The Right Project Is a Moving Target: Lessons from Trinity River Restoration

In 2000 the Secretary of the Interior signed the Trinity River Mainstem Fishery Restoration Record of Decision (ROD) and authorized river flows in order to emulate natural conditions and mechanical channel rehabilitation to jump-start floodplain - regulated river interactions.  In order to put river restoration on a 40-mile reach of the Trinity, Trinity River Restoration Program (TRRP) staff has developed federal and state programmatic authorizations, yet there’s still differing opinions on what work is a priority.  The TRRP is now working to restore pre-dam alluvial river processes and salmonid habitat, but these seemingly similar objectives may not always support the same projects.  Interpretation of the “right way” to implement mechanical river restoration is changing and varied.  Within the guidelines of adaptive management, the TRRP is now implementing varied restoration concepts and monitoring the results. 

Federal court challenges have been won, state programmatic support is in place, and the TRRP is making change on a large-scale where habitat and fish population response should be measurable.  From 2005 to 2010, over twenty restoration projects were constructed, completing the first Phase of Trinity restoration. During Phase 1, approximately: $18 million in implementation funds were obligated; 11 miles of mainstem river were treated; 220 acres of floodplain and riparian zones were created; four miles of new wetted channel were constructed; 600,000 cubic yards of earth were moved; 67,500 tons of gravel were augmented; and over 2,000 pieces of large wood were installed.  However, the trade-offs between restoration of functional systems, aquatic habitat enhancement, and standard project construction requirements for environmental protection, continue to be a challenge. 

The TRRP now balances long-term beneficial restoration needs that are going to bring back fish and wildlife, with short-term legally mandated requirements.  Unfortunately the ability to meet short-term mitigation requirements can be costly, and considering limited finances, may reduce the project’s ability to obtain long-term measurable goals.  As contract specifications incorporate environmental mitigation methods during construction, the need for sensitivity, on private and public lands, continues and landowner support remains the critical piece required for TRRP success.  Management guidance must remain adaptable so that projects can move forward and evolve as implementation methods are refined based on public perception, expected outcomes, and measurement of actual cumulative impacts.