1 / 38

Trinity River Restoration Program

Trinity River Restoration Program. Proposed Program of Work and Draft Budget for FY 2005 Presented to: Trinity Adaptive Management Working Group June 15, 2004. Purpose of Today’s Meeting. Describe FY05 budget process to date Outline next steps and schedule

sarila
Download Presentation

Trinity River Restoration Program

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Trinity River Restoration Program Proposed Program of Work and Draft Budget for FY 2005 Presented to: Trinity Adaptive Management Working Group June 15, 2004

  2. Purpose of Today’s Meeting • Describe FY05 budget process to date • Outline next steps and schedule • Review current priorities: TMC, Staff • Relate to Subcommittee recommendations * *(not all are budget-related)

  3. Purpose of Today’s Meeting • Summarize key budget elements • Identify multi-year commitments • Highlight areas of concern or differences • Solicit ideas and recommendations

  4. FY05 Budget Process to Date • President’s FY05 Budget - February • AEAM Staff Work - April-May • Review FY04 program of work • Consider Subcommittee recommendations • Identify initial priorities for FY05 • 1st B-Team meeting – May 27 • TMC and TAMWG representatives

  5. Next Steps and Schedule • 2nd B-Team meeting – June 18 • Complete staff revisions – June 16-22 • Mail revised (balanced) draft – June 22 • Present to TMC – June 30

  6. TAMWG Involvement • Provide informal feedback (today) • Submit formal recommendation to TMC • Participate in B-Team meeting June 18 • Attend June 29-30 TMC meeting

  7. TMC Direction* • Complete SEIS • Emphasize Science Program • Accelerate Rehab Site Implementation • Improve Subgroup Organization • Expect Increased TMC Oversight • Develop Staffing Based on Workload • Develop Options and Tradeoffs *(not all are budget-related)

  8. Subcommittee Recommendations • Emphasize Science Program • Continue Science Framework • Conceptual models, monitoring plan, database • Plan and implement Sept./Dec. workshops • Engage SAB in program activities • Assist in TMAG Branch Chief outreach/interviews • Participate in Science Framework • Evaluate Program’s progress annually • Participate in technical workgroup symposia • Review selected tasks, e.g., rehab site baseline

  9. Subcommittee Recommendations • Emphasize Science Program • Recruit/fill current TMAG vacancies • Branch Chief, Fish Biologist (habitat) • Recruit/fill new TMAG positions • Fish Biologist (stock assessment), Physical Scientist • Implement need-based RFP process with independent review panels

  10. Subcommittee Recommendations • Accelerate Rehab Site Construction • Assume 1/4/10/9 (Phase 1 = 24) by 2008 • Recruit/fill 2nd civil engineer • Complete Canyon Creek to North Fork first • Next 10 – “top down” from Lewiston • Complete river baseline with TMAG • Seek efficiencies in current efforts • Seek regulatory relief/streamlining via TMC

  11. Staff Priorities Critical • Complete final bridge-related actions • Correct other infrastructure issues • Develop integrated mainstem baseline • Continue development of Science Framework

  12. Staff Priorities Critical • Accelerate rehab site design/construction • Simplify/streamline regulatory, realty, and planning requirements (through TMC) • Implement need-based RFP process with independent review panels

  13. Staff Priorities • Consolidate stream gaging operations • Complete coarse sediment plan • Emphasize watershed restoration planning and implementation

  14. Staff Priorities • Simplify funding process with multi-year agreements where possible • Require single consolidated proposals for multi-agency activities/studies • Identify/pursue matching funds by TMC members and other program partners

  15. Draft Budget Compared to Prior Years

  16. Total Budget by Main Category

  17. Program Administration Budget by Subcategory

  18. Program Administration • AEAM Team (Weaverville): • Salary, benefits, office operations, indirect costs for non-project specific personnel. Includes relocation costs for three new staff and office expansion/lease. • Trinity Management Council: • Salary, benefits, and indirect costs for members and technical representatives to participate in non-project specific activities. • TAMWG: • FWS administrative support; travel costs for members to participate in quarterly meetings and four subcommittee meetings per member (or alternate).

  19. Program Administration • Independent Review Committees: • Primarily Science Advisory Board costs plus RFP review panels and workshops. Increase reflects known costs vs. previous estimates. • Information Management: • Completion of Science Framework option year task for database implementation and long-term management. • Supplemental EIS/EIR: • Contract amendments and co-lead participation to complete final SEIS/EIR.

  20. Implementation Budget by Subcategory

  21. RehabilitationImplementation • Bridges and Structures: • Completion of Salt Flat and Biggers Road Bridges: Construction management and funding of anticipated contract modifications. Contract work completed in FY05. • Completion of Poker Bar Bridge and Bucktail approach road: Construction management and construction contract funding obligation left from FY04. Contract work completed in FY05. • Poker Bar Roads: Construction and construction management for 1.1 miles of private roads inundated by the ROD flows. Contract work completed in calendar year 2005.

  22. RehabilitationImplementation • Channel Restoration: • Hocker Flat: Pilot project to resolve design, revegetation, realty, FEMA, mercury issues of rehab projects. Construction completed by end of FY05. • Canyon Creek Complex: Construction of four channel rehab sites below Canyon Creek. Contract awarded late in FY05 for construction during winter of FY06. • Sites below Lewiston Dam: Initiate designs of ten rehab sites below Lewiston Dam. Contracts awarded in FY06. • Channel Rehab NEPA/CEQA: Includes all contract work for permits and environmental compliance in support of channel rehab implementation.

  23. Modeling and Analysis Budget by Subcategory

  24. Streamflow and Temperature • Stream Gaging: • Flow data (depth, velocity, streamflow) used to understand system behavior (physical and biological), verify dam releases, calibrate models, and design restoration projects. Flow data underlies and unifies all restoration activities. • Water Temperature Modeling: • Critical for managing water temperatures to maximize growth and survival of fish and wildlife. Current model needs to be compatible with Klamath River model to better understand interactions in the Lower Klamath River.

  25. Sediment Monitoring and Assessment Salmonid Population Recovery Process Linkage Sediment Geomorphology Habitat • Flux • Storage Sediment Monitoring Program Component Sediment Budget Geomorph GSTARS Watersheds • Flux • Storage • Substrate composition • Scour • Mobility • Features • Substrate composition • Scour • Mobility • Habitat Area • Yield • Composition • Effectiveness Data

  26. SedimentManagement • Sediment Budget: • Develope for the upper 19 miles to determine if ROD objectives are being met. Involves sediment transport monitoring, topographic mapping, sediment sampling, and data analysis. • Geomorphology • Geomorphic change creates physical habitat for fish and wildlife recovery, impacts riparian vegetation recruitment, and helps determine if ROD objectives of restoring 10 attributes of an alluvial river are being met. Involves mapping river form, substrate composition, plus tracking bed scour and mobility.

  27. SedimentManagement • Sediment Modeling (GSTARS): • Helps quantify sediment budget, evaluate restoration designs/effectiveness, and understand geomorphic change. Primarily a predictive tool to develop annual flow recommendations. •  Watershed Sediment Source Control: • Objectives are to encourage coarse sediment delivery while discouraging fine sediment delivery (i.e. watershed sediment source control). Includes contracts ranging from planning to implementation.

  28. Fisheries • Outmigrant monitoring: • Determine best methods to achieve desired quality of data and how this contributes to knowledge of juveniles leaving upper river and smolts emigrating from system. • Returning Adults: • Determine most effective methods to count returning adults and required temporal scale of sampling. • Hatchery Practices: • Ongoing investigations of Trinity River Hatchery methodologies to improve TRH production and learn more about hatchery – wild stock interactions.

  29. Fisheries • Fish Health: • Improve understanding of management actions and system function on both adult and juvenile fish health, including temperature tolerance studies. • Habitat Availability and Use: • Determine use and availability of suitable habitat for fry and juvenile salmonids to help evaluate success of channel rehabilitation efforts, including bank modification and flow regimes.

  30. Riparianand Wildlife • Rehab Site Revegetation, Hamilton Ponds O&M: • Ongoing mitigation requirements for bridge and rehab sites; sediment basin maintenance. • Vegetation/Geomorphic Response Mapping: • Complete mapping of riparian vegetation and geomorphic attributes of mainstem for rehab baseline. • Invasive/Non-native Plant/Animal Studies: • Address distribution and management of invasive and non-native plants/animals for mitigation at rehab sites (including noxious weeds, bullfrogs). • Avian/Herpetological Species Assessment: • Assessment needed for NEPA/CEQA impact analysis and compliance (including bat species).

  31. Riparianand Wildlife • Aquatic Macroarthropod/Salmonid Habitat Study: • Needed to establish primary bioenergetic links for entire system; directly related to quality of rearing habitat and food supply. • Satellite Imagery (pilot): • Validate vegetation map; use ICONOS satellite imagery to predict annual changes in riparian vegetation distribution in response to rehab site implementation and natural processes. • Mainstem Mercury Impact Study: • Assessment needed for NEPA/CEQA impact analysis and mitigation for rehab site design/construction.

  32. Estimate of Available Funds

  33. Cost of Report Recommendations • New Staff Positions (3) • Salary $300,000/year • Relocation $150,000 to $300,000 • Additional office space • Construction/lease in FY05 $100,000 • Lease $30,000/year thereafter Total: $700,000

  34. Cost of Report Recommendations • River Baseline Prior to Rehab Implementation • Bathymetry/topography $150,000 • Pilot LIDAR study $100,000 • Geomorphic/EHM mapping $85,000 • Substrate mapping $50,000 Total $385,000

  35. Cost of Report Recommendations • Rehab Site Design/Construction • Hocker Flat construction $450,000 • Canyon Creek NEPA/CEQA $200,000 • Canyon Creek design/construction $990,000 • Mercury impact study $120,000 • Rehab site revegetation $120,000 Total $1,880,000

  36. Generic Methods to Deal with Funding Gap • Increase funds (incl. new sources) • Across-the-board 15% reduction • Reduce scope of work for individual projects • Phase-in projects (multi-year) • No new projects • Prioritize/delete projects

  37. Examples of Program-Level Options • No new staff • Slower rate of rehab site implementation • One year moratorium on selected long-term monitoring while evaluating study designs (e.g., outmigrants, adult migration) • Lesser emphasis on sediment monitoring

  38. Questions?

More Related