationsof property boundaries. It is intended for general referenceonly. None of the parties involved in preparing this map ordata contained herein warrant or represent information to becomplete and accurate, and cannot be held responsible forerrors or omissions.Filename: Teton_Canyon_Rec_Area_Overview_110818 Prepared by: dchan Date Plotted: 11/8/2018 

0 0.25 0.125

Miles

Teton Canyon

Recreation Area

Non-USBR LandUSBR Land Boundary

1. Overlook 2. Former

administrativeoffices

3. Lower area by river

4. Road at NEportion of site

Figure 1-2
11 

2 Existing Conditions 

2.1 Physical Features 

The Teton Dam site study area is shown in Figure 2-1 with the main areas labeled A through J. 

2.1.1 Site Layout and Landscape 

The main access to the site is from the south, where Teton Dam Road leads to the site from 

Highway 33. At the former administrative building site (A) and overlook (B) the elevation is 

approximately 5330-5350 feet. Both sites A and B and the road between them are paved. 

From the overlook site, the road travels northeast and splits into two roads. The road to the 

north (C) goes to the shaft house river outlet works (shown on Figure 2-2) and is a gravel and 

dirt road approximately 12 feet wide. Off of C is a steep narrow road (I) that travels down to a 

pump and the river. The road to the east (D) is the main route to the site. It is a gravel road in 

good condition that is approximately 20 feet wide and was improved by Madison County in 

2018. Off the main road is the road at NE portion of site (E) that accesses a boat/raft take-out 

(see Figure 2-3). This road is in very rough condition and WFL staff did not drive down it due to 

its condition. 

The main road takes a hairpin turn and travels to the west (F). Within section F is the former 

boat ramp from the dam (which is paved) and the road travels from approximately 5340 feet in 

elevation down to approximately 5040 feet elevation to the lower area of the project site. 

The road in the lower area (G) is dirt and approx. 10-12 feet wide. There is recreational access 

to the water in this area. To the south of the road is a steep, rough dirt trail (H) approximately 

8-10 feet wide that goes up to the top of the remaining dam structure. Some motor vehicles 

traverse the trail, but it is very rough and not intended for vehicle use. 

On the northwest side of the river is a road (J) that accesses the spillway. Access to this road 

from a public roadway is not clearly defined and might be through private property. 

The landscape is generally devoid of trees or substantial vegetation. 

2.1.2 Hydraulics 

The Teton River flows through the site from NE to SW. The river flows slowly from the NE 

takeout area to near the former dam where it narrows down creating rapid flow. There are a 

number of ponds and inlets, including one large culvert under the road in the lower area. 

Large portions of the lower area likely lie in the 100-year flood zone, though FEMA mapping 

indicates that a portion of the site is in Zone A, which means that no base flood elevation is 

determined. A FEMA Firmette is included in Appendix B. 
 ́

This map is provided as-is and may contain representationsof property boundaries. It is intended for general referenceonly. None of the parties involved in preparing this map ordata contained herein warrant or represent information to becomplete and accurate, and cannot be held responsible forerrors or omissions.Filename: Teton_Canyon_Rec_Area_Overview_110818 Prepared by: dchan Date Plotted: 11/8/2018 

0 0.25 0.125

Miles

Teton Canyon

Recreation Area

Non-USBR LandUSBR Land Boundary

G

C

I

H

D

F

E

B

A

J

Figure 2-1
Dam Structures – Upstream View

Spillway and Shaft House

Auxiliary Intake Structure

Intake Structure Shaft House River Outlet Works

Figure 2-2
Figure 2-3
15 

2.2 Operations and Maintenance 

Reclamation has full recreation authority and is responsible for management of the Teton Dam 

site. Madison County has completed some improvements to the roads on the site, including 

adding aggregate and shaping the main road (D) as recently at 2018. 

Trespassing and vandalism are concerns at the site and are considerations in the TRC charter. 

Reclamation has issued public safety warnings reminding that some of the areas at the site (e.g. 

tunnels, structures, and administrative areas) are closed to public entry. 

2.3 Usage 

Usage at the site is varied and is mainly recreational. Recreational uses of the site includes: 

fishing, boating (hard-side boats and rafts), camping, hunting, wildlife viewing, hiking, and 

sightseeing. 

There are informal river access sites for boaters located in the lower area (G). White-water 

rafting occurs upriver from the site, and an informal takeout site for rafts is located at the very 

northeast corner of the site at the end of the rough road (E). Rafters use the takeout despite 

how rough the road is, because the current slows down considerably after the takeout location 

and it takes a long time to float to the more easily accessible access in the lower area (G). 

Occasionally, tour busses will access the site, usually not venturing further than the overlook 

(B). However, the turning radius at the overlook often does not allow busses to turn around, 

requiring them to back out to the administrative site (A). Additionally, sometimes the busses 

continue on the main road (D), which doesn’t offer a good turn-around location either. 

Parking occurs at the overlook, in the lower area (G) and near structures such as the shaft 

house river outlet works. 

Illegal activity occurs, including trespassing and vandalism in and on the structures remaining 

on the site. Police and other emergency services access the site as necessary, but due to the 

distance from population centers, presence is sporadic. No government administrative offices 

remain at the site, so official usage by Reclamation is intermittent. 

It is important to note that while existing usage is relatively low, future usage would vary 

considerably depending on what improvements are undertaken. If the site is left generally as it 

is, usage would not likely grow considerably. However, it has been mentioned in TRC meetings 

that demand for outdoor activities in this region is high and campgrounds are limited. 

2.4 Traffic 

Three separate traffic counts were conducted in 2019, with varying results. In June 2019, 

Madison County put out on set of counters on Teton Dam Road near Highway 33 and averaged 

12 vehicles per day (VPD). 
16 

Federal Highway Administration-Central Federal Lands conducted a traffic study from August 7 

to August 20, 2019. The most dependable data was at the entrance, near the old administration 

site, where the ADT was 50. The data indicates that about 50 vehicles entered the site and 

exited the site per day. 

Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) collected traffic counts at the former boat ramp on 

the main road down to the lower area. IDFG collected data for 104 days in the months of July 

through October. The counts indicated an ADT of about 39 vehicles per day (39 inbound and 39 

outbound each day). The IDFG counts also showed peak usage in July. 

2.5 Utilities and Water Rights 

Currently, there are no toilets, running water, or apparatuses that utilize electricity. There was 

a vault toilet at the overlook in the past, and the administration buildings had electricity, 

running water and sewer or septic system. It is unknown what underground utilities still exist. 

According to the TRC Charter, the Fremont-Madison Irrigation District (FMID) has existing 

irrigation water rights on the Teton River. Additionally, FMID is the contracted beneficiary of 

water that would be stored behind Teton Dam, if it were ever rebuilt. 

2.6 Safety 

There is no data on crashes on the Teton Dam site, but anecdotally vehicles have been known 

to crash into the chain link fence at curve in the road between the administrative site and the 

overlook. The fence is not designed to be a safety feature, but it has acted as one, stopping 

vehicles from going down the ravine. It is likely that vehicles have gotten stuck or run off the 

roads on the site. Also, in some locations, such as the roads at (E), (F), (H) or (I), running off the 

road could have serious implications due to steep slopes. 

Additionally, non-transportation safety of users is a concern with the remaining structures from 

the dam. As reported in newspaper articles and Reclamation news releases, there are areas 

where falls, drownings, and noxious gasses could occur. 

2.7 Demographics and Economics 

The project takes place in Madison and Fremont Counties. The following table summarized 

demographic and economic data from the 2017 and 2018 American Community Survey 

estimates from the US Census Bureau. 

Madison 

County* 

Fremont 

County* 

Idaho** 

Population 38,241 12,889 1,754,208 

Race/Ethnicity White (not Hispanic or 

Latino) 89.0% 85.1% 81.8% 

Hispanic or Latino 7.1% 12.5% 12.7% 
17 

Black or African American 0.6% 0.2% 0.6% 

American Indian or Alaska 

Native 0.0% 0.3% 1.1% 

Asian 1.1% 0.1% 1.5% 

Native Hawaiian and Other 

Pacific Islander 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 

Some Other Race 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 

Two or More Races 1.8% 1.5% 2.2% 

Economic 

Characteristics

Median Household Income $33,620 $51,806 $55,583 

Persons below poverty level 31.8% 11.9% 11.8% 

Unemployment rate 9.2% 5.9% 4.0% 

*2017 ACS 5-year estimate data 

**2018 ACS 1-year estimate data 

Regarding the economic characteristics data in Madison County, it should be noted that there is 

a large student population (over 20,000 students) at BYU-Idaho many of whom do not work 

full-time, therefore decreasing the median household income and increasing the percent of 

persons below the poverty level and unemployment rate. 

2.8 Environmental Setting 

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), requires that “all branches of government give 

proper consideration to the environment prior to undertaking any major federal action that 

significantly affects the environment (EPA website https://www.epa.gov/lawsregulations/summary-national-environmental-policy-act).” 

NEPA applies to any future construction projects on the site, since Reclamation is a federal 

agency. To meet their NEPA requirements for future construction projects , Reclamation may 

need to produce an Environmental Impact Statement or Environmental Assessment, or projects 

may fall under the categorical exclusions for Reclamation, as described in their Department 

Manual, 516 DM 14 Managing the NEPA Process – Bureau of Reclamation. 

This section describes relevant environmental existing conditions on the site. 

2.8.1 Floodplains 

Executive Order (EO) 11988, Floodplain Management, requires efforts be taken to reduce the 

risk of flood loss; minimize the impacts of floods on human safety, health, and welfare; and 

restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains. EO 11988 requires 

federal agencies to avoid, to the extent possible, the long and short-term adverse impacts 

associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains and to avoid direct and indirect 

support of floodplain development wherever there is a practicable alternative. 
18 

Compliance with this directive requires an evaluation of a proposed project and its alternatives 

to determine the effects of any encroachments on the "base" floodplain. The base floodplain is 

the area covered by water from the 100-year flood and is a regulatory standard used by federal 

agencies and states to administer floodplain management programs. 

Large portions of the lower area likely lie in the 100-year flood zone, though FEMA mapping 

indicates that a portion of the site is in Zone A, which means that no base flood elevation is 

determined. A FEMA Firmette is included in Appendix B. 

2.8.2 Hazardous Materials 

The Idaho DEQ Waste Remediation Facilities Mapper (http://www.deq.idaho.gov/waste-mgmtremediation/remediation-activities/facility-mapper/) indicates that there were two underground 

storage tanks near the shaft house river outlet works and that both were removed in 1989 or 1990. 

No other facilities are shown in the Mapper. 

2.8.3 Cultural, Historic and Recreational Resources 

Resources listed, or determined eligible for listing for the National Register of Historic Place 

(NRHP), are considered historic properties. Such properties are generally afforded protection 

under the National Historic Preservation Act. Federal agencies are required to consider the 

effects of their undertakings on historic properties and must consult affected American Indian 

tribes. The implementing regulations of Section 106 also require agencies to seek ways of 

avoiding, minimizing, or mitigating any adverse effects on historic properties. 

In September 2019, Reclamation provided to Idaho State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) an 

NRHP evaluation for future construction improvements that are described in this plan. SHPO 

sent a letter to Reclamation in October 2019 concurring that the propose actions would have 

no effect to historic properties. 

2.8.4 Biological Resources 

According to the US Fish and Wildlife Service Information for Planning and Consultation (IPAC) 

(see Appendix C), three species protected, or proposed for protection, by the Endangered 

Species Act could occur in the project area: 

Species Status Critical Habitat in Study Area 

North American Wolverine 

Gulo gulo luscus 

Proposed Threatened No 

Yellow-billed Cuckoo 

Coccyzus americanus

Threatened No 

Ute Ladies’-tresses 

Spiranthes diluvialis 

Threatened No 

Reclamation staff completed a survey of the site for Ute Ladies’-tresses in August 2019 and did 

not find any. 
19 

2.8.5 Wetlands and Waters of the US 

According to National Wetland Inventory mapping (see Appendix D), there are wetlands and 

waters of the US in the project area. Future construction projects will need to that have 

permanent or temporary impacts to wetland/waters will need to be permitted through the US 

Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 404 permitting process. Project partners would need to 

complete a wetland/waters delineation according to USACE requirements and advance design 

far enough to calculate impacts to wetlands/waters in order to apply for the permits. 

The type and effect of 404 permit process depends on the amount of permanent impacts to 

wetlands/waters. Generally, if the project has less than 0.1 acre of permanent impacts, the 

project will fall under a nationwide permit and compensatory mitigation is not required. If the 

project has between 0.1 and 0.5 acres of permanent impact, the project will fall under a 

nationwide permit and compensatory mitigation is required. According to USACE regulations, 

there are three mechanisms for providing compensatory mitigation (listed in order of 

preference as established by the regulations): mitigation banks, in-lieu fee programs, and 

permittee-responsible mitigation (https://www.epa.gov/cwa-404/compensatory-mitigation). If 

the project has over 0.5 acres of permanent wetland impacts a 404 Individual Permit is 

necessary. An Individual Permit has a longer timeframe, more in-depth permit analysis, and 

greater mitigation requirements. 

The project lead will likely submit a Joint Application for Permit, which covers the USACE 404 

permit, Idaho Department of Water Resources Stream Alteration Permit, and the 401 water 

quality certification or waiver for impacts to waters within the State of Idaho. 

(http://www.nww.usace.army.mil/Business-With-Us/Regulatory-Division/Joint-Application-forPermit/) 

2.8.6 Water Quality 

The stretch of the Teton River in the project area is not on the state 303(d) list of impaired 

waters (http://www.deq.idaho.gov/water-quality/surface-water/monitoringassessment/integrated-report.aspx). According to the Idaho Department of Environmental 

Quality 2016 Integrated Report, which is the most recent version approved by EPA, this stretch 

of river is listed as Category 4A, which means that a total maximum daily load (TMDL) was 

completed and approved by EPA. 

Any future construction projects are not expected to permanently impact water quality. 

Contract requirements in the construction contract will minimize temporary water quality 

impacts. The project lead may need to get permits for temporary turbidity increases due to 

construction. The Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) administers the 401 

Certification process to comply with Section 401 of the Clean Water Act 
20 

(http://www.deq.idaho.gov/water-quality/surface-water/standards/401-certification/). The 

construction project will need to obtain a 401 Certification, which is usually applied for in 

conjunction with the USACE 404 permit with the Joint Application. 

2.8.7 Other Environmental Considerations 

During the project engineering and environmental process of future construction projects, 

other environmental factors may be considered, including: Wild and Scenic Rivers, Air Quality, 

Visual Quality, Land Use, Property Acquisitions, Environmental Justice, Noise, Navigable 

Waterways, Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Act, and Cumulative and Indirect 

Impacts. Preliminary research indicates that construction projects will have minimal, or no 

impact to these environmental considerations, or that they are not relevant to future 

construction projects. 
21 

3 Goals and Objectives 

The scope of this study coincides with the work of the TRC, though this report is intended to be 

provide an assessment and improvement options for transportation conditions and 

characteristics on the site, whereas the TRC is focused on all recreational aspects of the site. 

Based on the input of Reclamation, the TRC, and information gathered by WFL, the following 

goals and objectives were developed specific to transportation on the site. 

3.1 Goal 1: Provide transportation facilities that improve 

public safety, accommodate future visitor growth and 

increased recreational activities, and reduce 

maintenance needs 

3.1.1 Objectives 

 Provide access to river 

 Increase educational outreach and opportunities 

 Reduce vandalism 

 Improve public safety 

 Help meet increasing demands for recreational opportunities 

Improving the transportation system will ease access to recreational opportunities at the site 

and increase usage. Improved transportation facilities could lead to additional recreational 

opportunities such as stocking the ponds for fishing or educational opportunities such as school 

field trips. 

The site is currently underutilized which can create unsafe situations and allows for vandalism. 

An increase in people using the site will act as informal observers and offer improved safety 

and deter some vandalism. 

3.2 Goal 2: Provide a climate for economic growth 

3.2.1 Objectives 

 Provide transportation improvements that can be leveraged for additional 

enhancements that promote economic progress 

 Develop and maintain partnerships that will be beneficial to the Teton Dam site and the 

region 

 Provide for current and ongoing agricultural water use 

The Teton Dam site offers opportunity for economic growth in the region. It is a site with 

unique natural and historic assets and is underutilized. Improvements to the transportation 
22 

system could attract more visitors, which could contribute to the local economy. As more 

visitors use the site, increased usage could create opportunities to leverage the transportation 

improvements into additional funding for other enhancements on the site. 

The partnerships built in the TRC process will be vital in ongoing management and leadership. 

Multiple parties have interest in the site, and by having those parties work together in the TRC, 

ensures that the varied goals of the parties are taken into consideration when managing the 

site. 

The agricultural usage of water from the Teton River contributes to the local economy and is an 

important consideration when making plans for the site. 

3.3 Goal 3: Minimize adverse impacts to the environmental, 

cultural, and scenic characteristics of the study area. 

3.3.1 Objectives 

 Minimize impacts to resources in the Teton Canyon 

 Promote restoration in the Canyon 

 Incorporate sustainability practices for long term facility and range/ecological 

management of the area 

Any improvements, as well as the associated increase in usage, come with the potential to 

impact environmental resources on and near the site. Considering the environmental impact of 

actions will help to create a site that is sustainable environmentally and economically. 
23 

4 Potential Improvements 

This section contains a list of potential improvements intended to address previously identified 

issues and areas of concern and satisfy goals and objectives outlined in Section 3. The 

improvement options reflect information gathered from a thorough evaluation of the existing 

and projected conditions in the study area. The following steps were applied to develop 

improvement options: 

(1) Identify issues and areas of concern based on field review, engineering analysis, and 

consultation with stakeholders. 

(2) Identify overall corridor goals and objectives. 

(3) Analyze the information gathered to develop improvement options to address the 

issues and areas of concern while ensuring consistency with the goals and 

objectives. 

Implementation of improvement options ultimately depends on the availability of funding, 

personnel resources, and other project delivery elements. Planning level cost estimates are 

listed in 2019 dollars for each improvement option. The costs include estimates for surfacing, 

striping, signing, guardrail installation, landscape, vault toilets, construction, and indirect costs.

Appendix E contains planning level cost estimates for the options. Total estimated cost for the 

improvements range from $1,406,000 to $2,295,000.

Potential barriers such as physical features and environmental conditions may influence the 

project development process and could add additional time and cost. More detailed projectlevel analysis would be required for any improvements forwarded from this study. Information 

contained in this report may be used to support future project development and environmental 

documentation. 

A site overview map showing the locations of the potential improvements is included in Figure 

4-1. 

4.1 Overlook 

Improvements at the overlook site could include (see Figure 4-2): 

• Install information kiosk(s) and a permanent railing at the overlook point 

• Regrade ramp to overlook point to ADA requirements 

• Create picnic areas near the overlook ramp 

• Replace or install directional and informational signage 

• Install a double vault toilet in the location as previous toilet 

• Stripe parking lot for parking 

• Reduce the size of the median to allow for an adequate turn radius for large vehicles 


26 

• Plant trees in the median 

• Remove damaged fencing 

• Install guard rail, where necessary for safety 

• Install new 5-foot wide meandering trail connecting the overlook to administration site 

Estimated cost: 

• $559,000 

4.2 Administration Site 

Improvements to the administration site parking are shown in phases: the initial build, and a 

potential full-build. The current usage at the Teton Dam site does not warrant the full-build out 

of the administration site parking area, but if usage increases in the future, there is potential for 

substantial parking capacity at the site. 

4.2.1 Initial Build 

Improvements at the administration site initial build could include (see Figure 4-3): 

• Mill and install asphalt concrete paving for approximately 18,300 square feet, including 

the demolition of raised building foundations 

• Place a landscaped buffer between roadway and parking lot 

• Stripe for 12 vehicle spaces and 5 RV/Bus/trailer parking spaces and ingress/egress 

• Construct a pavilion to provide sun and wind protection 

• Create picnic area 

• Install appropriate signage 

Estimated cost: 

• $272,000 

4.2.2 Full build-out 

The full build out of the administration site could be (see Figure 4-4): 

• Mill and install asphalt concrete paving for approximately 66,900 square feet, including 

the demolition of raised building foundations 

• Place a landscaped buffer between roadway and parking lot 

• Stripe for 42 vehicle spaces and 22 RV/Bus/trailer parking spaces and ingress/egress 

• Construct a pavilion to provide sun and wind protection 

• Create three picnic area 

• Install appropriate signage 

Estimated cost: 

• $700,000 


29 

4.3 Campground Option A/Day Use Sites in Lower Area 

One option is to build a primitive dry campground in the lower area by the river. These sites 

could also be day use sites, if a campground in that location is not desired. Improvements at the 

campground/day use site in the lower area by the river could include (see Figure 4-5): 

• Widen and resurface with aggregate the existing road to 18-feet between the end of the 

existing road improvements and the lower area 

• Improve and resurface with aggregate the existing loop road and create a consistent 12-

foot road 

• Construct three parking areas 

• Plant trees around the site 

• Develop 7 primitive camping/picnic sites around the loop and access roads 

• Develop picnic areas including picnic tables 

• Construct two boat ramps at existing launch sites 

• Install a double vault toilet 

• Install gates and placement of boulders to restrict vehicular access to approved areas 

Estimated cost: 

• $462,000 

The Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) uses the existing roads and access point to 

stock fish in the Teton River. Improvements to the existing access roads would improve IDFG’s 

access. Additionally, while not purely a transportation improvement, it has been proposed that 

a portion of the existing ponds could be modified to provide a fishing area stocked by IDFG. The 

improvements could include improving shoreline access by creating a path on both sides of the 

pond, installing fish screens and constructing a fishing pier. 

4.4 Campground Option B on Rim 

Another option for a campground is to build it on the rim, near the road that goes to the shaft 

house river outlet works. Since the campsites are located closer to the former administration 

site, there is greater potential to provide water and electricity. Improvements to the rim area 

could include (see Figure 4-6): 

• Develop 7 camping sites 

• Resurface the portion of road that accesses campsites 

• Install three gates and place boulders to restrict access to the shaft house river outlet 

works and other areas where public use is prohibited 

Estimated cost: 

• $267,000 


32 

4.5 North Side 

On the north side of the river, to help restrict access to the abandoned spillway, improvements 

could include (see Figure 4-7): 

• Install a gate, boulders and “Road Closed” sign 

Estimated cost: 

• $9,000 

4.6 Northeast Boat Ramp 

An existing road provides access to agricultural pumps located at the northeast end of the 

project area. It has also been used as a boat take-out. Improvements in the area could include 

(see Figure 4-8): 

• Recondition and resurface 12-foot wide road for approximately 2,600 linear feet 

• Construct approximately 16,700 square foot parking area with five parking spaces and 

landscape buffers for traffic control 

• Construct a boat ramp at an existing informal boat take-out area 

• Develop picnic areas 

• Plant trees 

• Add signage 

Estimated cost: 

• $236,000 

4.7 Sign Map 

The sign map (see Figure 4-9) shows where signs could be placed that are not included in the 

other improvement areas. It could include: 

• Two-sided Teton Dam Recreation Area sign at intersection of Highway 33 and Teton 

Dam Road 

• Informational and directional signage on Teton Dam Road near the split between the 

overlook site and the road to the lower area 

• Directional signage on the road to the lower area 

Estimated cost: 

• $62,400 



36 

5 Funding options 

This section is a summary of potential funding options that Reclamation or other entities could 

consider for transportation or recreational improvements. 

5.1 Federal Lands Access Program 

Description: 

The Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) was established in 23 U.S.C. 204 to improve transportation 

facilities that provide access to, are adjacent to, or are located within Federal lands. The Access 

Program supplements State and local resources for public roads, transit systems, and other 

transportation facilities, with an emphasis on high-use recreation sites and economic generators. 

The Program is designed to provide flexibility for a wide range of transportation projects in the 50 

States, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. 

The Access Program is funded by contract authority from the Highway Trust Fund and subject to 

obligation limitation. Funds will be allocated among the States using a statutory formula based on 

road mileage, number of bridges, land area, and visitation. 

Projects are selected by a Programming Decision Committee (PDC) established in each State. The 

PDCs request project applications through a call for projects. The frequency of the calls is established 

by the PDCs. 

https://flh.fhwa.dot.gov/programs/flap/ 

Considerations: 

 The next call for projects in Idaho likely opens January 2021. 

 Idaho FLAP Funding Allocation by Fiscal Year: $14,748,474.00. Local Match is 7.34% 

 A proposed construction project will need to compete against all other FLAP applications in 

the state of Idaho. The application process is competitive and the applicant will need to 

prepare a high-quality application that explains why a particular project should be funded.

 The project applications are rated based on criteria as described in the application packet (the 

2019 Request for Proposals is attached in Appendix F as an example):

o Safety - Improvement of the Transportation Network for the safety of its users.

o Preservation - Improvement of the transportation infrastructure for economy of 

operation and maintenance.

o Recreation and Economic – Development/utilization of Federal Land and resources.

o Mobility - Continuity of the transportation network serving the Federal Land and its 

dependent communities.

o Sustainability and Environmental Quality - Protection and enhancement of the rural 

environment associated with the Federal Land and its resources. 

 Address these criteria fully and relevantly to score highly.
37 

 Clearly define the problems or needs that require being addressed, and propose a project that 

fully addresses those needs.

 Accurate and/or justifiable usage counts will support the application.

 The financial ask should be commensurate with the usage and conditions requiring relief 

(need). For example, a project with high federal lands related usage can request and obtain 

funding for a larger amount (multi-million dollar projects), but projects with lower usage 

numbers are more likely to be funded if they request smaller amounts.

5.2 Federal Lands Transportation Program 

Description:

The Federal Lands Transportation Program (FLTP) was established in 23 U.S.C. 203 to improve the 

transportation infrastructure owned and maintained by the following Federal Lands Management 

Agencies: National Park Service (NPS), US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), USDA Forest Service (Forest 

Service), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Bureau of 

Reclamation and independent Federal agencies with land and natural resource management 

responsibilities. 

The program focuses on improving Federal lands transportation facilities (FLTFs) that are located on, 

adjacent to, or provide access to Federal lands. The FLTFs must be owned and maintained by the 

Federal government and must be included in the national FLTF inventory. 

The FLMAs have considerable responsibility and latitude for managing their program within the FLTP. 

The FHWA, however, is ultimately responsible for ensuring the program is administered according to 

the statutory and implementing regulations for title 23, United States Code. This includes conformity 

to highway planning, design, construction, maintenance, and safety standards. 

The use of FLTP funds does not affect the overall responsibility for construction, maintenance, and 

operations of the facilities. That responsibility continues to lie with the owner of the facility. 

https://flh.fhwa.dot.gov/programs/fltp/ 

Considerations: 

 The FLTP funding levels for the fiscal years (FYs) authorized in the FAST Act are reflected in the 

table below. On average, the program increased by about 18 percent compared to the MAP21 

level in FY 2015. By statute, the NPS, FWS and USFS receive annual allocations identified in 

the legislation while the Secretary decides the allocation amounts for the BLM, BOR, USACE, 

and eligible independent Federal agencies based on their applications. Note that the BOR 

funding levels are national, so FLTP funds are limited and competition for the funds is high. 
38 

FY2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total

NPS $268M $276M $284M $292M $300M $1.420B

FWS $30M $30M $30M $30M $30M $150M

USFS $15M $16M $17M $18M $19M $85M

BLM, BOR, 

USACE, and 

eligible 

Federal 

Independent 

Agencies 

$22M $23M $24M $25M $26M $120M

Total $335M $345M $355M $365M $375M $1.775B

 The Federal share for FLTP projects is 100%. In addition, 23 U.S.C. 120(k) allows FLTP funds to 

be used to pay the non-Federal share of the cost of any project that is funded under title 23 

or chapter 53 of title 49, U.S.C., and that provides access to or within Federal or tribal land. 

https://flh.fhwa.dot.gov/programs/fltp/documents/FLTP%20Guidance%20-%20CLEARED.pdf 

 Options that access BOR land would be eligible to use FLTP funds as the local match. 

5.3 Transportation Alternatives/Surface Transportation 

Block Grant 

Note: Only non-motorized activities are eligible for Transportation Alternatives Block Grants. 

Description:

The FAST Act eliminates the MAP-21 Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) and replaces it with a 

set-aside of Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) program funding for transportation 

alternatives (TA). These set-aside funds include all projects and activities that were previously eligible 

under TAP, encompassing a variety of smaller-scale transportation projects such as pedestrian and 

bicycle facilities, recreational trails, safe routes to school projects, community improvements such as 

historic preservation and vegetation management, and environmental mitigation related to 

stormwater and habitat connectivity. 

TA is funded under the FAST Act § 1109; 23 U.S.C. 133(h) as a contract authority from the Highway 

Account of the Highway Trust Fund, subject to the overall Federal-aid obligation limitation. The FAST 

Act directs the Secretary to set aside, for TA, an amount from each State’s STBG apportionment, such 

that— 
39 

 The State receives a share of the national total TA funding that is determined by multiplying 

the amount of the national total TA funding by the ratio that the amount of FY 2009 

transportation enhancements (TE) funding to the State bears to the total amount of TE funds 

apportioned to all States in FY 2009; and 

 The national total for TA is $835 million per year for FYs 2016 and 2017 and $850 million in 

FYs 2018-2020. 

As under TAP, the FAST Act requires all TA projects to be funded through a competitive process. 

Eligible applicants include all entities that were eligible to apply for TAP funds. The FAST Act also 

allows nonprofit entities responsible for the administration of local transportation safety programs to 

apply. 

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/fastact/factsheets/transportationalternativesfs.cfm 

The TA program is administered by the State of Idaho Transportation Department Headquarters in 

compliance with the FAST Act. The funding is distributed into three programs: Recreational Trails 

Program (RTP), Transportation Management Area (TMA), and State Allocated (Urban, rural, and 

anywhere). Idaho has a competitive selection process. 

Local governments, tribal governments, regional transportation authorities, transit agencies, 

natural resource or public land agencies, schools, any local or regional government entity with 

responsibility or oversight of transportation, are eligible to apply. 

For more information see the ITD Transportation Alternatives website: 

https://itd.idaho.gov/alt-programs/ 

Considerations: 

 ITD has a 2020 call for projects. The website states: 

o Applicants must participate in a Pre-Application Coordination Meeting with the 

District or LHTAC TAP Coordinator prior to the Mid-Application Screening. 

o Applicants must submit a draft application to TAP@itd.idaho.gov for a MidApplication Screening with the District or LHTAC Coordinator on or before 

November 8, 2019. 

o Applicants must submit a final application to TAP@itd.idaho.gov with the District 

or LHTAC Coordinator on or before February 2, 2020. 

o All Infrastructure project applications received after Mid-Application Screening 

will not be considered. 

o Current District/LHTAC contact for District 6 (Lemhi, Custer, Butte, Jefferson, 

Clark, Fremont, Madison, Teton, and Bonneville counties): 

 Mark Layton, 206 N. Yellowstone Highway, PO Box 97, Rigby, 83442. P 

(208) 745-5626. mark.layton@itd.idaho.gov

 Project award maximum is $500,000 
40 

 Typical local match is 7.34%. The state does not accept in-kind match. The match must be 

included in the application and detailed in the state/local agreement. 

 According to the ITD website, at a minimum application requirements include: 

o Commitment to completing the design and committing to be construction-ready on 

time. 

o Ability to provide a local cash-only match of 7.34%. In kind matching is not eligible for 

this program. 

o Projects that have secured necessary right-of-way. 

o Projects that have Environmental requirements that do not exceed Categorical 

Exclusion. 

 Application tips from the ITD website: To demonstrate need, an applicant must identify the 

goals or opportunities the project will address. To demonstrate benefits, an applicant should 

identify how their project addresses mobility, safety, and/or economic opportunity. To 

demonstrate feasibility, the applicant should provide evidence that the project has 

stakeholder support, project sustainability, financial commitment, and technical feasibility. 

 Link to an example completed Transportation Alternatives application with “tips for success” 

provided by ITD: 

https://itd.idaho.gov/alt-programs/

 Link to FHWA Federal Aid A Guide To Federal-Aid Programs And Projects: 

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/federalaid/projects.cfm 

5.4 Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation Grants and 

Funding 

Description:

The Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation provides a variety of funding programs and grants to 

government entities in Idaho for the provision of equipment and for the creation and renovation of 

outdoor recreational facilities, including: 

 RV Fund (approximately $4.5 million annually): 

o The purpose of the RV fund is the acquisition, lease, development, improvement, 

operations and maintenance of facilities and services designed to promote the health, 

safety and enjoyment of recreational vehicle users.

o Could be used at a parking lot if RV use is desired.

o Unless purchasing equipment, no minimum match is required. Motorized equipment 

requires a 50% match on items valued at $1,000 - $50,000 per unit.

 WIF (approximately $1.2 million annually): 

o Shall be used for the protection and promotion of safety, waterways improvement, 

creation and improvement of parking areas for boating purposes, making and 

improving boat ramps and moorings, marking of waterways, search and rescue and all 

things incident to such purposes including the purchase of real and personal property.

o Could be used for boat launch areas on the site.
41 

o Unless purchasing equipment, no minimum match is required. Motorized equipment 

valued at less than $50,000 requires a 25% match. Motorized equipment valued at 

$50,000 or more require a 20% match.

 ORMV Fund (approximately $500,000 annually): 

o The purposes for which moneys in the account may be used is to acquire, purchase, 

improve, repair, maintain, furnish, and equip off-road motor vehicle facilities and sites 

or areas used by offroad vehicles on public or private land, and to assist with the 

enforcement of laws and regulations governing the use of offroad vehicles in the State 

of Idaho. 

o Unless purchasing equipment, no minimum match is required. Motorized equipment 

requires a 50% match on items valued at $1,000 - $50,000 per unit.

 Road & Bridge Fund (approximately $250,000 annually):

o Shall be used solely to develop, construct, maintain and repair roads, bridges and 

parking areas within and leading to parks and recreation areas of the state. 

o No minimum match is required. 

 Specialty Plate Fund – Cutthroat Plate (no annual amount indicated): 

o A portion of the registration fee for each specialty plate is deposited in a fund to be 

used for the construction and maintenance of non-motorized boating access facilities 

for anglers. 

o May be able to apply to angling access facilities. 

o Match details not indicated. 

 LWCF (no annual amount indicated): 

o IDPR grants are available for up to 50% of the cost to acquire and/or develop land, 

which is to be used for public outdoor recreation uses. Acquisition of less than fee 

interest, such as easements and development rights, will be considered in the same 

manner as simple fee acquisition subject to the following conditions: 

 The interest cannot be revocable; 

 The value can be supported through standard appraisal techniques; 

 Recreation can be demonstrated as the primary purpose of the acquisition. 

o Acquisition of leases is not eligible. 

o Projects must address outdoor recreation needs as outlined in the current Statewide 

Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation and Tourism Plan (SCORTP) to be eligible. 

o Project sponsors must provide, as matching share, the balance of a project’s cost (at 

least 50%). Project sponsors share can be local funds, state funds, force account or 

donation of privately owned lands. 

o State grants may be used as the sponsor’s matching share. However, the grant must 

be approved prior to being listed as a source of financing the project in the 

application. The sponsor may obligate city funds to the grant in the application and 

then change this obligation once a grant is approved during the project. 

o This is a reimbursement program. Sponsors will be required to initially finance 100% of 

the project. 
42 

 On projects of less than $100,000 ($50,000 matching share) the project 

sponsor must assume the full cost of the project of which 50% will be 

reimbursed. 

 For projects with a total cost of more than $100,000 ($50,000 matching share) 

partial reimbursements may be negotiated prior to the signing of the project 

agreement. 

For more information: 

https://parksandrecreation.idaho.gov/grants-and-funding 

FY2021 Grant Manual and Application: 

https://parksandrecreation.idaho.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/FY%202021%20Recreational%20Gr

ant%20Program%20Guidance.pdf

Considerations: 

 Important dates:

o Summer 2019 – Contact IDPR for field review. 

o September 2019 – Announce grant workshops/availability of funds. 

o October 2019 – Conduct grant workshops throughout the state. 

o December 2019 – IDPR preliminary review of draft applications. 

o January 31, 2020 – All applications must be submitted in the electronic system. 

Applications received after the deadline are automatically ineligible to compete for 

funding. The electronic system will close and you will be unable to submit 

applications after this deadline. 

o February 2020 – IDPR staff review applications for eligibility and distribute to 

respective advisory committee members. 

o March 2020– Advisory committee evaluates and rates applications. 

o May 2020 – IDPR Park Board approves grants for award. 

o June 2020 – Applicants contacted. 

o After July 15, 2020 – State funding available. 
43 

6 Conclusion 

This study evaluated the Teton Dam site to gain a better understanding of Reclamation and 

other stakeholders’ goals, objectives, constraints, and opportunities. A thorough analysis of 

applicable data from Reclamation, FHWA, Madison and Fremont County and other resources 

was conducted to identify an initial set of improvements that would address the operational 

characteristics, safety, and physical condition concerns of the existing facilities. This evaluation 

led to a set of improvement options to be considered by appropriate project sponsors moving 

forward. From an implementation standpoint, it may be desirable to improve the site 

incrementally. 

The ability to develop a project is dependent on the availability of existing and future funding. 

At the current time, funding has not been identified to proceed with a project. Should 

Reclamation and/or other interested parties elect to proceed with a project, the following steps 

are needed: 

 Identify the improvements and phasing that best meets the safety, environmental, and 

social needs in the area identified in the study; 

 Identify and secure a funding source or sources; and 

 Follow appropriate guidelines for project nomination and development, including a 

public involvement process and environmental documentation that describes potential 

impacts and mitigation measures from the proposed action. 

Any future project should be consistent with the needs and objectives contained in this study. 

Should this study lead to a project (or projects), compliance with appropriate funding and 

environmental regulations will be required. The information presented in this report can serve 

as a baseline for future project development and to apply for funding support. 
44 

7 References 

Census American Community Survey 2018 1-year estimate and 2017 5-year estimate: 

https://data.census.gov/cedsci/ 

Accessed October 2019. 

Reclamation website - Teton Dam history: 

https://www.usbr.gov/pn/snakeriver/dams/uppersnake/teton/index.html 

Accessed October 2019 

Reclamation public safety press release: 

https://www.usbr.gov/newsroom/newsrelease/detail.cfm?RecordID=62118 

Accessed October 2019. 

Henrys Fork Basin Study Final Report. Bureau of Reclamation. January 2015. 

Teton River Canyon Resource Management Plan. Bureau of Reclamation. December 2006.

(This page intentionally left blank) 







(This page intentionally left blank) 

(This page intentionally left blank) 

(This page intentionally left blank) 
IPaC resource list

This report is an automatically generated list of species and other resources such as critical habitat 

(collectively referred to as trust resources) under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) 

jurisdiction that are known or expected to be on or near the project area referenced below. The list 

may also include trust resources that occur outside of the project area, but that could potentially be 

directly or indirectly affected by activities in the project area. However, determining the likelihood and 

Local office

Idaho Fish And Wildlife Office

 (208) 378-5243

Ɠ (208) 378-5262

1387 South Vinnell Way, Suite 368

Boise, ID 83709-1657

IPaC Information for Planning and Consultation U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

IPaC: Explore Location Page 1 of 9

https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/R3Y57PDZFJEZREQZPGRPWASJ4I/resources 10/18/2019
Endangered species

This resource list is for informational purposes only and does not constitute an analysis of project 

level impacts.

The primary information used to generate this list is the known or expected range of each species. 

Additional areas of influence (AOI) for species are also considered. An AOI includes areas outside of the 

species range if the species could be indirectly affected by activities in that area (e.g., placing a dam 

upstream of a fish population, even if that fish does not occur at the dam site, may indirectly impact 

the species by reducing or eliminating water flow downstream). Because species can move, and site 

conditions can change, the species on this list are not guaranteed to be found on or near the project 

. 

1. Species listed under the Endangered Species Act are threatened or endangered; IPaC also shows 

species that are candidates, or proposed, for listing. See the listing status page for more 

information. 

2. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce. 

The following species are potentially affected by activities in this location:

IPaC: Explore Location Page 2 of 9

https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/R3Y57PDZFJEZREQZPGRPWASJ4I/resources 10/18/2019
Mammals

Birds

NAME STATUS

North American Wolverine Gulo gulo luscus

No critical habitat has been designated for this species. 

https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5123

Proposed Threatened 

NAME STATUS

Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus Threatened 

and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act .

Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to migratory 

birds, eagles, and their habitats should follow appropriate regulations and consider implementing 

appropriate conservation measures, as described below. 

1. The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918.

2. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940.

Additional information can be found using the following links:

• Birds of Conservation Concern http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/managed-species/

birds-of-conservation-concern.php

1 2

IPaC: Explore Location Page 3 of 9

https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/R3Y57PDZFJEZREQZPGRPWASJ4I/resources 10/18/2019
The birds listed below are birds of particular concern either because they occur on the USFWS Birds of 

Conservation Concern (BCC) list or warrant special attention in your project location. To learn more 

about the levels of concern for birds on your list and how this list is generated, see the FAQ below. This 

is not a list of every bird you may find in this location, nor a guarantee that every bird on this list will be 

found in your project area. To see exact locations of where birders and the general public have sighted 

E- tool

• Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds 

http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/project-assessment-tools-and-guidance/

conservation-measures.php

• Nationwide conservation measures for birds 

http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/pdf/management/nationwidestandardconservationmeasures.pdf

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus

This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but 

warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential 

susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or 

activities.

https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1626

Breeds Dec 1 to Aug 31 

Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos

This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird 

Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA

https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1680

Breeds Dec 1 to Aug 31 

IPaC: Explore Location Page 4 of 9

https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/R3Y57PDZFJEZREQZPGRPWASJ4I/resources 10/18/2019
Probability of Presence Summary

The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be 

present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project activities 

to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read and understand the FAQ “Proper 

Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report” before using or attempting to interpret this 

To see a bar's probability of presence score, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.

Breeding Season ( ) 

Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time-frame inside which the bird breeds across its 

entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your project area. 

Survey Effort ( ) 

Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of surveys 

performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. The number of surveys is 

expressed as a range, for example, 33 to 64 surveys. 

To see a bar's survey effort range, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar. 

No Data ( ) 

A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week. 

Sage Thrasher Oreoscoptes montanus

This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird 

Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA

https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9433

Breeds Apr 15 to Aug 10 

IPaC: Explore Location Page 5 of 9

https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/R3Y57PDZFJEZREQZPGRPWASJ4I/resources 10/18/2019
probability of presence breeding season survey effort no data

Survey Timeframe

Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant 

information. The exception to this is areas off the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are based on all 

years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse. 

SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

Bald Eagle

Non-BCC Vulnerable

(This is not a Bird of 

Conservation Concern 

(BCC) in this area, but 

warrants attention 

advisable depending on the type of activity you are conducting and the type of infrastructure or bird species present 

on your project site. 

What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location?

The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) and other species that 

may warrant special attention in your project location. 

The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network 

(AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets and is queried 

and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects, 

and that have been identified as warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle 

(Eagle Act requirements may apply), or a species that has a particular vulnerability to offshore activities or 

development. 

IPaC: Explore Location Page 6 of 9

https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/R3Y57PDZFJEZREQZPGRPWASJ4I/resources 10/18/2019
Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your project area. It is not 

representative of all birds that may occur in your project area. To get a list of all birds potentially present in your 

project area, please visit the AKN Phenology Tool. 

What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs for the migratory birds potentially occurring in 

my specified location?

The probability of presence graphs associated with your migratory bird list are based on data provided by the Avian 

Knowledge Network (AKN). This data is derived from a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science 

datasets . 

Probability of presence data is continuously being updated as new and better information becomes available. To learn 

more about how the probability of presence graphs are produced and how to interpret them, go the Probability of 

Presence Summary and then click on the "Tell me about these graphs" link. 

Details about birds that are potentially affected by offshore projects

For additional details about the relative occurrence and abundance of both individual bird species and groups of bird 

species within your project area off the Atlantic Coast, please visit the Northeast Ocean Data Portal. The Portal also 

offers data and information about other taxa besides birds that may be helpful to you in your project review. 

Alternately, you may download the bird model results files underlying the portal maps through the NOAA NCCOS 

Integrative Statistical Modeling and Predictive Mapping of Marine Bird Distributions and Abundance on the Atlantic 

Outer Continental Shelf project webpage. 

Bird tracking data can also provide additional details about occurrence and habitat use throughout the year, including 

migration. Models relying on survey data may not include this information. For additional information on marine bird 

tracking data, see the Diving Bird Study and the nanotag studies or contact Caleb Spiegel or Pam Loring. 

What if I have eagles on my list?

IPaC: Explore Location Page 7 of 9

https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/R3Y57PDZFJEZREQZPGRPWASJ4I/resources 10/18/2019
If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid violating the Eagle 

Act should such impacts occur. 

Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report

The migratory bird list generated is not a list of all birds in your project area, only a subset of birds of priority concern. 

To learn more about how your list is generated, and see options for identifying what other birds may be in your project 

area, please see the FAQ “What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified 

location”. Please be aware this report provides the “probability of presence” of birds within the 10 km grid cell(s) that 

overlap your project; not your exact project footprint. On the graphs provided, please also look carefully at the survey 

effort (indicated by the black vertical bar) and for the existence of the “no data” indicator (a red horizontal bar). A high 

survey effort is the key component. If the survey effort is high, then the probability of presence score can be viewed as 

more dependable. In contrast, a low survey effort bar or no data bar means a lack of data and, therefore, a lack of 

THERE ARE NO FISH HATCHERIES AT THIS LOCATION.

Wetlands in the National Wetlands Inventory

Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation under Section 404 of 

the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes. 

For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

District. 

IPaC: Explore Location Page 8 of 9

https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/R3Y57PDZFJEZREQZPGRPWASJ4I/resources 10/18/2019
Please note that the NWI data being shown may be out of date. We are currently working to update our 

NWI data set. We recommend you verify these results with a site visit to determine the actual extent of 

wetlands on site. 

This location overlaps the following wetlands:

deepwater reef communities (coral or tuberficid worm reefs) have also been excluded from the inventory. These 

habitats, because of their depth, go undetected by aerial imagery. 

Data precautions

Federal, state, and local regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands may define and describe wetlands in a 

different manner than that used in this inventory. There is no attempt, in either the design or products of this 

inventory, to define the limits of proprietary jurisdiction of any Federal, state, or local government or to establish the 

geographical scope of the regulatory programs of government agencies. Persons intending to engage in activities 

involving modifications within or adjacent to wetland areas should seek the advice of appropriate federal, state, or 

local agencies concerning specified agency regulatory programs and proprietary jurisdictions that may affect such 

activities. 

FRESHWATER EMERGENT WETLAND

PEM1A

FRESHWATER POND

PUBHh

RIVERINE

IPaC: Explore Location Page 9 of 9

https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/R3Y57PDZFJEZREQZPGRPWASJ4I/resources 10/18/2019
(This page intentionally left blank) 

(This page intentionally left blank) 
Teton Dam Site Wetl

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Servi

wetlands_team@fws.gov

Wetlands

Estuarine and Marine Deepwater

Estuarine and Marine Wetland

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland

Freshwater Pond

Lake

Other

Riverine

October 18, 2019

0 0.4 0.8 0.2 mi

0 0.7 1.4 0.35 km

1:25,491

This map is for ge

Service is not resp

base data shown o

be used in accorda

Wetlands Mapper 
(This page intentionally left blank) 

(This page intentionally left blank) 



(This page intentionally left blank) 
Western Federal Lands Highway Division

 610 E. Fifth Street

 Vancouver, WA 98661

 Phone 360-619-7700

Fax 360-619-7846

Page 1 of 6 

 In Reply Refer to: HFL-17 

 

Federal Land Management Agencies 

Idaho Transportation Department 

Regional, County & Local Governments 

Tribal Governments 

Greetings: 

2019 Request for Proposals 

Idaho Federal Lands Access Program 

The Western Federal Lands Highway Division (WFLHD) of the Federal Highway 

Administration is soliciting for capital improvement, enhancement, transit, planning, and 

research proposals to receive funds through the Idaho Federal Lands Program in fiscal years 

2022, 2023, and 2024. Proposal awards will be contingent upon availability of funds. 

What is the purpose of the Federal Lands Access Program? 

The purpose of the Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) is to provide safe and adequate 

transportation access to and through Federal Lands for visitors, recreationists, and resource users. 

Where can proposals be located? 

Proposals must be located on Federal Lands Access Transportation Facilities. Federal Lands 

Access Transportation Facilities means a public highway, road, bridge, trail or transit system that 

is located on, is adjacent to, or provides access to Federal lands for which title or maintenance 

responsibility is vested in a state, county, town, township, tribal, municipal, or local government. 

Maintenance means the preservation of the entire roadway surface, shoulders, roadside ditches, 

drainage structures, bridges, and traffic control devices necessary for safe and efficient 

operations. Vested maintenance responsibility means that the majority of the cost for these 

activities is borne by the state, county, town, township, tribal, municipal, or local government. 

Who may apply? 

All proposals must be submitted jointly by the Federal Land Management Agency(ies) whose 

lands are accessed and the entity with title or vested maintenance responsibility (State, county, 

town, township, tribal, municipal or local government) for the Federal Lands Access 

Transportation Facility. Early coordination between the appropriate FLMA and 

state/county/local/tribal government is encouraged to ensure adequate time for thorough review 

and input before the submittal due date. 

January 10, 2019 
Page 2 of 6 

Proposals must be signed by the appropriate following agency officials: 

Federal Agency Signing Official 

National Park Service Park Superintendent 

US Forest Service Forest Supervisor

US Fish & Wildlife Service Refuge/Hatchery Supervisor

Bureau of Land Management Field Manager

Bureau of Reclamation Area Manager

US Army Corp of Engineers Operations Project Manager

Department of Defense Installation Commander 

Local Agency Signing Official 

Idaho Transportation Department District Engineer

County Commissioner

Highway District Commissioner

City, Town Mayor

Tribe Tribal Chair

Transit District District Manager/Director

Proposals that do not have the signatures that are listed above will not be eligible for 

consideration. If the Federal Land Management Agency was not listed above and/or you have 

any questions regarding the appropriateness of the signing official, please contact Kristin Austin 

(see contact info below). 

What types of proposals will be considered? 

Proposals will be accepted for the following: 

Capital Improvements- These proposals include rehabilitation, restoration, construction, 

and reconstruction of roads and bridges. This includes improvements such as 

safety improvements, widening, realignments, surfacing that adds structural 

capacity including gravel surfacing, culverts, signing, guardrail, walls and 

associated roadway appurtenances. 

Enhancements- These proposals are road and trail related improvements such as 

interpretative signing, kiosks, viewpoints, adjacent vehicular parking areas, 

roadside rest areas (including sanitary and water facilities), provisions for 

pedestrians and bicycles, acquisition of scenic easement and scenic or historic 

sites, trailheads, trails, and improvements that improve public safety and reduce 

vehicle-wildlife mortality while maintaining habitat connectivity. 

Transit- These proposals include construction of transit facilities and limited duration 

operation/maintenance of transit services and facilities (including vehicles). 

Planning- These proposals include engineering studies, corridor management planning, 

bicycle/pedestrian planning and alternative transportation planning that will 

provide valuable information for future FLAP proposals. 

 
Page 3 of 6 

Research- These proposals include evaluating solutions that enhance access, safety or 

sustainability. They address issues such as wildlife-vehicle collision avoidance 

measures, context sensitive roadside safety features, and congestion management 

strategies. Research must be broad-based and applicable to multiple Federal 

Lands Management Agencies. 

Safety Only- These proposals only include one or more of the following: traffic control 

signalization; maintaining minimum levels of retroreflectivity of highway sign or 

pavement marking; traffic circles/roundabouts; safety rest areas; pavement 

marking; shoulder and centerline rumble strips and stripes; commuter carpooling 

and vanpooling; rail-highway crossing closure; installation of traffic signs, traffic 

lights, guardrails, impact attenuators, concrete barrier end treatments, breakaway 

utility poles; priority control systems for emergency vehicles or transit vehicles at 

signalized intersection. 

While the Idaho Programming Decision Committee supports preventative maintenance activities, 

these activities do not align with the new direction for the use of FLAP program 

funds. Applicants are discouraged from submitting preventative maintenance only type projects 

in this call. 

Proposals should also be consistent with a statewide, regional, county, local, or tribal 

transportation plan and a Federal Land Management Plan. Proposals that are specifically 

identified in a transportation plan will receive additional consideration. 

What size proposal will be considered? 

The Idaho Federal Lands Access Program is currently estimated to receive about $15 million 

annually. Proposals requesting between $100,000 and $10,000,000 will be considered for the 

2019 Request for Proposals. A proposal may request more than $10,000,000 if the project 

cannot be subdivided into smaller phases. 

The best available data should be used in developing the initial cost estimate. Typically, if 

project construction costs exceed the originally approved program amount by more than 10%, 

the proposal proponents will be responsible to provide the additional funds. For assistance with 

unit costs, below is a link to the Idaho Transportation website for their average unit price reports: 

  http://itd.idaho.gov/business/

Are matching funds required? 

The program requires matching funds of 7.34% of the total proposal costs for Capital 

Improvement, Enhancement, Transit, Planning, and Research proposals. Safety Only proposals 

may request up to 100% FLAP funding. Applicants may also provide additional funds to 

contribute to the project. Because of limited FLAP funding, proposals will receive additional 

consideration when funding is leveraged from other sources. 

Typically, the preliminary engineering phase (planning, engineering, NEPA, etc...) of a project 

will require a cash match. Right-of-way, construction, and other phases of the project may use 

cash and/or “in-kind matches” such as donated property, materials, and services subject to 

WFLHD approval. Funds authorized under the Tribal Transportation Program and the Federal 

Lands Transportation Program as well as other Federal funds not authorized under Title 23 or 49 
Page 4 of 6 

may also be used to satisfy the match. Match must be mutually acceptable to both WFLHD and 

the proposal applicants. Additional information regarding match may be found at the following 

website: 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/policy/fedaid_guidance_nfmr.htm

http://lhtac.org/programs/lrhip

How do I submit a proposal? 

The best available data should be used in completing the project proposal forms. Maps and 

photos should be included to support the proposal. Maps should include project locations, project 

limits or termini, high use federal recreation sites, federal economic generators, and most 

importantly, show the Federal Lands accessed by the proposal. Letters of support from other 

entities may also be included. 

Email the completed proposal form with all required signatures, maps, photos and any letters of 

support to: 

 WFL.CallForProjects@dot.gov 

The proposal must be received by April 5, 2019. The entire proposal packet (the proposal form, 

signature pages, maps, photos, and any letters of support) should not exceed 10 megabytes in file 

size and must not exceed 30 pages. 

Copies of this letter, evaluation criteria, proposal instruction checklist, proposal form, joint 

endorsement form, and webinar announcement can be downloaded from the following website. 

 http://flh.fhwa.dot.gov/programs/flap/id/

How will the proposals be evaluated? 

A Technical Advisory Group (TAG) will review the proposals according to the following 

evaluation criteria (see attached for additional details): Safety, Asset Improvement, 

Recreation/Economic, Mobility, Sustainability/Environmental Quality, and Readiness/Support. 

Preference shall be given to proposals that provide access to high-use federal recreation sites or 

federal economic generators, as identified by the Federal Land Management Agency. 

The TAG will be facilitated by the WFLHD and include representatives from the from the Idaho 

Transportation Department, Local Highway Technical Assistance Council, U.S. Forest Service, 

National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, U.S Army 

Corp of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, and the Military Surface Deployment and 

Distribution Command (DOD). 

The TAG may request additional information during the evaluation process. Proponents should 

be ready to provide documentation that substantiates, clarifies or appends any information 

provided in the proposals. 
Page 5 of 6 

How will a final decision be made on the proposals? 

The Program Decision Committee (PDC) made up of representatives from WFLHD, Idaho 

Transportation Department, Local Highway Technical Assistance Council, will make a final 

decision on the proposals. The PDC will make these decisions based on the evaluation criteria 

and recommendations of the TAG. The PDC will also coordinate with the Federal Land 

Management Agencies prior to making a final decision. 

The TAG should complete initial proposal evaluations by June 2019. Field visits are tentatively 

scheduled for June-July of 2019. Final recommendations of the TAG and PDC final decisions on 

the proposals are currently scheduled for October 2019. 

Who will be the lead agency for project delivery? 

The lead agency for project delivery will usually be the WFLHD. Project delivery consists of 

federal environmental compliance, design, construction contract advertisement, and construction 

contract administration. However, the lead agency and participating agencies roles will be 

considered during proposal evaluation. Decisions regarding lead and participating agency roles 

will be based on the type of project, project complexity, and how the work is proposed to be 

delivered. The TAG may approach the project applicants during proposal evaluation to discuss 

project delivery. The WFLHD will still be responsible for stewardship and oversight of the 

project to assure compliance with federal requirements. 

What if I have questions? 

In conjunction with this request for proposals, WFLHD will conduct an informational webinar 

on January 16, 2019. This webinar will provide information to potential applicants on the FLAP, 

eligibility, evaluation criteria, how to submit proposals, and helpful hints for filling out proposal 

forms. See the attached webinar announcement for details. 

In the meantime, if you have questions you can contact Kristin Austin or the FLAP coordinator 

for your agency. 

 
Page 6 of 6 

Agency Contact Phone Email Address 

Federal Highway 

Administration 

Kristin Austin (360) 619-7625 Kristin.austin@dot.gov 

Idaho Transportation 

Department 

Randy Gill (208) 334-8591 randy.gill@itd.idaho.gov 

Local Highway 

Technical Assistance 

Council 

Dan Coonce (208) 344-0565 dcoonce@lhtac.org 

US Forest Service, 

Region 1 

Brenda 

Christensen

(406) 329-3351 bchristensen@fs.fed.us 

US Forest Service, 

Region 4 

Justin Humble (801) 625-5412 jhumble@fs.fed.us 

National Park Service Justin De 

Santis 

(415) 623-2278 Justin_DeSantis@nps.gov 

Bureau of Land 

Management 

Cynthia 

Kowalczyk

(208) 373-3952 ckowalczyk@blm.gov 

US Fish & Wildlife 

Service 

Eric Bergey (503) 736-4713 eric_bergey@fws.gov 

US Army Corp of 

Engineers 

Matthew 

Walker

(208) 343-0671 Matthew.T.Walker@usace.army.mil 

Bureau of Reclamation Eve Skillman (208) 378-5357 eskillman@usbr.gov 

Department of Defense Douglas E. 

Briggs 

(618) 220-5229 douglas.e.briggs.civ@mail.mil 

Additional information, guidance, and FAQs regarding the Federal Lands Access Program may 

also be found at the following website: 

 http://flh.fhwa.dot.gov/programs/flap/

Sincerely yours, 

Kristin Austin 

Idaho FLAP Program Manager 

Enclosures: 

Proposal Evaluation Criteria 

Proposal Instruction Checklist 

Webinar Announcement 

Proposal Form 

Joint Endorsement Form 

KRISTIN A 

AUSTIN

Digitally signed by 

KRISTIN A AUSTIN 

Date: 2019.01.10 

08:21:46 -08'00'
2019 Request for Proposals 

Idaho Federal Lands Access Program 

Proposal Instruction Checklist 

 Download the Request for Proposal packet and the proposal form from the following 

website: 

http://flh.fhwa.dot.gov/programs/flap/id/

 Initiate coordination between the federal land agency and the State/County/Local/Tribal 

government. The proposal should be completed jointly by Federal Land Manager and the 

State/County/Local/Tribal government. 

 Complete the proposal form with the best available data. Provide thorough, realistic and 

concise responses to questions. “Not Applicable” is an acceptable response if appropriate. 

Include any assumptions. 

 Develop a map that includes project locations, proposal termini, high use federal 

recreation sites, federal economic generators, and most importantly, show the Federal 

Lands that the proposal accesses, is adjacent to or is on. 

 The proposal must be signed by the appropriate federal agency official AND the 

appropriate local agency official listed below. Proposals that DO NOT have the 

appropriate signatures will NOT be eligible for consideration. 

Federal Agency Signing Official 

National Park Service Park Superintendent 

US Forest Service Forest Supervisor

US Fish & Wildlife Service Refuge/Hatchery Supervisor

Bureau of Land Management Field Manager

Bureau of Reclamation Area Manager

US Army Corp of Engineers Operations Project Manager

Department of Defense Installation Commander 

Local Agency Signing Official 

Idaho Transportation Department District Engineer

County Commissioner

Highway District Commissioner

City, Town Mayor

Tribe Tribal Chair

Transit District District Manager/Director

 The entire proposal packet (the proposal form, signature pages, maps, photos, and any 

letters of support) should not exceed 10 megabytes in file size and the total page length 

must not exceed 30 pages. 

 E-mail your completed application package to: 

WFL.CallForProjects@dot.gov 

 Proposals must be received by April 5, 2019 to be considered. Submit the proposal early, 

if possible, to avoid unexpected issues.
Webinar Announcement

2019 Request for Proposals

Idaho Federal Lands Access Program

In conjunction with the 2019 request for proposals for the Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP)

in Idaho, the Western Federal Lands Highway Division of the Federal Highway Administration

will be conducting an informational webinar.

This webinar will provide information to potential applicants to the Idaho FLAP. Topics that will

be covered include: Overview of the FLAP program, eligibility, schedule/due dates for the

request for proposals, the application process, evaluation criteria, and helpful hints for filling

out applications. Plenty of time will be allocated for questions.

Date

January 16, 2019 at 10 AM MST.

Duration

1.5 hours.

Registration

Registration is not necessary – anyone can join.

Location

https://connectdot.connectsolutions.com/idflap2019/

Log In Information

Select the option for “Enter as a Guest”

Type your name in the box provided

Click the button “Enter Room”

Audio Details

Conference Number: 888Ͳ273Ͳ3658

Participant Code: 6414784
2019 Proposal Evaluation Criteria 

Idaho Federal Lands Access Program

Max 

Pts Scores

1. Safety 

 Improvement of the Transportation Network for the safety of its users. 

25

a) Improves identified fatality and serious injury sites 0-20

b) Improves other identified crash types (less than serious injury) 0-12

c) Improves identified hazardous conditions other than crash sites 0-10

d) Improves safety for a wide range of users 0-10

e) Utilizes data-driven safety analysis tools to predict the safety impacts of highway projects (if applicable) 0-5

2. Asset Improvement 

 Improvement of the Transportation Network. 20

a) Improves condition factor of one or more elements of bridge or culvert within National Bridge Inventory System (NBIS) 0-10

b) Improves structural capacity and surface condition, which extends the useful life of the asset 0-10

c) Included in a paved or unpaved surface management system 0-5

3. Recreation and Economic 

 Development, utilization, protection, and administration of the Federal Lands and its resources. (Show on map) 20

a) Federal high-use recreation site or High Use or High Economic Impact 

 Federal economic generator: Medium Use Medium Impact 

 (Scale by categories for each FLMA) Low Use Low Impact

5-10 

3-5 

0-3

b) Federal Land area accessed: Over 100,000 acres 

 25,000 - 100,000 acres 

 Under 25,000

5-10 

3-5 

0-3

c) Supports community economic goals/needs 0-5

4. Mobility 

 Mobility of users and continuity of the transportation network serving the Federal Lands and its dependent 

 communities.

15

a) Need identified in transportation plan, Federal Land Management Agency (FLMA) Plan, State plan, or County 

 Comprehensive plan, or route is connected to a designated route on the FLMA inventory for the Federal Lands 

 Transportation Program (FLTP)

0-10

b) Fills missing link in network, removes travel restriction, bottleneck, size/load limit, supports federal land related freight 0-10

c) Sole access to area or major traffic generator (destination, resource extraction) 0-5

d) Reduces travel time and congestion, increases comfort and convenience or improves mode choices 0-5

5. Sustainability and Environmental Quality 

 Protection and enhancement of the environment associated with the Federal Lands and its resources. 10

a) Supports or advances environmental goals of the FLMA and/or Local Agency 0-2

b) Enhances wildlife connectivity or aquatic organism passage 0-2

c) Enhances water quality, riparian function, wetlands function 0-2

d) Uses design, materials or techniques that will exceed the minimum environmental requirements or mitigates an 

 existing environmental problem in the area 0-2

e) Contributes to improved environmental quality (i.e. GHG reductions) and reduces VMT 0-2

6. Readiness and Support 

 Project readiness, local support, financial support, capacity, and project delivery. 

10

a) Project Support, agency priorities and previous federal investment 0-10

b) Applicant's share of project costs, type of funds, availability of funds and certainty of funds 0-10

c) Project readiness, project delivery schedule (environmental compliance, design ROW) 0-10

Total Available Points 100
Page 1 of 8

 2019 Idaho Federal Lands Access Program 

(To be completed jointly by Federal Land Manager and State/County/Local/Tribal Government)

Project Name

Route Name/Number

Federal Land(s) Accessed (Show on Map)

Agency (ies) with Title to Road, Bridge, 

Trail or Transit System

Agency (ies) with Title to Enhancement 

Facility

Agency (ies) with Maintenance 

Responsibility for Road, Bridge, Trail or 

Transit System

Agency (ies) with Maintenance 

Responsibility for Enhancement Facility

Type of Proposal

Capital Improvements Planning

Enhancement Research

Transit Safety Only

Key Items of Work 

(check all that apply)

Paving

Road Base or Surface Course

Safety Enhancements

Bridges

Ancillary Parking Areas, Pullouts/Interpretive Sites Major Drainage Improvements

Roadside Safety Structures

Major Culverts

Planning Study

Earthwork Major Concrete Structures

Bicycle/Pedestrian Facilities

Transit Facilities or Operations

Other (specify)

Proposed Work Summary

Primary Visitor Destinations 

(Show on Map)

High Use Federal Recreation Sites and/

or Federal Economic Generators 

(Show on Map) 

Proposal ID #: 

(For WFL Use Only) ID-FY19-

Project 

Termini 

(Location)

Mile Posts Latitude (Decimal Degrees) Longitude (Decimal Degrees)

Begin

End

Nearest Town Fed Congressional District

Estimated Total Project Costs

Funds Requested from Federal Lands 

Access Program

Project Length (miles) County

Required Local Match (7.34%) From

Other Funding Contributions to Project From
Page 2 of 8

Acres of Federal Land Accessed by the Project

Functional 

Classification 

of the Roadway 

(Show official 

designations of route)

National Highway System

Arterial

Major Collector

Minor Collector

Local Road

Traffic Volumes Current 

 Actual Counts | Estimated

20 Year 

Projections 

Basis for Projections? 

(e.g. Transportation Plan, 

population growth rate...)

Start of 

Project

End of 

Project

Start of 

Project

End of 

Project

Start of 

Project

End of 

Project

Average Daily Traffic 

(ADT) on Highway

Seasonal Average Daily 

Traffic (peak season) 

(SADT) on Highway

% Trucks

% Federal Land Related

Comments

NBI Structure 

Number

Dimensions 

(Overall Length 

x Width)

Bridge Type No. of 

Spans

NBIS Sufficiently 

Rating (1-100)

+ -

Problem Statement: What purpose does this transportation facility serve? What is the need for this project? Who will this project serve 

(such as skiers, communities, hikers...)? What are the conditions requiring relief? Describe the consequences if these conditions are not 

addressed. Describe physical and functional deficiencies, anticipated changes in use, safety problems, capacity issues, bridge deficiencies, 

pavement or surface conditions, etc.

Detailed Description of Proposed Capital Improvement or Enhancement: Describe how the proposed project will address the 

problem. Describe the overall design concept, scope of work, any unusual design elements, design or operational standards, and any 

work affecting structures (bridges and major culverts). Include widths, surfacing type, surfacing depth, earthwork needs, roadside safety 

features, ancillary parking areas, signing improvements, bridge work, guardrail improvements, etc. Include optimum year work should be 

done and year work needs to be done no later than.

Detailed Description of Proposed Transit Service: Provide operational details of the proposed service. What are specific destinations 

the route will serve? Is the service year-round or seasonal? What are the operating dates/service hours/day of week? Describe transit 

route details, including miles, number of stops, and variability in service operations. Describe any marketing, way finding, or other 

information that will be disseminated to promote service.

Detailed Description of Proposed Planning: Describe the details of this planning and the final product that will be developed. Would 

this planning effort support projects that could be submitted under future Federal Lands Access Program requests for proposals?
Page 3 of 8

Detailed Description of Proposed Research: Describe the type of research and the final product for this effort. Describe the need for the 

research and how this research enhances safety, access or stainability. 

Right-of-Way Acquisition: Describe which agency (agencies) has title for the project and how that title is documented. Describe which 

agency (agencies) has maintenance responsibilities for the project. Does new ROW need to be acquired? If so, how much, how many 

owners, and what is the anticipated time (months) to acquire all needed ROW? How does the applicant plan to acquire the ROW? Will 

coordination with any railroads be needed? What is your agency's experience acquiring ROW for federally-funded or assisted projects?

Utilities: Identify utilities in the roadway corridor or project site. Would relocation be needed? What agreements exist and who pays for 

relocation costs?

Project is identified within the following (Check all that apply and show plan name)

System Transportation Plan

Federal Land Management Plan

Regional Transportation Plan

County Transportation System Plan

Tribal Transportation Plan

Would the proposal require modification 

or amendments to any of these plans?

Which of the following environmental and social issues are within the project area?

Yes No Unknown Comments

Wetlands

Threatened & endangered Species

Other Fish & Wildlife Habitat

Wildlife Movement Corridors

Wild & Scenic River

Non-Attainment Air Quality Areas

Cultural/Archeological/Historic Sites

Public Parks

Wildlife Refuge

Hazardous Materials

Stream Encroachments
Page 4 of 8

Describe any other environmental or social issues that should be considered that are within the project area: Is the route included 

in an area receiving special management considerations for water quality, wildlife security, connectivity?

Describe the range of attitudes, both support and opposition, that this proposed project may receive from organizations, the 

public and within your own agency: State the basis for this supposition and include coordination efforts and public involvement efforts 

completed to date. Will this proposal be your agency's priority and will staff resources be dedicated to assure completion?

The lead agency for project delivery: The lead agency for project delivery will usually be the WFLHD. Project delivery consists of federal 

environmental compliance, design, construction contract advertisement, and construction contract administration. However the lead 

agency and participating agencies roles will be considered during proposal evaluation. Decisions regarding lead and participating agency 

roles will be based on the type of project, project complexity, and how the work is proposed to be delivered. The TAG may approach the 

project applicants during proposal evaluation to discuss project delivery. The WFLHD will still be responsible for stewardship and 

oversight of the project to assure compliance with federal requirements. 

**Transit Supplemental Questions: For Transit Proposals only, please answer the following: If transit service is currently being provided 

to this Federal Land Management Agency unit or service has been provided in the past, please provide details about service parameters, 

ridership, cost per passenger, and any other pertinent information. What revenue will be collected to support the service? Describe fare 

pricing, discounts, pass programs, etc. Provide number, type, and age of current fleet. What is the daily number of riders estimated 

currently and/or at project completion? Describe how the proposed transit service will be financially sustainable with current and future 

sources of funding. 

**Research Supplemental Questions: For Research Proposals only, please answer the following: Please provide details on how this 

research is broad-based and not narrowly focused on a localized problem. Provide specific examples showing how this research product 

can be used across multiple agencies. 
Page 5 of 8

Cost Estimate for Capital Improvements and Enhancement Projects 

Fill-in estimates for appropriate items. Add items as needed. Use Current Unit Prices.

Quantity Item Unit Price Unit Total

Clearing and Grubbing Acres

Roadway Excavation Cubic Yards

Imported Borrow Cubic Yards

Sub-Excavation Cubic Yards

Water / Dust Abatement Gallons

Recycled Asphalt (milling, pulverizing, ripping) Square Yards

Asphalt concrete pavement Tons

Aggregate Base (may include stabilization) Cubic Yards

Aggregate Sub-Base Cubic Yards

Major Culverts Each

Minor Culverts Each

Retaining Walls Square Feet

Rip Rap & Slope Protection Cubic Yards

Revegetation Acres

Signing Square Feet

Pavement Marking Linear Feet

Roadside Safety (barriers, guardrail) Linear Feet

Bridges Square Feet

Traffic Control Lump Sum

Utility Relocation Lump Sum

 Use table on the next page for additional items.

Sub-Total

Mobilization (As percentage of Sub-Total) Typically 10%, input 

estimated percentage in decimal form. For example: 0.10 Lump Sum

Contingencies(As percentage of Sub-Total)Typically 30%, input 

estimated percentage in decimal form. For example: 0.30 Lump Sum

Total Estimated Construction Cost

Estimated Preliminary Engineering Costs 

(As a percentage of the Total Estimated Construction Cost) 

Typically 5 to 25 percent, depending upon project scope and complexity. 

Input estimated percentage in decimal form. For example: 0.15

Estimated Right of Way Acres

Total Estimated Preliminary Engineering Costs 

Estimated Construction Engineering Costs 

(As a percentage of the Total Estimated Construction Cost) 

Typically 5 to 20 percent, depending upon project scope and complexity. 

Input estimated percentage in decimal form. For example: 0.10

Estimated Construction Engineering Costs 

Total Project Costs
Page 6 of 8

Cost Estimate for Capital Improvements and Enhancement Projects (Cont.) 

Add items as needed. Use Current Unit Prices.

Quantity Item Unit Price Unit Total

+ -

Sub-Total

Comments:

Cost Estimate for Transit Projects 

Add items as needed. Use Current Unit Prices.

Quantity Item Unit Price Unit Total

+ -

Total Project Costs 

Comments:

Cost Estimate for Planning and Research Projects 

Add items as needed. Use Current Unit Prices.

Quantity Item Unit Price Unit Total

+ -

Total Project Costs 

Comments:

Required Local Contribution to Project: Describe the type and source of funds to provide the required 7.34% local match. Describe any 

soft match, in-kind match, or eligible Federal funds that will be used to satisfy the match requirement.

Other Contributions to the Project: Describe any additional contributions secured or being sought to implement the project proposal. 

Does this opportunity possibly leverage other funds?
Page 7 of 8

How does the project relate to the following evaluation criteria?

 

1. SAFETY 

 Improvement of the Transportation Network for the safety of its users. 

 a) How many and what type of crashes have occurred on the project site in the last five years? Describe the basis for your 

 information and include reported accidents and anecdotal information. Provide crash data in tables and/or maps 

 showing accident locations. 

 b) How would the proposed project improve unsafe conditions at identified crash sites? 

 c) How does the proposed project address potentially unsafe locations with conditions such as inadequate sight distance, 

 roadside hazards, poor vertical/horizontal alignment, hazardous intersections, inadequate lane and shoulders widths, etc? 

 How does the proposed project address areas where recreation use may create traffic conflicts with local or through traffic? 

 d) How does the project address safety for a wide range of users (freight, destination motorists, touring motorists, bicyclists, 

 pedestrians, public transportation)? 

 e) What are the results/recommendations of any road safety audits conducted for the project? If applicable, have data-driven 

 safety analysis tools been used and what were the outcomes? Is the project identified in a strategic safety plan? 

 

2. ASSET IMPROVEMENT 

 Improvement of the transportation Network.

 a) If the project includes a bridge or culvert, how will the project extend the useful service life? Would the proposal improve 

 the condition factor of one or more elements of bridge or culvert within National Bridge Inventory System (NBIS)? 

 b) How will the project improve the structural capacity of the roadway and extend the useful life of the asset? 

 c) Is the roadway included in a paved or unpaved surface management system? What is the current condition to the existing 

 surfacing? If the surfacing is pavement, what is the Pavement Condition Index (PCI)? If the surface is gravel, what is the PASER 

 rating? How would the project improve the surface condition?

3. RECREATION AND ECONOMIC 

 Development and utilization of the Federal Land and its resources.

 a) Describe any high use Federal recreation sites or Federal economic generators (as determined by the Federal Land Manager) 

 that are accessed by this project. How many visitors access/use the site annually? How does the project enhance access to 

 these sites? How does the proposal improve the visitor experience? 

 b) Which Federal Lands are accessed by this project? How much Federal Land (acres) is accessed by the project? If multiple 

 Federal Lands are accessed, itemize acreage by agency. 

 Enhancement of economic development at the local, regional, or national level, including tourism and recreational 

 travel. 

 Note: Direct effects of implementing the project, i.e. construction employment will not be scored.

 c) Identify the community or communities economically dependent on the network, and the elements that comprise 

 the economy (e.g. timber, tourism, etc.) How is the economy tied to the transportation network? How will the 

 proposed project improve the transportation network and support the community's economic goals/needs or 

 other economic plan? 

 d) If the proposed project is located on a designated federal, state, or county scenic byway, identify the scenic byway 

 and explain the anticipated benefit related to the byway. Would the project meet the needs identified in the Byway's 

 management plan?
Page 8 of 8

4. MOBILITY 

 Continuity of the transportation network serving the Federal Land and its dependent communities. 

 a) Is the road the sole access to the area? Will the proposed project mitigate the potential of the route closing? 

 b) How would the proposed project improve the continuity of the transportation network? Which gaps or missing links 

 would the proposed project address? What travel restrictions, bottlenecks, or size/load limits impede travel? What work 

 has been completed on adjacent sections to create route continuity? How would the proposal support federal land related 

 freight? 

 c) Does the proposed project connect to a designated route on the Federal Land Management Agency's FLTP inventory? Are 

 there any future improvements planned on the designated route? 

 d) Identify all planning documents related to this project. Is the project specifically identified in any of these plans? What is 

 the local or regional priority (high, medium, low) of the project considering the Federal Land, State or County network? 

 How does this proposal fit with the Federal Land Management Plan? How does the proposal fit with the county 

 comprehensive plan? How does the proposal fit with any Transportation System Plans or Corridor Plans? 

 What are the consequences to the transportation system of not addressing these needs? 

 Mobility of the users of the transportation network and the goods and services provided.

 e) How would the proposed improvements reduce travel time and congestion, increase comfort and convenience for the 

 federal land user? 

 f) How would the proposed project improve the choices for alternative modes of travel (pedestrian, bike, bus, or rail)? Would 

 the proposed project make any ADA improvements? 

 g) What are the major traffic generators within the Federal Land for this route?

5. SUSTAINABILITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 

 Protection and enhancement of the rural environment associated with the Federal Land and its 

 resources. 

 Note: It is assumed all projects will be constructed in accordance with all environmental regulations.

 If applicable, describe how the project: 

 a) Contributes to the environmental goals and objectives of the Federal Land Management Agency and/or other applicable 

 land management plans. 

 b) Enhances wildlife connectivity, wildlife habitat and/or aquatic organism passage. 

 c) Enhances water quality, riparian and/or wetland function. 

 d) Uses design, materials or techniques that would exceed the minimum environmental requirements and/or mitigates an 

 existing environmental problem. 

 e) Promotes sustainable practices (e.g. reduces greenhouse gas or vehicle miles traveled).

6. READINESS AND SUPPORT 

 Project readiness, local support, financial support, capacity and project delivery. 

 a) List project support, describe how funding this proposal fits with agency priorities and describe the previous federal 

 investment, if known. 

 b) Describe the applicant's share of project costs, type of funds, availability of funds and certainty of funds. 

 c) Describe the project readiness, and the preferred project delivery schedule (with the knowledge that construction funding 

 for project will be programmed in an out-year).
2019 Idaho Federal Lands Access Program 

JOINT ENDORSEMENT - This project is supported and endorsed by 

(add agency endorsements as needed)

Project Name

Federal Land Agency (ies)

Federal Land Unit Manager's Name

Title

Electronic Signature

Date

Email Address

Telephone

Point of Contact

Title

Email Address

Telephone

State, County, Local, or Tribal 

Government

Agency Official's Name

Title

Electronic Signature

Date

Email Address

Telephone

Point of Contact

Title

Email Address

Telephone

***Signatures (electronic signatures are acceptable) are required for BOTH the Federal Land Management Agency being accessed and the State, County, Local or 

Tribal Government.