The feasibility study will build on the efforts of previous studies and programs, updating, not replicating existing watershed data. This study will include original data collection and modeling, providing the opportunity for a more accurate assessment of the existing baseline hydrologic, hydraulic, sediment and environmental conditions. Watershed restoration opportunities will be formulated and designed at a level of detail sufficient enough to evaluate system performance and recommend further action, if warranted. Feasibility-level construction evaluations and plans will not be an output of this watershed study. Separate reports (feasibility studies) will be required for projects recommended for implementation, and will be cost-shared with willing partners according to the currently accepted Corps policy.

The following is a description of the major tasks required during the feasibility study. The descriptions are intended to reflect the entire study scope, including work to be performed by the Corps, A-E services, and local sponsor in-kind services. The tasks are divided into "Subaccounts" as required by the Corps of Engineers civil works accounting system. An overview on how all the technical tasks will be integrated to formulate a watershed plan is presented first under "Plan Formulation" (Subaccount 14), with the remainder of the Subaccounts following. For a summary of study costs for each account, refer to Section VII. For a complete description and value of the local sponsor in-kind services, please refer to Section VIII.

6.14. Plan Formulation (Subaccount 14)

Plan formulation is the process of integrating and analyzing the technical data that is made available during the course of the feasibility phase. The Principles and Guidelines (P&G)(Water Resources Council, 1983), the centerpiece of Corps planning guidance, enumerates a six-step planning process that provides a conceptual planning sequence for determining the feasibility of alternative project plans. The process is also applicable to the development of a watershed management plan. The six steps follow a logical order, beginning with identifying problems and opportunities through formulation of alternative plans that may reduce problems or exploit opportunities, to comparison and eventual selection of a recommended plan that is considered to be in the federal interest.

The planning process will follow six basic steps:

(1) identification of problems and opportunities within the study area

(2) inventory, forecast, and analysis of water and related land resources within the planning area relevant to the problems and opportunities identified in the first step

(3) formulation of alternative plans (reconnaissance level)

(4) evaluation of the effects of the alternative plans

(5) comparison of alternative plans

(6) selection of a recommended plan based upon the comparison of alternative plans

The formulation of plans evolves from an iterative process, repeating one or all of the above steps as needed. At the reconnaissance level (which is the level of detail in this study) the early iterations involve problem identification and resource inventories and forecasts. If project alternatives advance to the spin-off feasibility phase, steps 4-6 become more rigorous, and include iterations involving combinations, and sizing of structural elements.

Plan formulation will ensure that the report is prepared in accordance with ER 1105-2-100, ER 5-7-1, EC 1105-2-206, EC 1105-2-208, P&G, NEPA, and other pertinent engineering, environmental, and economic guidance and regulations.

All plan formulation activities will be conducted in close coordination with the sponsor agencies. The public and interested non-sponsor agencies will be involved in public workshops and management meetings to ensure close coordination and open communication is realized throughout the study. Technical input and support for plan formulation tasks will be provided through the study results from Subaccounts #01 (Public Involvement), #03 (Social Studies), #04 (Cultural Resources), #05 (Environmental Studies), #06 (Fish & Wildlife Studies), #07 (Economic Studies), #08 (Survey and Mapping), #09 (Hydrology, Hydraulics, Sedimentation, and Groundwater), #10 (Geotechnical Investigations), #11 (Design and Cost Estimates), and #12 (Real Estate Studies). Costs for technical input and support for plan formulation tasks are included in the subaccounts listed above. Costs associated with this subaccount reflect the coordination efforts of the study manager.

Specific activities to be accomplished during the planning process are described below in greater detail:

Back to Top

14A. Defining Existing Conditions.
An updated and detailed assessment of present conditions within the Newport Bay Watershed will be made as a baseline of reference for comparison with future without- and with-project conditions and for evaluation of the impact of past human disturbance and management practices. The assessment will include a mapping and inventory of the items listed below. All of the gathered information will be entered into a geographical information system (GIS) as individual themes and/or tables.

• Surface water hydrology, including base (dry season) flows as well as flood peaks
• Channel widths, depths and condition (natural, channelized but not lined, lined with bank protection only, fully-lined open channel, underground storm drain, etc.)
• Flood-prone areas and flood-related damages
• Sediment transport conditions, areas of river aggradation and degradation, bank erosion and related damages
• Bank protection, bridges, grade-control structures, and detention basins
• Wastewater facilities including treatment plants and major conveyance lines
• Surface water quality
• Groundwater location, depth and quality, including major well locations
• Recreation facilities including parks, trail linkages, recreational facilities, golf courses, school yards, major open space, etc
• Riparian vegetation and wildlife habitat (documented by ground and aerial photography)
• Cultural resources inventory
• Existing infrastructure (roads, water mains, major electricity/gas, railroads, and landfills)
• Land development, densities, ownership, and land use patterns
• Open space, including that set aside under the NCCP.
  

14.B. Likely Future Conditions (No Action).
Future, without-project conditions will be forecast for the Bay and watershed. Time periods for future without-project forecasting will be defined during the course of the study. This condition will represent the "no-action" alternative. In terms of water quality, it will necessarily consider the likelihood of compliance with TMDL's for sediment, nutrients, toxics, and pathogens; and the associated costs.

14.C. Plan Formulation.
Objectives, opportunities, and constraints will be defined for the following Watershed Plan purposes:

Ecosystem Restoration
Sediment Management
Flood Peak/Damage Reduction
Erosion Protection
Water Supply and Re-Use
Surface & Ground Water Quality
Recreation
Education (Schools Volunteer)

14.D. Structural Components of the Watershed Management Plan.
The reconnaissance report identified eleven select locations for structural components of an overall watershed management plan. These projects, which include variations of offline detention basin/wetland complexes, and re-vegetation of buffer strips and the low flow channel, have the potential for helping to restore the health of the Bay and watershed by; (a) trapping additional sediment before it reaches the Bay, (b) removing or reducing nutrients from daily return flows and, (c) removing invasive species and restoring riparian vegetation. They can be altered or adjusted prior to the spin-off studies, based on revised opportunities identified during plan formulation. Additional sites, or different locations can be considered, but cost estimates for this study are based on investigations of eleven sites.

Recreation opportunities that compliment the restoration objective, and linkages with existing open spaces (including those under the NCCP) will be integrated where feasible.

The sites were chosen primarily based on their location in relation to known watershed problems, land availability, with input from local agencies and citizens. The site, and their expected alternatives are listed below, and locations are shown on the study map.

• Lower San Diego Creek and the San Joaquin Marsh.Nutrient reduction for low flows in San Diego Creek, in conjunction with restoration geared towards a southern California coastal wetland system.
• Lower San Diego Creek at the San Joaquin Golf Course. Nutrient reduction in San Diego Creek using constructed wetlands in the out-of-play or water hazard areas of the golf course.
• Peters Canyon Wash at Tustin Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS). Nutrient reduction in Peters Canyon Wash (the major nutrient contributor) using constructed wetlands in the out-of-play or water hazard areas in the proposed golf course.
• San Diego Creek near the "Lion Country Safari" Habitat restoration, removal of invasive species, and a potential link between coastal and inland NCCP areas.
• San Diego Creek at the Barranca Parkway Extension, including City of Irvine, and The Irvine Company's mitigation sites. Nutrient reduction for low flows in San Diego Creek, and removal of invasive species.
• Peters Canyon Wash through the Tustin Ranch Golf Course. Nutrient reduction in Peters Canyon Wash (the major nutrient contributor) using constructed wetlands in the out-of-play or water hazard areas in the golf course.
• Borrego, Canyon Wash at the El Toro MCAS Golf Course. Nutrient reduction in San Diego Creek using wetlands constructed within the existing golf course.
• Serrano Creek from Serrano Creek Community Park upstream to Portola Parkway. Detention/stream channel restoration to reduce massive channel erosion.
• Sand Canyon Wash at William Mason Park. Potential to modify existing wetlands to further treat nutrients in releases of reclaimed water from Sand Canyon Reservoir.
• Lower reaches of the Santa Ana-Delhi Channel. Potential reduction of nutrients and pollutants with constructed wetlands just upstream of the Bay, or within existing golf courses.
• Lower Bonita Canyon. Potential to reduce sediment inflows to Newport Bay from Bonita Canyon Wash.
  

In addition, the foothill and in-channel basins will be evaluated. Recommendations will be made for structural modifications, including changes to foothill basin outlets for trapping of fine sediments, and in operations and maintenance practices to improve sediment trapping capability.

Back to Top

14.E. Non-structural Components.
Alternatives may include nonstructural river management practices (or actions) to be implemented by local entities, as well as specific projects or activities for implementation in cooperation with the Corps (and other local, state and federal agencies). These may include:

• Monitoring. Opportunities to improve the current sediment and nutrient watershed monitoring program will be identified. Sites for new gauges, types of data to be collected and frequency will be recommended.
• Public Education. A plan shall be developed that establishes the framework for community and school-based participation in future watershed/Bay rehabilitation efforts, including: 1) clean-up of degraded environments; 2) curriculum guidelines for science programs involving field work, biology, botany, geomorphology, etc; 3) tree planting campaigns; 4) community fund raising for riparian corridor improvements, and 5) education campaigns for management of pet wastes.
• Infrastructure Relocations, Koodprone Land Acquisition. Identify public and private utilities within the channels that are at risk due to flooding and erosion. Evaluate cost of relocations to avoid repetitive damages and future emergency costs. Identify high-risk flood prone properties and evaluate subsequent purchase. This would reduce the number of reimbursable properties and would offer the opportunity for environmental restoration of select floodplain areas.

14.F. Reconnaissance-level Evaluation of Alternatives.
Evaluation criteria will be established and alternatives screened to eliminate those which are manifestly not technically feasible, do not meet established objectives, or-which violate physical, economic, and institutional constraints.

Alternatives passing the screening process will be evaluated according to completeness, technical feasibility, effectiveness, efficiency, acceptability, environmental effects, ability to meet objectives, and other evaluation criteria as developed during the course of the study. Conformance with Corps of Engineers guidelines will be a consideration, but will not necessarily be grounds for rejecting an alternative that otherwise fits into the overall river management philosophy provided that other agencies with interest in implementing the alternative can be identified.

Costs, benefits, and environmental outputs of each basin management alternative will be assessed at a reconnaissance level. Costs will include construction costs, land acquisition, and operation and maintenance. Environmental outputs will be measured in terms of habitat units using the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP) or other defensible scientific method. Tradeoffs between monetary and non-monetary project outputs will be evaluated.

14.G. Basin/Channel Maintenance Program.
This task will include consultations with the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the US Environmental Protection Agency, the California Fish and Game Department, and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board regarding maintenance and other regulated activities (public and private).

14.H. Recommendation of Watershed Plan.
A recommended, integrated, watershed management plan will be selected and clearly justified according to established criteria. Responsibilities will be clearly defined. Individual components of the management plan will be separable to the maximum extent possible to permit their implementation according to a timetable dictated by the abilities and resources of the responsible agencies.

The decision-making framework leading to the recommended management plan will consist of 1) early and continued close coordination between the Corps of Engineers, the local sponsors and other interested agencies, 2) development and evaluation of alternatives using an incremental and cost effectiveness approach, and 3) public involvement and stakeholder buy-in.

6.13. Study Management: Corps/Local Sponsor (Subaccount 13)

The feasibility study will be managed accordingly:

(A) The study will begin with a workshop attended by representatives from the Corps of Engineers and all local sponsors (F2 Milestone). The purpose of this workshop will be to: 1) familiarize all study participants with the scope and purpose of the study; 2) identify primary areas of concern for each of the local sponsors; 3) clarify study responsibilities and the proposed schedule; 4) identify preliminary study objectives; and, 5) discuss and approve the public and agency involvement plan developed by the Corps study manager.

(B) Existing and future without-project conditions will be evaluated by the Corps and local sponsors. A comprehensive report describing these conditions will be prepared for review by Corps and the local sponsor.

(C) A workshop (F3 Milestone), attended by representatives of the Corps and local sponsors, will be conducted after review of the baseline conditions report. The purpose of this workshop will be to: 1) discuss baseline conditions, problems and opportunities; 2) review study objectives; and, 3) identify, describe and discuss river management alternatives to be submitted by the Corps and local sponsors, and discuss the initiation of site-specific spin-off feasibility studies.

(D) A workshop (F4 Milestone) will be conducted to: 1) discuss the Project Study Plans for the watershed spin-off site specific projects; 2) the Draft Feasibility Report and the EIS/EIR. An overall river management plan will be selected from the alternatives and described in a draft report which describes the plan and the alternative evaluation that led to it.

(E) Revisions to the draft report will be made, based on discussions at the F4 conference, reviewed by the district and local sponsors and sent to Division and Headquarters for review and comment (F5 Milestone). The Corps and local sponsors will conduct "spin-off" detailed feasibility evaluations of screened alternatives.

(F) A workshop, attended by the public, the Corps and local sponsors, will be held to discuss the recommended plan and comments to the draft report (F7 Milestone). Depending upon consensus, the report and plan can be certified for adoption at this time, or certified at a later date after resolution of comments.

The six areas of emphasis described above are a general guide and can be modified as necessary by the study manager with concurrence of the local sponsors. Public input will be solicited throughout the course of the study according to the public involvement plan to be developed in the early stages of the study.

13.A. Corps Study Management
Study management includes all study, project, and program activities, in accordance with current guidelines outlined in ER 1105-2-100, ER 5-7-1, EC 5-1-48, EC 1105-2-206 and EC 1105-2-208, providing detailed information for the work done for others; establishing study Milestones; assisting the development of networks to include work activities, task schedules, critical path networks, and funding schedules; directing, monitoring, and modifying assigned work items as required and agreed upon by the Sponsor; reviewing results and reports provided by the technical support staff, correspondence; report preparation and review; inter-organization coordination; and conference preparation and presentation. Coordination with the Project Manager involves periodic meetings held with the Sponsors to report on technical issues and the status of the study and in-kind services. Study Management Team meetings will be held on a quarterly basis or more frequently if necessary.

The Planning Study Manager will provide direction to all members of the technical study team, and briefings to the Newport Bay Watershed Executive Committee (NBWEC). The Planning Study Manager will ensure that all required tasks and team communications are performed, resulting in the production of a high-quality Feasibility Report document. Technical coordination and inter-disciplinary planning are the responsibilities of the Planning Study Manager. This will include monitoring the scope and progress of the activities of the study to ensure that the study is consistent with all relevant planning and engineering guidelines and policy. Deviations of the scope that affect schedule and cost will be immediately coordinated with the NBWEC.

The Planning Study Manager will coordinate with the Newport Bay Watershed Management Committee (NBWMC), which currently includes: Orange County, cities within the watershed, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Corps, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), the Coastal Conservancy, water districts, and several special interest groups. The committee should also include representatives from all financial and in-kind contributors to the cost-shared feasibility study. The Study Manager and the Committee will meet on a quarterly basis to discuss study progress and direction, data collection/analyzes and information needs, local community concerns, in-kind deliverables, Corps and A/E contractor deliverables, product acceptance, and financial commitments. In the event that a critical issue shall arise and agreement by the NBWMC for resolution cannot be reached, a formal consultation with the NBWEC shall be scheduled.

Back to Top

13.B. U.B. Sponsor Study Management
A manager will be assigned by each of the participating sponsors to ensure communications, in-kind work, and funding requirements are made in a timely, quality manner. The manager(s) will participate in the monthly NBWMC meetings, public workshops, hearings, and briefings as needed.

13.C. Executive Committee
The Newport Bay Watershed Executive Committee (NBWEC) will include the individuals identified in the Feasibility Cost Sharing Agreement (FCSA). The NBWEC has final authority for resolving study issues and modifying the study agreement and scope of services as described in the PSP. The NBWEC is usually comprised of high-level department managers or appointees. One or two representatives per cost-sharing agency. They will meet on an as-needed basis, at a minimum of (4) times during the course of the twenty-rune month study (milestones F 1, 3, 4, 9). All major deviations to the schedule, cost, and scope of the approved PSP must be approved by the NBWEC.

6.1. Coordination and Public Involvement (Subaccount 01)

This task will include public meetings, workshops, hearings, and briefings, as well as the preparation and distribution of fact sheets and information papers to interested parties and local news agencies. A Newport Bay watershed website will be developed as a central repository for electronic information. A draft of all information to be provided to the public, or placed on the website, will be reviewed by the Study Manager. Responsibility for all public involvement will be shared equally between the Corps and local sponsors.

The goals of this task are: 1) promote understanding of the planning process, and to a lesser extent, the design and construction processes in terms of potential projects; 2) obtain public input regarding problems, opportunities, constraints, alternatives, outputs, impacts, and costs; and 3) coordinate the Newport Bay watershed planning effort with the efforts of other Federal, state, and local agencies.

Direct input and cooperation with interested agencies (other than the County of Orange) will include, but is not limited to:

	California Fish and Game Department	City of Costa Mesa
	California Resources Agency	City of Orange
	California Department of Water Resources	City of Santa Ana
	California Regional Water Quality Control Board	City of Newport Beach
	United States Fish and Wildlife Service	City of Tustin
	United States Environmental Protection Agency	Tustin MCAS
	United States Geological Survey	El Toro MCAS
	Federal Emergency Management Agency	Coastal Conservancy
	United States Resource Conservation Service	Caltrans
	United States Bureau of Land Management	Watershed Management Committee
	City of Irvine	The Irvine Company
	City of Lake Forest	Irvine Ranch Water District

The end product of the Coordination and Public Involvement Task will be to summarize the information obtained from the following subtasks into a Public Involvement section to the final feasibility report.

01.A. Public Involvement Plan.
The Corps Study Manager, in cooperation with the lead study manager for Orange County, will provide participating sponsors with guidelines to define the objectives of the program. Public involvement techniques will be decided and a study schedule with specific milestones will be incorporated into a Public Involvement Plan. During the formulation of the Public Involvement Plan, the number and types of meetings, workshops, and newsletters will be determined. A mailing list will be updated to include all potentially interested parties. Strategies to maximize public outreach will be developed.

01.B. Initial Public Workshop (F2 Milestone).
An initial public meeting will be held early in the feasibility schedule to serve to introduce the study to interested parties. Scoping issues, concerns, and opportunities will be discussed. The following will be required:

• Public meeting facility (50+persons)
• Professional facilitator
• Audio/visual equipment
• Meeting announcement/advertising
• Presentation materials/handouts
• Record of meeting/follow-up mailing to interested parties

01.C Additional Study Progress Briefings.
The Newport Bay Watershed Management Committee meetings will be held on a monthly basis, and will be used to brief the public on the status of the watershed study efforts. Additional informal public workshops may be held during the course of the study to report technical findings and solicit public input into the formulation of the watershed framework plan.

01.D. Website and Newsletters.
All interested parties will continue to be informed of the progress of the study through periodic news releases and newsletters (01.D.2). A Newport Bay watershed website will be established under the existing Orange County homepage as a repository for electronic copies of documents, newsletters, and links to related websites or homepages (01.D.1). Prior to the Final Public Meeting, the Draft Feasibility Report will be released for review and comment by the public.

01.E. Watershed Education.
This task will include a public awareness and education program targeting elementary schools within the watershed. Opportunities to link communities with school programs and public/private partnerships for restoring and monitoring the health of watershed and bay ecosystems will be evaluated. These opportunities include the use of the website to be constructed for this study, field trips for students and parents, and guest speakers.

01.F. Final Public Meeting (F7 Milestone).
A Final Public Meeting will be held to present the findings of the Draft Feasibility Report. Direct input from the public will be obtained for incorporation into the Final Report. Similar logistical requirements as Item 01.B above, with the addition of a professional recorder and preparation of hearing transcripts.

Back to Top

6.2. Institutional Studies (Subaccount 02)

The Institutional Studies Task involves determining the financial and legal arrangements required to implement the recommended plans, including methods of financing the projects and operating and maintaining existing projects in a manner that will ensure long term restoration of the watershed and Bay ecosystem. A financial capability analysis will examine whether or not the Sponsor(s) have the organizational, legal, and financial capability to undertake the required financial obligations for implementing and maintaining the project(s) after it is authorized for construction by Congress. The financing plan will determine the Federal, state and local interests in the financing and maintenance of elements of the recommended watershed plan. The information obtained from the following subtasks will be provided in a financial, legal, and cost recovery analysis section of the feasibility report.

02.A. Financial Analysis and Planning.
This subtask will begin with a review of the current financial agreements in place for operation and maintenance of water resource related infrastructure, including an assessment of long term local financial interest and capability. Cost sharing, alternative repayment options for any incidental project purposes, and other financial options will be defined. Financial discussions will be coordinated between the Sponsors, other interested agencies, and the public. The collected data will be evaluated, and a financial capability analysis will be performed. The analysis consists of plan development, evaluation, optimization, and selection of a recommended plan that is consistent with local desires and maximizes the opportunity for leveraging local, state and federal funding for long term requirements. A draft and final financial and cost recovery section of the feasibility report will be prepared. Interim status reports will be developed and fully coordinated with local, state and federal agencies during the course of the study. An authorized, local committee representing all legal entities will work closely with the Corps in the analysis, documentation, and drafting of this sub-report.

02.B Water Rights, Regulations, and Legal Considerations.
Research will be conducted into water rights for surface and groundwater in the study area, to determine the potential for use of water at the ecosystem restoration sites identified in the watershed study. Potential alternatives involving groundwater, treated wastewater, and surface water will be reviewed for compliance with local, state, and federal water quality regulations and water rights issues. There is a wealth of existing information that can be obtained from the Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD), other special districts, and local Orange County cities that already employ extensive water reclamation programs. This task should build on existing data and identify gaps that need to be filled.

02.C. Legal Responsibility for Remediation by Other Parties.
EC 1105-2-2 10, par. 6(c), prohibits the Corps of Engineers from participating in ecosystem restoration activities that would principally result in treatment of pollution problems caused by others who may still have a legal responsibility for remediation. District counsel will prepare a determination of potential liability for the remediation for present and past owners for project sites that appear to have federal interest for implementation and which may be impaired with pollution problems.

6.3. Social Studies (Subaccount 03)

The existing sociological, economic, and demographic conditions for the Newport Bay watershed will be documented for the final report. Information should reflect the results of the 1990 census.

6.4. Cultural Resources Studies (Subaccount 04)

The Cultural Resources Studies Task will be conducted in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, 36 CFR 800 "Protection of Historic Properties," and
Corps Engineering Regulation 1105-2-100. This task will determine the impacts of alternative projects on historical, architectural, and archaeological resources within the various project areas.

Sufficient archival surveys will be conducted to identify and map cultural sites within new environmental restoration and/or sediment control sites' Area of Potential Effect (APE) and will evaluate the eligibility of all cultural sites for the National Register of Historic Places. The APE should include only the reaches and areas directly impacted by structural or nonstructural project alternatives. As a starting point, the literature and data search of known sites will be conducted along the major tributaries of the watershed.

The end product of this task is a detailed report that describes all cultural resources within the APE and assesses the potential impact of each project alternative on these resources. The report will also describe the potential range of preservation or mitigation efforts and the associated costs of these studies. The findings of this task will be documented in an Environmental Studies Appendix to the feasibility report. The cultural resource sites will be added to the GIs database developed for the study.