[env-trinity] FW: Trinity River Budget, Trso report available

Sun Dec 4 10:31:19 PST 2011

Good morning Everyone,

I was reminded by a colleague that my report is available online:
http://odp.trrp.net/FileDatabase/Documents/Evaluation_GVC_Watershed_Activiti
es_final.pdf

The budget for this Evaluation was very limited ($25,075.00), and I did my
best with the limited resources.

To my disappointment, TRRP never contacted me to be of assistance on their
watershed restoration projects, though they had made sure to make such an
invitation to me while I worked on the Evaluation. My presence would have
helped cut their costs significantly, if I am to believe the values
presented by Mr. Stokely below!!

Please contact Andreas Krause, PE, for details about how my recommendations
may have been implemented on USBOR's restoration projects in the Upper
Trinity River watershed.

Martin Trso

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

From: Martin Trso [mailto:martintrso at sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2011 7:17 PM
To: Joshua Allen; Trinity List; Tom Stokely
Subject: RE: [env-trinity] Trinity River Budget Questions

Hi Everyone,

Seven or eight years ago I was retained by TRRP to independently evalute the
USBOR's erosion- and sediment-control programs in the Grass Valley Creek
(GVC) watershed. I was excited to work on such a program, as it provided a
wonderful opportunity to assess the potential of watershed enhancement and
restoration projects (as well as the state of our knowledge of the
rehabilitation treatments, BMPs, etc.) in central and northern California.

USBOR retained me to provide a compilation and review of the past erosion
and sediment yield programs and treatments, and evaluate their effectiveness
and cost/benefit. This work involved developing 'my own' sediment source
analysis (SSA) for the GVC watershed, and reconciling several different SSAs
which were put together by various agencies and consultants over the past
few decades. Additionally, my scope included providing recommendations to
the Trinity River Restoration Program to prioritize future
sediment-management and GVC watershed rehabilitation actions based on cost
and technical effectiveness, and suggesting the future watershed restoration
work necessary in the upper Trinity River Basin to restore the anadromous
fishery in the Trinity River.

I admit that I was surprised by the very large number, and the associated
large cost, of these GVC watershed programs, some of them starting in the
mid-1970s but majority starting around 1985, and the much, much lower
estimated cost/benefit--in terms of sediment 'saved'--compared to the
specific-program-motivating estimates. My results were presented at a small
symposium:
http://www.fws.gov/arcata/fisheries/reports/tamwg/meeting06_dec_03/05_sedime
nt_symposium_agenda.pdf

I was also surprised by large differences among the various SSAs, both in
terms of the sediment-source types and the magnitudes of their sediment
deliveries.  The SSAs also lacked a spatially-explicit detail.  Some of the
SSAs failed to report on the following major sediment sources: 1) surface
erosion and mass wasting across very large deep-seated landslides; and 2)
recent, unconsolidated valley-floor alluvial deposits.  In no way do I mean
disrespect to the USBOR-funded rehabilitation efforts, especially those by
the local RCD and NRCS, who work very hard, no doubt, on minimizing the
hillslope sediment sources across the affected tributary basins. However, it
must be said that these rehabilitation efforts were primarily motivated by
the various and not-so-accurate/detailed past SSAs. Though I recommended it,
I am not aware if newer and more accurate SSAs were conducted in the
tributary watersheds since 2004.

My report, see the reference below, was not published by BOR, but it is
referenced in these recent reports by Andreas Krause, PE, and David Gaeuman:
http://acwi.gov/sos/pubs/2ndJFIC/Contents/3D_Krause_3_1_10.pdf
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?hl=en&gbv=2&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=1717
2l25156l0l26109l30l25l0l19l19l0l531l2108l0.1.2.1.0.2l6l0&q=cache:TDDfJXPnPcU
J:http://209.207.67.215/Trinity/DocumentLibraryFiles/TM-TRRP-2008-1.pdf+mart
in+trso+grass+valley+creek&ct=clnk

Martin Trso, R.G. 2004. Trinity River Restoration Program: Evaluation of
Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration Activities. Technical report
prepared for U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 88 pages.

Feel free to email me with questions, especially those pertaining to the
costs of the various pre-2004 programs in the GVC watershed. I am sure that
USBOR could also make my report available to the public. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Martin Trso

______________
Martin Trso, PG, CPG, CPESC
Consulting Geomorphologist
Office phone (510) 848-3525
Cell phone (510) 378-4227
www.linkedin.com/in/martintrso
martintrso at sbcglobal.net

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
From: env-trinity-bounces at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us
[mailto:env-trinity-bounces at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us]On Behalf Of Joshua
Allen
Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2011 5:53 PM
To: Trinity List
Subject: Re: [env-trinity] Trinity River Budget Questions

We can agree to disagree. Though as someone studying public administration,
any organization that is admin heavy needs to be critically evaluated.
Especially if it over 15%. Taxpayer funds are being used and if used
incorrectly its just a waste of money paying salaries instead of getting
mission goals completed. A long time complaint of the program is that its a
bunch of egg-head scientists who would rather implement studies and write
expensive environmental documents instead of doing actual on the ground
work. Especially when its a program that continues doing the same thing
expecting different results.

Josh

On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 5:39 PM, lou jacobson <acaswr at yahoo.com> wrote:

  All that information should be public. Perhaps someone should put a
request in with TRRP?

  I have to disagree with Josh that an admin to total budget/implementation
is a clear indication of how properly funds are being spent. I won't argue
that it's not an important factor. I'll even agree that in some cases it can
be used as a tool to identify top heavy program design. I think the admin to
budget/implementation comparisons are important but they are only one factor
of many that should be used to judge a program. I'd like to see their scope
of work, project milestones, budget, etc..., and then see how they're
performing based on the current admin load. I don't know, they could be
pissing money down the admin stream but I don't think project
success/failure is that black and white. Some programs are inherently admin
heavy.

  Lou Jacobson

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
  From: Joshua Allen <trinityjosh at gmail.com>
  To: Tom Stokely <tstokely at att.net>; env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us
  Sent: Saturday, December 3, 2011 12:49 PM

  Subject: Re: [env-trinity] Trinity River Budget Questions

  It would also be nice to know exactly how much is being spent on
administrative overhead versus on the ground expenses. How much an
organization spends to accomplish its mission is a clear indication of how
properly funds are being spent. Just my two cents...

  Joshua Allen

  On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 9:50 AM, Tom Stokely <tstokely at att.net> wrote:

    All,

    I have had several inquiries about the $36 million figure cited in the
Redding Record Searchlight for expenditures to restore the Trinity River's
fish.  I did not make that statement and I have to assume that the $36
million is just what has been spent on the mainstem "restoration" projects,
some of which have clearly failed (filled in side channels), but the article
was not clear on that.  I'm certain that it's not total expenditures because
budgets have been $14-$15 million/year lately, so $36 million would be less
than 3 years' budgets at current levels.  I know that the "old" Trinity
River Restoration Program alone spent something like $70 million.

    My guess is that total expenditures under the Trinity River Restoration
Program, old and new, exceed $200 million.

    If somebody knows the real numbers, it would be greatly appreciated.  It
would be nice to set the record straight so that people know the magnitude
of taxpayer money spent on this important program.

    Tom Stokely
    Water Policy Analyst/Media Contact
    California Water Impact Network
    V/FAX 530-926-9727
    Cell 530-524-0315
    tstokely at att.net
    http://www.c-win.org

    _______________________________________________
    env-trinity mailing list
    env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us
    http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity

  _______________________________________________
  env-trinity mailing list
  env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us
  http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/env-trinity/attachments/20111204/cb2a12ff/attachment.html>