This material was provided to the office of Congressman Adam Schiff office from the Army Corps of Engineers, L.A. Region, on the use of federally earmarked funds for the Arroyo Seco.
FY 2002 accomplishments include the preparation of a reconnaissance study, 905(b) report, that focuses on potential federal interest to prepare a watershed management plan. The watershed management plan would include identification of future potential ecosystem restoration projects, with federal interest. Funds contributed to over 10 team member's salaries during the preparation of the 905(b) report. The team members represented various specialties. These included but are not limited to: management, plan formulation, economics, hydrology and hydraulics, geotechnical engineering, design, cost engineering, environmental engineering, real estate and survey.
FY 2003 finalized the 905(b) report and initiated the planning to scope and estimate the cost for the feasibility phase. A team of about five members completed the 905(b) report and completed the processing of report review and approval through our Division and Headquarter's offices. The team also initiated efforts to prepare a scope of work for the feasibility study.
FY 2004 at sponsor's request we reduced feasibility scope. In an effort to reduce study cost (estimated to be $3.8 million in FY2003) we reduced study scope by removing some watershed management plan components that included identification of best management practices, establishing a coordination and information sharing network and other watershed management practices. A similar team to the one that prepared the 905(b) report, about nine, was assembled to scope and re-scope the work for the feasibility study.
FY 2005 continued negotiation and coordination with sponsor to establish the scope of work for the feasibility phase to include a watershed approach that will evaluate site potential for spin-off ecosystem restoration studies. Revised estimate for study cost was $2.7 million. Finalized agreement with sponsor to prepare feasibility study and initiated study. A similar team of nine completed the feasibility re-scoping efforts and finalized the agreement to officially begin the feasibility study. The agreement was negotiated and signed on August 15, 2005 and the feasibility study was officially underway.
FY 2006 continued feasibility study efforts by holding an initial public meeting. We anticipate using remaining funds to begin efforts to define site conditions and set a baseline for future evaluation. The same team of nine began study efforts and held the first public meeting to announce the study and solicited public comments.
FY 2007 will continue study efforts to define potential project areas including potential site specific ecosystem restoration concepts. Current plan is to identify no more than six potential project areas. Careful evaluation and coordination among the varied and disparate stakeholder interests is critical in developing these potential project sites. If fully funded the team would be expanded to include other necessary specialties to prepare the baseline conditions report. There are many varied specialties necessary to adequately define the baseline condition before opportunities can be evaluated.