proposition o final project concept report machado...

Proposition O Final Project Concept Report

Machado Lake Ecosystem Rehabilitation Project December 13, 2006

Prepared for: City of Los Angeles

Department of Public Works Bureau of Sanitation,

Watershed Protection Division

Prepared by:

A 523 West 6th Street, Suite 400

Los Angeles, CA 90014

i

Contents

Executive Summary .............................................................................................. ES-1 ES.1 Project Overview.................................................................................. ES-1 ES.2 Project Summary .................................................................................. ES-4 ES.3 Project Costs.......................................................................................... ES-4 ES.4 Project Implementation Schedule ...................................................... ES-4

Section 1 Introduction .................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 Project Objectives ....................................................................................1-1 1.2 Overview of Project ................................................................................1-2

1.2 Overview of Project ................................................................................1-2

Section 2 Existing Project Site Characteristics......................................... 2-1 2.1 Land Use and Jurisdictional Boundaries .............................................2-1

2.1.1 Community Plan and Zoning ................................................2-2 2.2 Current Environmental Setting.............................................................2-4

2.2.1 Hydrology/Flooding...............................................................2-5 2.2.2 Geology and Hydrogeology...................................................2-8 2.2.3 Biology.......................................................................................2-9 2.2.4 Recreations and Open Space ................................................2-15 2.2.5 Environmental Studies..........................................................2-16

Section 3 Description of Proposed Project ............................................... 3-1 3.1 Overview of Proposed Project...............................................................3-1

3.1.1 Machado Lake ..........................................................................3-2 3.1.1.1 Sediment Removal from Machado Lake ..........3-2 3.1.1.2 In-Lake Sediment Basins.....................................3-4 3.1.1.3 Habitat Improvements.........................................3-4 3.1.1.4 Dispersion of Flow from Wilmington Drain ....3-4 3.1.1.5 Storm Drain Inlet Improvements .......................3-5 3.1.1.6 Aeration System. ..................................................3-7 3.1.1.7 Installation of an Outlet Device and Spillway for

the Dam..................................................................3-7 3.1.2 Freshwater Marsh ....................................................................3-8 3.1.2.1 Trash Capture Devices.........................................3-8 3.1.2.2 Low Flow Channel ...............................................3-9 3.1.2.3 Vegetated Basins...................................................3-9 3.2.1.4 Figueroa Drain Flow Improvements ...............3-10 3.1.2.5 Habitat Improvements in Coastal Valley

Freshwater Marsh...............................................3-11 3.1.2.6 Repair Outlet Structure......................................3-12 3.1.3 Parkland...............................................................3-12 3.1.3.1 Pervious Paving..................................................3-12

Contents

ii

3.1.3.2 Bioswales at Parking Lot Perimeter and Maintenance Yard ..............................................3-15

3.1.3.3 Maintenance Yard Wash Rack and Cover Repair ...................................................................3-18 3.1.3.4 “Smart” Irrigation System.................................3-19

3.2 Water Quality Benefits .........................................................................3-19 3.2.1 Current Water Quality ..........................................................3-19 3.2.2 Proposed BMP Effectiveness................................................3-21 3.3 Additional Benefits ...............................................................................3-27

Section 4 Proposed Project Siting 4.1 Siting Location and Construction Constraints ...................................4-1 4.2 Environmental Feasibility ......................................................................4-4

Section 5 Operations and Maintenance .................................................... 5-1

Section 6 Regulatory Permit Requirements ............................................. 6-1 6.1 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)..................................6-1 6.2 Permit Requirements ..............................................................................6-1

Section 7 Public Outreach Program ........................................................... 7-1

Section 8 Preliminary Cost Estimates........................................................ 8-1

Section 9 Implementation Schedule .......................................................... 9-1

Section 10 Project Recommendations........................................................ 10-1

Appendices Appendix A References Appendix B Machado Lake Letters of Support Appendix C July 11, 2006 Meeting Minutes Appendix D Additional Sources of Funding Awarded Appendix E Potential Sources of Recycled Water

ES-1

Executive Summary This report provides a conceptual overview of the potential to implement various water quality, biological and recreational improvements to the Machado Lake ecosystem which is situated within Ken Malloy Harbor Regional Park. The Wilmington Drain, situated immediately north of the project site, is critical and integral to the successful implementation of this ecosystem rehabilitation project. For planning and funding purposes, the Wilmington Drain Multiuse Project was submitted under separate cover. Both projects are inextricably linked and, therefore, should be viewed as integrated projects during the review of the concept reports and throughout the project design and implementation process.

ES.1 Project Overview The broad goal of the Machado Lake Ecosystem Rehabilitation Project is to improve the water quality conditions, visual aesthetics, and the biological diversity of the ecosystem so as to attain and sustain its desired uses and characteristics (i.e., recreational fishing, wildlife habitat, environmental education), and to meet Total Maximum Daily Load requirements and other water quality targets. This effort will be accomplished through integrated ecological and engineering strategies and solutions involving watershed-based management approaches, in-lake rehabilitation techniques, riparian system enhancements, and treatment best management practices (BMPs) at strategic areas in the park. Long-term success will hinge on promoting a lasting stewardship of the ecosystem through community education programs and collaborative public and private partnerships. The overall scope of the project is to identify the environmental pollutants or stressors from stormwater discharges or other point sources as well as non-point sources that are adversely impacting the lake ecosystem, to assess the extent and magnitude of their impacts, and to devise a feasible, cost-effective solution, or a combination of solutions, that will significantly reduce or eliminate them. These pollutants or stressors exhibit one or more of the following characteristics:

Current loadings or historic deposits of pollutants that impact the beneficial uses of receiving water bodies;

Elevated levels of pollutants that are found in sediments of receiving water and/or have the potential to bioaccumulate in organisms therein; and

Detectable inputs of pollutants that are at concentrations or loads considered potentially toxic to humans and habitats.

Targeted pollutants include the following:

Trash

Heavy Metals

Total Coliform

Executive Summary

ES-2

Fecal Coliform

Fecal Enterococcus

Total Suspended Solids

Oil & Grease

Current Water Quality Machado Lake is located within the Dominguez Watershed and has a drainage area of approximately 20 square miles (12,800 acres) from which urban and stormwater runoff flows to the lake. Pollutants currently on the 2006 303(d) list for the 45-acre lake are: algae, ammonia, Chem A (tissue), Chlordane (tissue), DDT (tissue), Dieldrin (tissue), Eutrophic, Odors, PCB’s and trash.

Proposed Project Elements As pollutant removal values are not yet established for all the listed pollutants, reasonable values are to be used for pollutant removal baseline estimates, which will be followed by “adaptive management” that includes monitoring and adjusting BMP’s as necessary. In order to reduce or eliminate the above-mentioned pollutants of concern and others that may be identified, the project includes in-lake rehabilitation techniques, riparian system enhancements, and treatment BMPs at the following sub-areas: Machado Lake and associated riparian areas; the freshwater marsh; and strategic parkland areas. A listing of the project elements that are proposed for implementation at each of the three sub-areas is provided below.

Machado Lake and Associated Riparian Areas

Removal of bottom sediment from Machado Lake;

In-lake basins at discharge points to the lake for sediment settling and management;

Aquascaping along the lake’s shore and near-shore areas with endemic plants to improve aesthetics, habitat values, and pollutant buffering and treatment processes;

Increased dispersion of flows from Wilmington Drain and through the riparian woodland thereby taking further advantage of the natural treatment capacity for low flow treatment;

Exotic removal and native vegetation enhancements in the riparian woodland;

Removal of select hardened drainage inlets, daylighting of storm drains, runoff treatment, and installation of trash capture devices;

Installation of a lake aeration system; and

Executive Summary

ES-3

Installation of an outlet device and spillway for the dam.

Freshwater Marsh

Installation of trash capture devices in storm drains that discharge to the marsh;

Creation of a low flow channel to separate low lake flows from low storm water flows;

Construction of two vegetated detention basins (for further treatment of storm water discharges from the Figueroa Drain, from Anaheim Street, and from the Project 77/510 storm drains on the west);

Pumping to convey low flow from the Figueroa Drain to the western basin;

Figueroa Drain low and high flow improvements including sediment removal from storm drain at Hawaiian and Opp Avenues;

Habitat improvements including removal of non-native invasive plants, debris, and planting of appropriate native riparian species; and

Repair of Harbor Outfall outlet structure.

Strategic Parkland Areas

Installation of pervious paving material in parking lots;

Installation of bioswales along perimeter of parking lots and around existing maintenance yard;

Repair of the Maintenance Yard Wash Rack and Cover at the Harbor Golf Course Maintenance Yard; and

Installation of a “smart” irrigation system for water conservation and dry weather runoff reduction as well as evaluation of the potential for use of recycled water.

Pollutant Removal Construction of the aforementioned project elements will result in the estimated pollutant removal percentages listed in Table ES-2. This is a summary of the data presented in Table 3-5 in Section 3.2.2 of this report.

Executive Summary

ES-4

Table ES-2 Percent Removal of Pollutants from Flow to Machado Lake

Pollutant Percent Removal

Trash 95-100

Total Copper 75

Total Lead 82

Total Nickel 62

Total Zinc 77

Fecal Coliform 78

Total Coliform 78

Total Suspended Solids 91 Oil & Grease 80-90 Source: Data provided by Watershed Protection Division. Summary of Table 3-5 of this report.

ES.2 Project Summary Currently, major stormwater flows conveyed through the soft-bottomed Wilmington Drain flow south through a box culvert at Pacific Coast Highway and enter Kenneth Malloy Harbor Regional Park (KMHRP) via a riparian woodland; enter Machado Lake; flow over a concrete capped earthen dam and through a seasonal freshwater marsh; and ultimately discharge to the Los Angeles Harbor via the Harbor Outfall. As detailed in Section 3.2, Water Quality Benefits, the runoff entering the system contains pollutants. Machado Lake is on the 303(d) list for impaired water bodies. It is believed that there is a build-up of polluted sediments on the lake bottom. The project elements associated with improving the water quality at Machado Lake, as well as the receiving waters are detailed in this report. The report also presents project siting issues, regulatory permit requirements, preliminary cost estimates, operations and maintenance information, an implementation schedule, and overall project recommendations.

ES.3 Project Costs The total project cost is estimated at $99,523,897. The amount requested from Prop O is $99,523,897, as shown in Table ES-2. Operation and maintenance costs are estimated to be approximately $4.8 million annually, though operation and maintenance costs are not being requested through Proposition O. More detailed cost information can be found in Section 8.

ES.4 Project Implementation Schedule Based on the best information available during the preparation of this Concept Report, the project construction will be completed by June 2014, refer to Table ES-3. Additional details regarding project schedule are provided in Section 9.

Executive Summary

ES-5

Water quality improvements include all of the items summarized in ES.1 above and total $97,156,268. Other project benefits include creating nesting islands and the total cost is $2,367,629. The total amount requested from Prop O is $99,523,897. The construction cost breakdown is provided in Table 8-2 in Section 8.

Note: Throughout the duration shown above for construction, work may not be continuous. It is anticipated that no work will be permitted during the mid-March to mid-September nesting season

Water Quality Benefits Cost

Other Project Benefits

(a)

Construction Cost (including estimating contingency, moblization, allowances,

construction contengency, and material cost escalation

$74,592,144 $1,817,757 $76,409,901

(b) Land Purchase/Right-of-Way acquisition $0 $0 $0

(c)Pre-Design and Design (including

environmental clearance, design project management)

$12,680,664 $309,019 $12,989,683

(d) Construction and Post-Construction management $9,883,459 $240,853 $10,124,312

(e) Grand Total [Sum (a) through (d) for each column] $0 $97,156,268 $2,367,629 $99,523,897

Table ES-2. Project Cost Estimate Table

Budget CategoryNon-Proposition O

Funding (if applicable) Project Benefits

Requested Proposition O

Total

ItemActifity Description Start F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A

1 CEQA Nov-07

2Public Outreach Feb-07

3 Pre-Design Mar-074 Design Apr-08

5

Permitting Identification/Acquisition Mar-07

6Contract Bid & Award Nov-09

7 Construction Jul-10

8

Post Implement-ation Jun-14

* Note that the years 2011 through 2013 are shown in one cell for the purpose of fitting the table on one page, and it should read that construction continues during these years.

2015Machado Lake Ecosystem Rehabilitation Project Implementation Schedule

Table ES-3

20142011 / 2012 / 2013*2007 2008 2009 2010

1-1 Machado 121206.doc

Section 1 Introduction The purpose of this Concept Report is to provide a conceptual overview of the proposed Machado Lake Ecosystem Rehabilitation Project. The lead applicant is the City of Los Angeles Department of Recreation and Parks (RAP). The Wilmington Drain, situated immediately north of the project site, is critical and integral to the successful implementation of this ecosystem rehabilitation project. For planning purposes, a separate and distinct project has been identified called the Wilmington Drain Multiuse Project. A Proposition O Concept Report has been prepared for this project. It is clear that both projects are inextricably linked, and, therefore, should be viewed as companion projects during the review of the concept reports and during the projects’ design and implementation processes.

1.1 Project Objectives The broad goal of the Machado Lake Ecosystem Rehabilitation Project is to improve the water quality conditions, visual aesthetics, and the biological diversity of the ecosystem to attain and sustain its desired uses and characteristics (i.e. recreational fishing, wildlife habitat, environmental education), and to meet Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) requirements and other water quality targets. This effort will be accomplished through integrated ecological and engineering strategies and solutions involving watershed-based management approaches, in-lake rehabilitation and streambed assessment techniques, riparian system enhancements, and treatment best management practices (BMPs) at strategic areas in the park. Long-term success will require the promotion of a lasting stewardship of the ecosystem through community education programs and collaborative public and private partnerships. The overall scope of the project is to reduce identified environmental pollutants or stressors from stormwater discharges or other point sources as well as non-point sources that are adversely impacting the lake ecosystem, within a sustainable and cost-effective framework that can be implemented within the proposed schedule. Identified pollutants or stressors exhibit one or more of the following characteristics:

Current loadings or historic deposits of the pollutant impact the beneficial uses of receiving water bodies;

Elevated levels of the pollutant are found in sediments of receiving water and/or have the potential to bioaccumulate in organisms therein; and

The detectable inputs of the pollutant are at concentrations or loads considered potentially toxic to humans and habitats.

Other benefits of the Machado Lake Ecosystem Rehabilitation Project include providing the surrounding community with public-use facilities. Through restoring and improving the ecosystem, the project will also improve both active recreational opportunities including biking and jogging, as well as passive recreation (e.g. nature study) and habitat.

Section 1 Introduction

1-2

Machado 121206.doc

1.2 Overview of Project The goal of the project is to mitigate or remove the environmental pollutants or stressors from stormwater discharges or other point sources as well as non-point sources that are adversely impacting the Machado Lake ecosystem. To reduce or eliminate these pollutants, the project proposes to implement various in-lake rehabilitation techniques, riparian system enhancements, and stormwater treatment. BMPs are proposed at the following sub-areas: Machado Lake and associated riparian areas; the freshwater marsh; and strategic parkland areas. A listing of the project elements that are proposed for implementation at each of the three sub-areas is provided below.

Machado Lake and Associated Riparian Areas







Installation of a lake aeration system;

Installation of an outlet device and spillway for the dam; and

Freshwater Marsh



Construction of two vegetated detention basins (for further treatment of storm water discharges from the Figueroa Drain, from Anaheim Street, and from the Project 77/510 storm drains on the west);


Section 1 Introduction

1-3

Machado 121206.doc



Repair of Harbor Outfall outlet structure.

Strategic Parkland Areas






Section 2 Existing Project Site Characteristics 2.1 Land Use and Jurisdictional Boundaries The Machado Lake ecosystem is located within Ken Malloy Harbor Regional Park (KMHRP) in the Wilmington community of the City of Los Angeles, approximately 15 miles south of downtown Los Angeles and just west of the Harbor (I-110) Freeway (Figure 2-1). The site is located in the Torrance Quadrangle of the United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 Minute Map Series (USGS, 1964). KMHRP is a 231-acre park owned, operated and maintained by RAP. It is bordered to the north by the Pacific Coast Highway (PCH), to the south by Anaheim Street, to the west by Vermont Avenue, and to the east by Figueroa Street.

Figure 2-1. KMHRP Location Map (Source: KMHRP Improvement Program Master Plan Update, Volume III)

Section 2 Existing Project Site Characteristics

2-2

Machado 121206.doc

Figure 2-2. Machado Lake and Wilmington Drain Detail (Source: KMHRP Improvement Program Master Plan Update, Volume III)

2.1.1 Community Plan and Zoning Land use within the project drainage area is detailed in Figure 2-3 along with a breakdown of land use composition by percentage of total land use.

The Wilmington – Harbor City Community Plan (Community Plan) is the document specifying the specific goals and objectives for the neighborhood in the future. The site is located within the established boundaries for the Wilmington– Harbor City Community Plan Area. This area encompasses approximately 6,481 acres. It is located between the planning communities of Harbor Gateway, San Pedro, and the Port of Los Angeles, and adjacent to the cities of Torrance, Lomita, Rancho Palos Verdes, Carson, Long Beach, and an unincorporated area of Los Angeles County. The community plan identifies current land use issues and identifies which direction the community has indicated it wants to go in the future. The Community Plan identifies goals and objectives that include:

��

��

��

��

��

��

�� !��"�� #�� $��

�

% & % ' ��

�� #��(��)�� (�� *��(��)) ��))��(��)) ��(

��

+&,-.,/ ��%'''.%, �� )�&.0&&.-/1%,.'0 �� )�

-&.'2%,.&2-.+2%3.120.12,.+2,.,2'.'2&.%2

�� 4��

� �� !" #��$��%


2-4

Machado 121206.doc

To conserve, maintain and better utilize existing recreation and park facilities that promote the recreational experience;

To provide facilities for specialized recreational needs within the community, with consideration given to utilizing existing public lands such as flood control channels, utility easements, or Department of Water and Power property; and

To preserve unique wildlife habitats and ecologically important park and recreation areas in a natural state for the protection of animal species, and for public enjoyment, health and safety.

2.2 Current Environmental Setting KMHRP is a 231-acre city park, which is one of the largest in the City of Los Angeles, and has one of the most diverse habitats in the region, including a 45-acre lake, a seasonal freshwater marsh, a riparian woodland, and a non-native grassland. These areas have been informally designated as a wildlife sanctuary (Parsons, 2002). The Southcoast Regional Commission of the California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission has designated this area as a Class I priority freshwater marsh (Parsons, 2002). The park has several distinct facilities, including a lawn, picnic area and parking lot on the western portion. There are both active and passive recreational uses, including the baseball and soccer fields, bike paths, jogging and hiking trails, as well as bird watching and fishing.

North of KMHRP is the Wilmington Channel, a 150 foot wide, soft-bottom storm drain channel. About fourteen square miles of residential and industrial areas supply storm water to the Wilmington Channel. Roughly 60 percent of the water entering Machado Lake comes from the Wilmington Channel, in addition to sediment and other debris (Parsons, 2002). The Wilmington Channel is a 303(d) listed riparian wildlife habitat which supports a variety of shorebirds, wood ducks and wild mallards. For clarity and planning purposes, the project improvements proposed for the Wilmington Drain are presented in a separate concept report. Currently, roughly 60 percent of the water entering Machado Lake comes from the Wilmington Drain in addition to sediment and other debris (Parsons, 2002).

Further north of the proposed project within Wilmington Drain is the Los Angeles County Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP). The Los Angeles County Sanitation District is entering construction on a Prop 50 wetland project that will pump flow from Wilmington Drain for flow through a man-made wetland and return it to the Wilmington Drain.

Machado Lake is comprised of upper and lower basins separated by a low earthen dam. The upper basin contains the recreational lake (roughly 45 acres) created from the impoundment of urban and stormwater runoff from the watershed; the lower basin is characterized as a seasonal freshwater marsh (roughly 63 acres). The dam was designed to maintain the level of the lake at a maximum of 10 feet above mean sea level (amsl). During major storms, water flows over the dam into the lower basin and


2-5

Machado 121206.doc

ultimately to the Harbor Outfall at the southeastern corner of the park, where it is discharged to the West Channel of the Los Angeles Harbor. This outfall structure has an outlet weir with a low flow culvert for the purpose of retaining water in the lower basin during the wet months. However, the weir has been damaged for some time and has not been functioning as originally designed.

The lake also serves as a flood control retention basin. The Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) has designated Machado Lake for the following beneficial uses: Water Contact Recreation (REC-1), Non-Contact Water Recreation (REC-2), Warm Freshwater Habitat (WARM), Wildlife Habitat (WILD), Rare, Threatened or Endangered Species (RARE), and potential for Municipal and Domestic Supply (MUN).

2.2.1 Hydrology/Flooding Watershed Description The two main storm drains that discharge to Machado Lake are the Wilmington Drain (which includes two major sub-drainage areas: the Wilmington Drain channel and Private Drain 533) and the interconnected Project 77 and Harbor City Relief Drains (referred to as Project 77/510 Drains). Additionally, there are flows that enter the freshwater marsh directly. Table 2-2 below identifies the drainage areas and wet weather flows to Machado Lake and the freshwater marsh.

Drainage AreaArea

(acres)1

Average Annual Rainfall(inches)

Ratio ofImperviou

sness1Total Runoff(acre-ft/yr)

Flows Direct to Machado Lake:Private Drain 553 6,100 13.5 0.62 4,255 Wilmington Drain2 3,637 13.5 0.62 2,537 Project 77/510 Drain3 1,636 13.5 0.62 1,141 78" RCP (D-24010) 92 13.5 0.62 64 36" RCP (P-6545) 83 13.5 0.62 58 Subtotal Direct to Machado Lake 11,548 8,055

Flows Direct to Freshwater Marsh:Project No. 643 (Figueroa Drain) 704 13.5 0.62 491 Project No. 643 (72" Storm Drain) 474 13.5 0.62 331 LA School (33" Storm Drain) 71 13.5 0.62 50 18" CMP (P-9481) 39 13.5 0.62 27 24" RCP & VCP (P-2533) 9 13.5 0.62 6 Subtotal 1,297 905

Total 12,845 8,959

Table 2-2Average Annual Wet Weather Runoff

1 - Source: Parsons prepared document called "Volume II Machado Lake Watershed Management Master Plan" and City of Los Angeles, Machado Lake Assessment, Final Project Report, March 2004

3 – The Project 77/510 Drains refers to the interconnected Project 77 and Harbor City Relief Drains

2 – Flow from Walteria Lake discharges into the Wilmington Drain by pumping during the overflow periods, however, since no information on the pumping volume and schedule is available, this flow is not included in the calculation.


2-6

Machado 121206.doc

Based on the areas shown in Table 2-2, estimated dry weather runoff volumes were determined and are presented in Table 2-3. The estimated runoff rate of 230 gallons per day per acre was taken from the City of Los Angeles Integrated Resources Plan for the Wastewater Program, Facilities Plan Volume 3: Runoff Management (2004).

Drainage AreaArea

(acres)1

Runoff Rate2

(gpd/acre)

Daily Dry WeatherRunoff

(gal/day)

Daily Dry WeatherRunoff(acre-ft/day)

AnnualRunoff3

(acre-ft/yr)

Flows Direct to Machado Lake:Private Drain 553 6,100 230 1,403,000 4.31 1,163 Wilmington Drain 3,637 230 836,510 2.57 693 Project No. 77/510 (total) 1,636 230 376,280 1.15 312 78" RCP (D-24010) 92 230 21,160 0.06 18 36" RCP (P-6545) 83 230 19,090 0.06 16 Subtotal Direct to Machado Lake 11,548 2,656,040 8.15 2,201

Flows Direct to Freshwater Marsh:Project No. 643 (Figueroa Drain) 704 230 161,920 0.50 134 Project No. 643 (72" Storm Drain) 474 230 109,020 0.33 90 LA School (33" Storm Drain) 71 230 16,330 0.05 14 18" CMP (P-9481) 39 230 8,970 0.03 7 24" RCP & VCP (P-2533) 9 230 2,070 0.01 2 Subtotal 1,297 298,310 0.92 247

Total 12,845 2,954,350 2,448

3 - From City of Los Angeles IRP, assuming 270 days per year of dry weather.

Table 2-3Average Annual Dry Weather Runoff

1 - Source: Parsons prepared document called "Volume II Machado Lake Watershed Management Master Plan"

2 - From City of Los Angeles IRP, assuming a daily runoff rate of 230 gallons per day per acre for Dominguez Channel.

The water bodies in the Dominguez Watershed are impaired, as shown in Table 2-4. The proposed 2006 303(d) list classifies impairments due to point and non-point sources.

Table 2-4 Impairments in the Dominguez Watershed Water Bodies

Water body Segment / Area Pollutant / Stressor Extent of Impairment Above Vermont Sediment toxicology,

copper, lead, zinc, ammonia, bacteria, dieldrin

6.7 miles Dominguez Channel

Vermont to Estuary Lead, zinc, DDT, PAHs, PCBs, benthic community effects, ammonia, bacteria, benzo[a]anthracene, chlordane, chrysene, dieldrin, phenanthrene, pyrene.

140 acres


2-7

Machado 121206.doc

Table 2-4 Impairments in the Dominguez Watershed Water Bodies

Water body Segment / Area Pollutant / Stressor Extent of Impairment Consolidated Slip Cadmium, chromium,

copper, lead, mercury, zinc, DDT, PCBs, toxaphene, sediment toxicity, benthic community effects, chlordane, dieldrin

36 acres

Fish Harbor benzo[a]anthracene, chlordane, chrysene, copper, DDT, dibenz[a,b]anthracene, lead, mercury, PCBs, PAHs, phenanthrene, pyrene, sediment toxicity, zinc

91 acres

Los Angeles Harbor

Cabrillo Beach (inner) Copper, DDTs, PCBs 82 acres Long Beach Harbor Inner harbor, outer

harbor (inside breakwater)

DDT, PCBs, sediment toxicity, benthic community effects, beach closures,

3003 acres and 4042 acres respectively

San Pedro Bay Nearshore and Offshore

Chlordane, chromium, copper, zinc, DDT, PCBs, PAHs, sediment toxicity

8,173 acres

Machado Lake Algae, ammonia, Chem A, chlordane, DDT. dieldrin, eutrophic, odor, PCBs, trash

18 hectares (45 acres)

Wilmington Drain Copper, lead, ammonia, bacteria

0.9 kilometer (0.56 miles)

Torrance Carson Channel

Copper, lead, bacteria 5.5 kilometer (3.4 miles)

Source: SWRCB: http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/tmdl/docs/303dlists2006/final/r4_final303dlist.pdf

Flooding A topographical low spot at Pacific Coast Highway and Vermont Avenue, which is immediately west of KMHRP, has resulted in occasional road closures. Some closures have lasted for up to a day. The City of Los Angeles Bureau of Engineering (BOE) has completed CEQA compliance for a project that will alleviate the flooding by raising the topographical profile of this part of Vermont Avenue. After conducting an Initial Study, BOE prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. The project involves the construction of a new storm drain that runs 1,800 feet along Vermont Avenue plus an additional 300 feet of new drain that runs from Vermont Avenue to Machado Lake. This storm drain will have a pollution removal device installed. The treatment device will meet the SUSMP requirements of treating 5.7 cfs of flow. Based on an assessment of the site conditions and the types of pollutants expected to be generated, BOS proposes to use the Vortechnics brand, or equivalent, which removes trash, hydrocarbons, sediments and heavy metals. Since this flow is currently conveyed to Machado Lake, the installation


2-8

Machado 121206.doc

of the treatment device should improve water quality over existing conditions. (City of LA BOE, 2006)

The inlet of Figueroa Drain collects runoff from the residential area east of the Harbor Freeway. Flooding in the residential area has occurred frequently. The inadequate drainage due to possible clogging in the storm drain system and debris blockage at the downstream outlet may have contributed to the flooding upstream. To minimize the flood hazard, the Figueroa Drain (represented by two 10'x8' RCB under the Harbor Freeway) which drains into the Machado Lake wetland area will be cleaned. In addition, the flow path connecting the Figueroa Drain culvert to Harbor Outfall located under Anaheim Street (represented by two 8'x8' RCB) will need to be repaired to create improved flow conveyance. (City of Los Angeles BOE, July 2006).

2.2.2 Geology and Hydrogeology Per the Dominguez Watershed Management Master Plan (by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, 2004), the soil type at the project site is Ramona Sandy Loam. This soil type is an alluvial soil, with moderate to severe erosion and slow to rapid runoff potentials depending on slope. However, the low gradient of most of the area would favor low to moderate shrink-swell potentials, moderate permeability, and slower runoff rates. The following characteristics are for the Ramona Sandy Loam:

General Characteristics - Well-drained sandy loams

Erodability by Water- Severe

Shrink-Swell Capacity - Moderate

Permeability - Moderately slow

Runoff - Slow to rapid

While these general soil characteristics should allow for infiltration BMPs to be effective, a soils analysis of the site should be for confirmation during the pre-design phase.

As shown in the California Division of Mines and Geology, “Geologic Map of California, Long Beach Sheet”, 1962, the adjacent area is underlain by Quaternary nonmarine terrace deposits. Additionally, archeological research indicates that the general area of the project is sensitive for cultural resources.

Though Los Angeles is generally considered to be geologically active, the site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo special study zone or fault rupture study area. (City of LA BOE, 2006)


2-9

Machado 121206.doc

2.2.3 Biology KMHRP supports significant areas of aquatic and terrestrial plant communities which provide habitat to a variety of birds and wildlife. Dominant plant communities include southern cottonwood-willow riparian forest, southern willow scrub, mule fat scrub, Venturan coastal sage scrub, “modified” coastal freshwater marsh, vernal marsh, and non-native grassland.

Immediately bordering Machado Lake are emergent wetland species such as bulrushes, cattails, and non-native water primroses (Ludwigia peploides). Also on the project site are ornamental grasses, mature non-native trees, exotic invasive plant species, and southern willow scrub. The California Department of Fish and Game’s California Diversity Database (CNDDB) notes that there are 17 occurrences of federally listed threatened or endangered species in the topographic quadrangle, and of those five animal and two plant species are identified. The United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service identified an additional four animal and two plant species. Table 2-5 identifies the threatened and endangered species found on site.

Table 2-5 Threatened and Endangered Species

Common Name

Scientific Name General Habitat Status # of Occurrences

Animal California least tern

Sterna antillarum browni

(Nesting colony) nests along coast from San Francisco Bay south to northern Baja California

Fed. & State = Endangered

2

Mohave tui chub

Gila bicolor mohavensis

Endemic to Mohave River Basin, adapted to alkaline, mineralized waters. Experimental transplant outside of native range – South Coast Botanic Garden Refugium, Palos Verdes

F&S = Endangered

1

Palos Verdes blue butterfly

Glaucopsyche lygdamus palosverdesensis

Restricted to the cool, fog-shrouded sewared side of Palos Verdes hills , LA County

Fed = Endangered, State = none

5

southwestern willow flycatcher

Empidonax traillii extimus

Inhabits extensive thickets of low, dense willows on edge of wet meadows, ponds or backwaters

Fed = Endangered

**

Pacific pocket mouse

Perognathus longimembris pacificus

Inhabits the narrow coastal plains from the Mexican border north to El Segundo, LA County

Fed = Endangered, State = none

2

coastal California gnatcatcher

Polioptila californica californica

Obligate, permanent resident of coastal sage scrub below 2500 feet in Southern California

Fed = Threatened, State = none

3

least Bell’s Vireo

Vireo bellil pusillus

Summer resident of southern California in low riparian, in vicinity of water or in dry river bottoms, usually in willow, baccharis, or mesquite.

Fed = Endangered

**

brown pelican Pelecanus occidentalis

Colonial nester on coastal islands just outside surf line

Fed = Endangered

**

western snowy plover

Charadrius alexandrinus

Sandy beaches, salt pond levees and shores of large alkali lakes. Needs sandy, gravelly

Fed = Endangered

**


2-10

Machado 121206.doc

Table 2-5 Threatened and Endangered Species

Common Name

Scientific Name General Habitat Status # of Occurrences

nivosus or friable soils for nesting. Plants salt marsh bird’s-beak

Cordylanthus maritimus ssp. Maritimus

Coastal salt marsh, coastal dunes Fed & State = Endangered

1

Braunton’s milk vetch

Astragalus brauntonii

Closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland

Fed = Endangered

**

Lyon’s pentachaeta

Pentachaeta lyonii

Chaparral, valley and foothill grassland Fed & State = Endangered

3

Gambel’s watercress

Rorippa gambellii

Freshwater and brackish marshes at the margins of lakes and along streams, in or just above the water level

Fed = Endangered

**

Source: Table found in the City of Los Angeles Bureau of Engineering Environmental Management Group, “Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Vermont Avenue South of Pacific Coast Highway, “April 17, 2006. This document referenced the California Department of Fish and Game’s California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and correspondence with the United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service. Notes: * Regarding the least tern identification, the CNDDB lists the location of “Harbor Lake in Harbor Park” as a reported location where the “birds use the mudflaps along the shoreline: as a “major post-breeding foraging area for birds from the Terminal Island Colony.” A resent Nesting Bird survey conducted in August 2005 found no breeding populations in the area (see discussion in the following paragraphs). ** Writers of the Initial Study identified species through correspondence with US Fish and Wildlife Service.

The KMHRP Implementation Program report (Parsons, July 2002), identifies in addition to the species shown in the above table, four American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) and white tailed kite (Elanus leucurus).

In a study done in 2004 and updated in 2005 (Jones & Stokes, 2005 & 2006), it was found that there were similar breeding species on site, but “no evidence of breeding was found in 2005 for any state or federal listing (endangered or threatened) bird species.” However, this does not suggest that there won’t be breeding during the construction phase of the project. It should be noted that the peregrine falcons that were observed previously in the park have a raptor nesting season of January 15 through September 30.

The Machado Lake ecosystem supports both terrestrial and aquatic wildlife. In general, native species dominate the terrestrial wildlife community, while non-native species dominate the aquatic community. Machado Lake is officially designated as an Audubon Important Bird Area. The Audubon Society and Park Advisory Board members have documented over 300 bird species in the park, including water fowl, shore birds, song birds, and migratory birds. The lake, willow scrub, and seasonally flooded marsh area provide the necessary habitats for the diversity of birds. Federal/State threatened or endangered species known to inhabit the park include Bell’s vireo, California least tern, American peregrine falcon, tri-colored blackbird, western least bittern, white tailed kite, brown pelican, and yellow warbler.


2-11

Machado 121206.doc

Until the mid-1980’s the California Department of Fish and Game stocked the lake. Fish species currently found in the lake are primarily introduced, non-native species, including, large mouth bass, bluegill, green sunfish, channel catfish, black bullhead, carp, goldfish, and mosquito fish. Not much is known about amphibians and reptiles found in this ecosystem; however western toad, Pacific tree frog, leopard frog, and bullfrog have been documented in the park. Reptiles that have been documented include western pond turtle, snapping turtle, red-eared slider, western skink, western fence lizard, side-blotched lizard, southern alligator lizard, gopher snake, California kingsnake, western rattlesnake, ringneck snake, black water snake, and garter snake. Only the western fence lizard and Pacific tree frog exist in healthy numbers (Parsons, 2002).

The historic sand-bar type islands that were printed on commercial maps as late as the 1960's are believed to have been the nesting sites of the Least Tern and Snowy Plover prior to their destruction. The Parsons report states that "Many species that look for nesting sites around Machado Lake, like Killdeer and Black-necked Stilt , would benefit from this type of habitat, as habitat availability is the key determining factor in their presence"..."There is no habitat that could be restored at the lake , which would have as great a positive impact as islets [sic]. Sites free from dog and people pressure are virtually non-existent." (Parsons, 2002) For this reason, the containment and potential for re-use of dredge materials in the creation of nesting islands is to be investigated with the sediment study results as both a habitat enhancement and cost saving measure.

Habitat data that is used to support the BMPs described in Section 3 of the document is presented here.

Open Water Habitat Open water habitat is defined by a permanent pool 3 to 6 feet deep. The freshwater marsh has seasonal open water habitat identified as CVFM-1 (Coastal Valley Freshwater Marsh – vernally wet-flooded lowland vegetation) occurring in the central portion of the marsh. These areas can function as foraging and resting habitat for waterfowl species such as mallard, cinnamon teal, and ruddy duck, and as breeding habitat for various frog and pond turtle species.

Emergent Wetland Habitat Emergent wetland habitat (emergent marsh), as defined by Cowardin et. al. (1979), is characterized by erect, rooted, herbaceous hydrophytes, present for most of the growing season in most years, in all water regimes except subtidal and irregularly exposed. Within the freshwater marsh, emergent marsh habitat is identified as CVFM-2 (Coastal Valley Freshwater Marsh). Wildlife species commonly observed in Los Angeles County emergent marsh habitat include great blue heron, black-crowned night heron, green heron, least bittern, mallard, American coot, yellow-headed blackbird, red-winged blackbird, marsh wren, and American goldfinch. Emergent marsh would function as foraging, resting, and nesting habitat for these species. Various amphibian species could also be found in this habitat.


2-12

Machado 121206.doc

Scrub-shrub Wetland (riparian scrub) Habitat Scrub-shrub wetland (riparian scrub), as defined by Cowardin et. al. (1979), is dominated by woody vegetation less than 20 feet tall in all water regimes except subtidal. Within the freshwater marsh, riparian scrub habitat is present in the areas identified as Mule Fat Scrub (MF) and Willow Scrub (W). A variety of bird species are associated with riparian scrub including woodland species such as warbler, western scrub jay, and wren and, egrets and herons. Riparian scrub would function as foraging, resting, and nesting habitat for these species. Various reptile and amphibian species could also be found in this habitat.

Upland Habitat Upland habitat is defined as vegetation located 3 to 8 feet above the mean water surface. Adjacent to the freshwater marsh, upland and developed areas are present. Replanting of these areas with native species is proposed to improve the habitat function and aesthetics of the area. Plant species may include California sycamore, black walnut, gooseberry, various oak species, sage, coyote bush, and wild rye depending upon the desired upland plant community (oak woodland, coastal sage scrub, etc.). Bird species commonly found in upland habitat include mourning dove, rock dove, crow, raven, scrub jay, mocking bird, sparrow, American goldfinch, hummingbird, and flycatcher. Upland habitat would function as foraging, resting, and nesting habitat for these species. Other wildlife species could include western fence lizard and Pacific tree frog.

Planting and establishment of wetland vegetation should follow the Natural Resource Conservation Service Guidelines for Planting, Establishment, and Maintenance of Constructed Wetland Systems (Hoag, J. Chris 1998), where applicable. Depending on the final design of the basin, the planting palette will include the plants, or a subset of the plants, listed below.

Table 3-1 Habitat and Vegetation

Species Growth Form Wetland Indicator Material Commercially Available?

Open Water Water Cress Rorippa nasturtium-aquaticum

Perennial herb (aquatic)

OBL Yes - limited

Water Plantain Alisma plantago-aquatica


OBL Yes - limited

Duckweed Lemna minor

Perennial herb OBL Yes - limited

Fennel-leaved Pondweed Potamogeton pectinatus


OBL Yes - limited

Water Shield Brasenia schreberi


OBL No


2-13

Machado 121206.doc



Emergent Marsh Nebraska Sedge Carex nebrascensis

Perennial herb OBL No

Santa Barbara Sedge Carex barbarae

Perennial herb FACW Yes

San Diego Sedge Carex spissa

Perennial herb FAC Yes

Common Rush Juncus patens

Perennial herb FAC Yes

Irisleaf Rush Juncus xiphioides

Perennial herb OBL Yes

Mexican Rush Juncus mexicanus


California Tule Scirpus californicus


Hardstem Bulrush Scirpus acutus var. occidentalis


Big Bulrush Scirpus robustus


Broadleaf Cattail Typha latifolia


Arrow Weed Pluchea sericea

Shrub FACW Yes – limited

Smooth Flatsedge Cyperus laevigatus

Perennial herb FACW+ No

Black Flatsedge Cyperus niger

Perennial herb FACW+ No

Common Spikerush Eleocharis macrostachya


California Sunflower Helianthus californicus


Wild Mint Mentha arvensis


Meadow Barley Hordeum brachyantherum


Spike Bentgrass Agrostis exarata


Water Foxtail Alopecurus aequalis

Perennial herb OBL No

Red Willow Tree, Shrub FACW+ Yes


2-14

Machado 121206.doc



Salix laevigata Riparian Scrub

Arroyo Willow Salix lasiolepis

Tree, Shrub FACW Yes

Sand Bar Willow Salix exigua


Red Alder Alnus rubra


White Alder Alnus rhombifolia

Tree FACW Yes

Blue Elderberry Sambucus mexicana

Shrub FACU Yes

American Dogwood Cornus sericea ssp. Sericea

Shrub FACW Yes

California Rose Rosa californica

Shrub FAC+ Yes

California Blackberry Rubus ursinus

Vine, Shrub FAC+ Yes

Mulefat Baccharis salicifolia

Shrub FACW Yes

Riparian Woodland California Sycamore Platanus racemosa

Tree FACW Yes

Velvet Ash Fraxinus velutina

Tree FACW Yes - limited

Black Cottonwood Populus balsamifera ssp. trocjpcarpa

Tree FACW Yes

Box Elder Acer negundo var. californicum

Tree FACW Yes

Upland California Black Walnut Juglans californica

Tree FAC Yes

Fremont Cottonwood Populus fremontii

Tree FAC+ Yes

Bigleaf Maple Acer macrophyllum

Tree FAC Yes

California Laurel Umbellularia californica

Tree FAC Yes

Spreading Gooseberry Ribes divaricatum

Shrub FACW Yes - limited


2-15

Machado 121206.doc



Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia

Tree NL Yes

Interior Live Oak Quercus wislizeni

Tree NL Yes

Valley Oak Quercus lobata

Tree FACU Yes

Black Sage Salivia mellifera

Shrub NL Yes

Purple Sage Salvia leucophylla

Shrub NL Yes

Coyote Bush Baccharis pilularis

Shrub NL Yes

Blue Wildrye Elymus glaucus

Grass FACU Yes

Wetland Indicator:

OBL: Obligate Wetland – occurs almost always under natural wetland conditions.

FACW: Facultative Wetland – usually occurs in wetlands, but occasionally found in non-wetlands.

FAC: Facultative – equally likely to occur in wetlands or non-wetlands.

FACU: Facultative Upland – usually occur in non-wetlands, but occasionally found in wetlands.

UPL: Obligate Upland – occur in wetlands in another region, but occur almost always under natural conditions in non-

wetlands in the region specified.

NL: Not Listed – always occurs in non-wetlands.

2.2.4 Recreation and Open Space Parks KMHRP is a multiuse recreation facility that is operated and maintained by LADRP, and is zoned as open space. KMHRP offers a variety of recreational opportunities including barbeque pits, baseball and soccer fields, a children’s play area, a bike path, hiking trails, a campground, and bird watching, to name a few. However, the condition of these facilities is currently degraded and the park suffers from localized flooding, stormwater, and urban runoff issues. Urban and stormwater runoff from the park and surrounding watershed, if not mitigated properly, could lead to further degradation of water quality in Machado Lake. Implementing the components of this proposed project would greatly improve KMHRP for users and wildlife, while making LADRP’s operation and maintenance activities easier and more cost effective. The design of the proposed project would be fully integrated into the existing park and would not result in a reduction in available open space or recreation areas.


2-16

Machado 121206.doc

KMHRP is also located in an area of the Dominguez Watershed with low-to middle-income neighborhoods, which have grown up around contaminated industrial sites and sprawling commercial and residential developments. According to the Dominguez Watershed Management Master Plan, parkland and open space are in short supply and generally are deficient in meeting the Plan’s goal ratio of 0.4 hectare (1 acre) of park per each 1,000 population. The City also has an established open space goal of four acres per 1,000 people, according to the Public Recreation Plan. The Wilmington - Harbor City Community Plan Area, which includes the project area, has 0.68 acres of neighborhood and community park acreage per 1,000 people.

According to a Los Angeles Vegetation Cover Study undertaken by LADWP in 2005 for the Mayor's Million Tree Initiative, of the fifteen Citywide Council Districts, the 15th Council District, which covers 20,985 acres, was found to be the second least abundant in tree coverage at only 10.14% of its total land area.

Accessibility & Other Resources The Machado Lake site is in close proximity to several major roads, including the Harbor Freeway (110 Freeway) to the east and Pacific Coast Highway (Class II Major Highway) to the north. Vermont Avenue and Anaheim Street (both Class II Major Highways) and Normandie Avenue are also major roads that border the site on the west and south sides. Public transportation is available to the project site, including the Metro Rail Blue Line that extends from downtown Los Angeles to approximately six miles east of the project site, where travelers can catch local buses on Anaheim Street to reach the site. Additionally, there are buses that travel down Vermont Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway to the project site. Recently constructed and future large scale multi-family housing projects to the north of Wilmington Drain and to the south west of KMHRP will increase the circulation and impact on this park system; making roads and trails important aspects of erosion control and habitat preservation.

2.2.5 Environmental Studies Water Quality Control Plan or Basin Plan (RWQCB, 1994) of the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), designates Machado Lake as Water Contact Recreation (REC-1), Non-Contact Water Recreation (REC-2), Warm Freshwater Habitat (WARM), Wildlife Habitat (WILD) , Rare, Threatened or Endangered Species (RARE), and potential for Municipal and Domestic Supply (MUN).

The Machado Lake Assessment Final Project Report, March 2004, discusses the water quality and BMP needs at Machado Lake. The water quality results are shown in Section 3.2.

The City of Los Angeles Bureau of Engineering Environmental Management Group prepared the “Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Vermont Avenue South of Pacific Coast Highway, “dated April 17, 2006, which includes several issues that are discussed in the previous sections of this report.


2-17

Machado 121206.doc

The “Ken Malloy Harbor Regional Park Improvement Plan, Volumes I through III Master Plan Updated” prepared by Parsons, 2002, contain much information on the site and are used and referenced throughout this report.

Reference material also includes the “Dominguez Watershed Management Master Plan (County of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works, 2004) and “Survey of Birds Utilizing and Nesting in Tule/Willow/Riparian Habitats at Ken Malloy/Harbor Regional Park in 2004” (Martin Byhower, 2004) and species study done in 2004 and updated in 2005 (Jones & Stokes, 2005 & 2006).

No hazardous materials, hazardous waste, or site remediation studies have been prepared for Machado Lake.

3-1

Machado 121206.doc

Section 3 Description of Proposed Project 3.1 Overview of Proposed Project The proposed Machado Lake Ecosystem Rehabilitation Project includes a variety of water quality and habitat improvements to be funded by Proposition O, and other sources. Within the Machado ecosystem, urban and stormwater runoff flows to the site from the north end at the Wilmington Drain, continues to the riparian woodland, enters Machado Lake, flows to the freshwater marsh, and finally discharges to the Los Angeles Harbor. Additional flow enters the system at various points throughout from other storm drains, as described in this section. As detailed in Section 3.2, Water Quality Benefits below, the runoff entering the lake ecosystem contains pollutants which have resulted in Machado Lake being listed on the 303(d) list as impaired for algae, ammonia, Chem A, Chlordane, DDT, Dieldrin, eutrophic, odor, PCBs, and trash. It is also suspected that there may be a build up of polluted sediments on the floor of the lake.

Construction of the project is projected for completion in the 2015, with CEQA compliance to be completed by the end of 2008. Besides the Wilmington Drain (under separate cover) the Machado Lake Ecosystem Rehabilitation project will encompass the following three sub-areas within KMHRP: Machado Lake and associated riparian areas; the freshwater marsh; and strategic parkland areas. Figure 3-1 below shows the location and approximate site layout of the elements within the proposed project. Each of these three sub-areas will be discussed further in this section in more detail.

During the planning phase of the Concept Report, site reconnaissance was conducted (July 11, 2006). Participants discussed project components and phasing. The meeting minutes are included in Appendix C. Project workshops were conducted on September 11, 2006, October 2, 2006, and November 13, 2006.

3.1.1 Machado Lake and Associated Riparian Areas This section describes the following components of the project:





Section 3 Description of Proposed Project

3-2

Machado 121206.doc



Installation of a lake aeration system; and

Installation of an outlet device and spillway for the dam.

3.1.1.1 Sediment Removal from Machado Lake Sediment removal is the removal of accumulated sediment materials from the bottom of lakes, rivers, harbors and other water bodies. Sediment removal is necessary because of the natural process of sedimentation due to erosion, urban runoff, and organic decay, as well as from the sand and silt that washes downstream and gradually fills channels and harbors. In this case, Machado Lake’s water depth has been significantly decreased due to sediment build-up over several decades.

Restoration of Machado Lake will include a one time sediment removal in the lake to remove excess sediment. The sediments are suspected to be contaminated. Removing the sediment will increase the lake capacity to handle storm flows, ameliorate eutrophic conditions, and control the growth of nuisance aquatic plant species. Sediment removal will occur throughout the lake with specific focus on the northern and southern portions of the lake. A thick layer of sediment, which supports invasive Ludwigia, has been deposited in front of the dam on the southern portion of the lake, while sediment deposited in the northern end of the lake supports Ludwigia and tules.

Sediment characterization via sampling is planned in order to determine the type and extent of pollutants and the appropriate method of disposal. The sediment characterization will determine depth of sediment removal that will be required. The sediment removal will be done via hydraulic dredging, which will allow the sediments to be removed without entirely draining the lake. The potential for containment and reuse of sediments in topographical features such as nesting islands will be considered following sediment sampling and characterization.

Managing sediment loading is an important aspect of controlling water quality because pollutants adhere to sediment. USEPA studies performed through the National Environmental Research Parks (NERP) program have stated that since pollutants adhere to sediments, particularly fine-grained particles, then by managing the sediments approximately 90 percent of the pollutants are addressed.

EXISTING TERRELOW-GRADIENT/SHALLOW CHANNELS

P6545P654536"RCP

D23957D23958D23958CONC. CHANNEL

D2401078" RCP

P948118"CMP

PROJECT 643 PROJECT 643 Figueroa Drain Figueroa Drain (2) 10'-3"x8' RCB

P6545Wilmington Drain (8) 8'x8' RCB

"L" STREET

"L" STREET

Gra

ded C

hannel

Project 510 Project 510 Project 510 LINE C

P643P64372" RCP

Project 77

(2) 10'-3"x8' RCB

P253324"VCP& RCP

PROJECT 2747 Harbor Outlet (2) 10'x10' /8'x8'RCB

NON-NATIVE FOREST (ADJACENT FRESHWATER MARSH)

SOUTHERN WILLOW SCRUB

MULE FAT SCRUB

VENTURAN COASTAL SAGE SCRUB

NON-NATIVE GRASSLAND (ADJACENT FRESHWATER MARSH)

RUDERAL VEGETATION

LANDSCAPED VEGETATION

COASTAL VALLEYFRESHWATER MARSH (VERNALLY WET-FLOODED

LOWLAND VEGETATION)

COASTAL VALLEYFRESHWATER MARSH (BULRUSHES-CATTAILS)

W

MF

CSS

NNF

NNG

R

L

CVFM-1

CVFM-2

ABCDEFG

PCH/110 FWY STORM DRAIN

BY-PASS DRAIN

PARKING

IRRIGATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS

PARK MAINTENANCE YARD

LAKE DAM

GOLF COURSE MAINTENENCE YARD

LA HARBOR COLLEGE 33” DRAINCOLLEGE 33” DRAIN

LE

GE

ND

:

1000'

GRAPHIC SCALE

0' 500'250'500'

FIGURE 3-1

IN-LAKE BASIN

ENHANCED COASTAL VALLEY FRESHWATER MARSH

LOW-FLOW CHANNEL

LOW - FLOW (PUMPED)

FLOW DISPERSION:LOW GRADIENT/SHALLOW CHANNEL

HIGH - FLOW CHANNEL

STORMDRAIN LOW-FLOW (ALTERNATIVE)

VEGETATED BASIN

P9481P9481P9481

24"VCP& RCP

Project 77

Project 510 Project 510

78" RCP

D23957D23957

TYPICAL AQUASCAPINGOF SHORE & NEAR SHORE AREAS

18"CMP (2) 10'x10' /8'x8'RCB

RIPARIAN WOODLAND

E

FR

ESH

WATERMARSH

Project 510 LINE CProject 510 LINE CProject 510 Project 510 Project 510

C

D

D

D

D

D

A

"L" STREETG

"L" STREET

TYPICAL AQUASCAPINGTYPICAL AQUASCAPINGOF SHORE OF SHORE & NEAR SHORE AREAS& NEAR SHORE AREAS

D

MA

CH

AD

OL

AK

E

F

CCB

P9481P9481P948118"CMP

PROJECT 2747 Harbor Outlet (2) 10'x10' /8'x8'RCB

P9481P9481P9481P2533P2533P2533P2533

PROJECT 2747

ESH

WWWAAAWAWWAW TTTATAATA EERMARSH

FR

ES

F


3-4

Machado 121206.doc

3.1.1.2 In-Lake Sediment Basins In-lake sediment collection basins will be installed at each of the storm water outlets to the lake. In-lake basins are areas that are dredged deeper than the adjacent lake bed. The formation of an in-lake basin, dredged approximately 6 to 8 feet deeper than the surrounding lake bed will create depression into which sediment conveyed in runoff will settle out of the water column. The ultimate dimensions of the basins will depend on hydraulic and sediment settling modeling that would need to be done during the design phase. By creating an area where sediments can be collected, future maintenance dredging will be localized within the in-lake basins thereby reducing future maintenance costs. As stated in the previous section, managing sediment loading results in the removal of approximately 90 percent of pollutants that adhere to the sediments.

3.1.1.3 Habitat Improvements Surrounding Machado Lake and Surrounding Riparian Areas Ecosystem rehabilitation efforts will focus on enhancing the existing riparian woodland at the north end of the lake. In addition, “aquascaping” with endemic plants will be carried out along the shoreline and within the shallow margins (near-shore areas) of the lake. These vegetated areas serve as a natural buffer to treat runoff from the golf course and other turf areas in KMHRP. Access to the shoreline for recreational uses will be maintained as appropriate on the west, and southern lake borders, and as appropriate for maintenance or vista points.

The vegetation enhancement efforts will focus on the removal of invasive and non-native species; management of existing native vegetation; and planting of native vegetation. The benefits that would be realized include improved water quality and hydrologic function as well as contaminant filtering and uptake capacity by the vegetation. Design issues will include addressing the means of reducing the potential for mosquito breeding. These will in part be dealt with through reduction of areas of still water and overabundant aquatic vegetation.

Riparian Area Improvements to the willow riparian area, as with the area surrounding Machado Lake, will serve as a natural buffer to treat runoff before it enters the lake. This will include the planting of appropriate native vegetation. Water quality will be improved by the filtering of contaminants and by increasing the uptake capacity of the vegetation.

3.1.1.4 Dispersion of Flow from Wilmington Drain At the base of Wilmington Drain, where flow enters the riparian area north of Machado Lake, the flow path is currently channelized. Spreading flow throughout the riparian woodland should extend wetland habitat and improve water quality. Dispersal of the flow throughout the riparian wetland must ensure adequate hydrology to maintain the riparian woodland as wetland habitat. Increasing flow time (contact time) and the flow path will also aid in increased infiltration of water


3-5

Machado 121206.doc

into the soil, a reduction in velocity as compared to a single channel, and filtration of water through native vegetation and stone within the stream bed.

There are two viable options for dispersing flow from the Wilmington Channel throughout the riparian woodland: 1) to construct several channels through the riparian woodland or 2) to construct diversion berms in the woodland in order to redirect flow. Both options would require vegetation clearing, grading and re-planting of disturbed areas to stabilize soils.

Channels: The concept for channels involves laying out several low gradient shallow channels throughout the riparian wetland to disperse flow throughout the wetland area. The number and size of the channels will need to be determined to ensure that the design flow can be conveyed through the low gradient channels at a velocity of approximately four feet per second or less, to prevent channel scouring. Typically, after channels are graded and the bed and side slopes are seeded with a native riparian (herbaceous) seed mix to stabilize soils, an approved reinforced erosion control product is applied to stabilize the soils until plants become established and the root matrix stabilizes the soil. This area, however, is densely vegetated and shade tolerant species must be included in the hydroseed. Shallow channels will be breached during high storm flows and continue as sheet flow through the riparian wetland.

Diversion Berms: The concept for diversion berm is similar to that for channels, except that flow is dispersed by constructing low soil berms to deflect flow and cause it to change course. Topographic plans will be used to document the current flow path and determine the best location and number of berms required to deflect water flow and to disperse water throughout the woodland. Similarly, the proposed flow paths will be evaluated to ensure flows are slow (less than or equal to four feet per second) to prevent scouring and appropriate soil stabilization practices will be applied. Gravel or stone may be needed on the gradient side of the berms to prevent scour, while the down gradient side could be seeded to stabilize the soil.

Both methods would disperse flows throughout the riparian woodland. Flow gradient channels have an advantage in predicting the flow path compared to the use of berms, whereas the use of berms promotes sheet flow and increases infiltration of water into the ground. The selection of the preferred option should be made during preliminary design based on hydrologic and hydraulic information soon to be provided by the County for the Wilmington Drain, and on the topographic survey which will identify the existing vegetation.

3.1.1.5 Storm Drain Inlet Improvements Trash Capture Devices Improvements to drainage the storm drain inlets to Machado Lake would involve installation of trash capture devices on all inlets including Project Number 77 and the Harbor City Relief Drain (Project 510 Drain). These drains are shown on Figure 3-1 as the red lines entering the lake on the west side. Project 77 Drain is north of the


3-6

Machado 121206.doc

Harbor City Relief Drain. It should be noted that Wilmington Drain includes trash capture devices as well, and the details of which can be found in the separate Wilmington Drain Multiuse Project Concept Report. A variety of technologies are available for trash collection (and will be studied during the design phase), including Continuous Deflective Separation systems (CDS), currently favored by the City and that are likely to be used, and are effective at reducing trash inflow to the lake. These units would improve contaminant filtering and uptake; reduce trash and sediment inputs and support removal of contaminants bound to sediment.

USEPA lists the percent removal rates for Continuous Deflection Separators as follows (EPA, 1999):

Floatables: 100 percent removal

Suspended Solids: 80 percent removal

Oil and Grease: 80 to 90 percent removal

Phosphorous: 15 to 80 percent removal

Metals: 15 to 80 percent removal

Daylighting of Storm Drains The outfall structures of Project Number 77 and Harbor City Relief Drain (Project 510 Drain) would be improved with a potential bifurcated system where low flows would be treated through a naturalized, daylighted (above ground) stream system BMP, while high flows would continue through an underground pipe to the lake. Alternative methods of treating the flows from these drains (in addition to the trash capture devices discussed above) may include diverting the low flow from these drains to the vegetated detention basin in the marsh area to provide a more thorough treatment of dry-weather pollutants. This option will be considered further in pre-design with the availability of accurate topographical information. Other alternative treatment BMPs may include utilizing bioengineered slopes with native vegetation to maintain a stream channel structure combined with a step-pool and/or retention pond/basin. Trash capture devices are also included at these drains, the discussion can be found in Section 3.1.2.1 below.

USEPA lists the percent removal rates for bioengineered outfalls as follows (EPA, 1999):

Suspended Solids: 30 to 80 percent removal

Nitrogen: 15 to 80 percent removal




3-7

Machado 121206.doc

3.1.1.6 Aeration System. Dissolved oxygen is a critically important resource of lakes and a fundamental indicator of ecosystem health and metabolism. The intent of this project element is to replace the currently non-functional aeration system in Machado Lake preferably with a dual system to prevent a catastrophic failure. One of the potentially cost-effective, low-maintenance options that will be evaluated will be the use of floating solar-powered aerator system (such as manufactured by SolarBee), which provides an inexpensive, low-maintenance method of improving water quality. Machado Lake currently suffers from the effects of urban runoff that transports constituents such as fertilizers, pesticides, and trash into the lake. Sources of organic carbon and nutrients, such as grass clippings and fertilizers, have encouraged rapid plant growth in the lake, leading to decreased levels of oxygen in the lake and eutrophication (excessive nutrient loading). These conditions have impaired the beneficial uses and threaten the health of aquatic plants and animals. The installation of an aeration system would enhance circulation within the lake and help increase oxygen levels throughout the water column, thus promoting improved habitat resources in and around the lake.

The potential benefits of an aeration system include improving dissolved oxygen and pH levels in the lake which in turn will help to control excess algal growth, reduce odors, prevent fish kills, and minimize the release of nutrients from the bottom sediments. Ultimately, the aeration system would increase the health, aesthetic quality, and beneficial uses of the lake, such as recreational fishing

3.1.1.7 Installation of an Outlet Device and Spillway for the Dam The Machado Lake dam is currently an earthen structure capped by a maintenance access road and bicycle trail. The facility is not currently designed or equipped to control the rate or volume of water exiting the lake. Under current conditions, when the lake level rises to the elevation of the dam crest, water exits the lake by overtopping the dam in a sheet flow into the freshwater marsh area and out through the Harbor Outfall where it is discharged to the West Channel of the Los Angeles Harbor. For this project element, a gated low flow outlet structure and high flow spillway would be designed and installed. The outlet structure would be designed such that the flow out of the lake can be managed. The spillway would accommodate water that would otherwise overtop the dam in high- flow conditions and include energy dissipation downstream. The benefits of these structures include improved ability to maintain the lake level, and manage habitat and water quality, including activities such as sediment removal, management of aquatic vegetation and wildlife (including invasive and non-native species), increased flood storage capacity through planned water releases, controlled water residence time and improved lake flushing, provision of a supply of water for the low-flow channel, and other activities to support recreation and other beneficial uses.


3-8

Machado 121206.doc

3.1.2 Freshwater Marsh This section describes the following components of the project:



Construction of two vegetated detention basins (for further treatment of storm water discharges from the Figueroa Drain, from Anaheim Street, and from the project 77/510 storm drains on the west);




Repair of Harbor Outfall structure.

3.1.2.1 Trash Capture Devices Improvements to drainage inlets to the freshwater marsh would involve installation of trash capture devices on all inlets to the lake and freshwater marsh, as shown on Figure 3-1. These drains include three that flow directly to Machado Lake (Project 77 and 510 Drains, the 36-inch RCP and 78-inch RCP Drains), and five drains that enter the freshwater marsh directly (Figueroa Drain (two 10-foot by 8-foot box culverts), the 72-inch RCP, the 18-inch CMP, the 24-inch VCP & RCP, and the LA Harbor College Drain (33-inch)). Note that the 36-inch RCP shown on Figure 3-1 has trash capture devices included as part of a separate project, and the Wilmington Drain trash capture is included in that separate concept report.

A variety of technologies are available for trash capture, which will be evaluated during the design phase, including Continuous Deflective Separators (CDS), the technology currently favored by the City. These devices would reduce trash and sediment inputs, and support the removal of contaminants bound to sediment.

USEPA lists the percent removal rates for Continuous Deflection Separators as follows (EPA, 1999):

Floatables: 100 percent removal

Suspended Solids: 80 percent removal

Oil and Grease: 80 to 90 percent removal


3-9

Machado 121206.doc



3.1.2.2 Low-Flow Channel When the elevation in Machado Lake reaches a certain level the water overflows into the freshwater marsh and then discharges through the Harbor Outfall. With the proposed implementation of the upstream Wilmington Drain Multiuse Project and lake dredging to remove contaminated sediments, lake discharges will be sufficiently treated by the upstream improvements and therefore it will not be necessary to treat it again in the freshwater marsh. However, the flows that enter the freshwater marsh directly from the storm drains shown in Figure 3-1, have not received any treatment. As mentioned above, the storm drains that are targeted by this project element are the Project 643 Figueroa Storm Drain that enters from the east (two 10-foot x 8-foot RCB), the Project 643 Storm Drain that enters from the southwest (72-inch RCP), and the LA Harbor College Storm Drain that enters from the north (33-inch RCP), and the two 18-inch and 24-inch drains that enter from the southwest end of the marsh. As such, it is proposed that for low storm flow events the “treated” water from Machado Lake be kept separated from the “untreated” storm water inflows in the marsh. As a part of this project, these storm water inflows are planned to be treated through the use of the vegetated basins, discussed further in Section 3.1.2.3. Therefore, a low-flow channel is proposed that will be designed to convey the flow from Machado Lake directly to the Harbor Outfall, from dry weather and smaller storm events, up to the flow from the SUSMP storm of 0.75-inches. The channel, shown in Figure 3-1, will be located to avoid the vernally wet-flooded areas indicated as CVFM-1 areas (discussed in Section 3.1.2.5), and would be sized based on a more detailed analysis during the design phase.

While the low- flow channel does not remove pollutants per se, it is a critical part of the overall project in that it will separate “treated” flows from mixing with “untreated” flows from certain threshold. In this way, the effectiveness of the BMPs in the freshwater marsh area and associated storm drains will be maximized.

The plan also includes re-establishing the channel from the Figueroa Drain to the Harbor Outfall to improve the conveyance of large storm flows and to alleviate flooding concerns in the surrounding area, discussed in Section 3.2.1.4.

3.1.2.3 Vegetated Basins As discussed above, the low flow from Machado Lake will be conveyed through the low flow channel directly to the Harbor Outfall. To treat the flow entering the freshwater marsh directly from the storm drains (the five storm drains that directly enter the marsh are shown on Figure 3-1), two vegetated detention basins are included in this project element: one immediately west of the Harbor College Golf Driving Range, and one immediately south of the dam on the western fringe of the freshwater marsh. These basins will be constructed in already disturbed areas supporting ruderal vegetation zones.


3-10

Machado 121206.doc

This concept will require pumping storm flow and low flow from Figueroa Drain west to one of the basins (see Section 3.2.1.4 for discussion). It is expected this can be sized for low flow “nuisance flows” and early storm water runoff. Basically, low flow and early storm flow from the storm drains will be diverted to the basins to allow sediment to settle out of the water column and promote infiltration (during low flow periods) and then discharge flow to the coastal valley freshwater marsh for further “treatment.” Again, this project element serves to provide initial treatment of runoff through the vegetated basins prior to being discharged to the freshwater marsh. These flows would then be further treated by the native riparian/wetland plant communities within the freshwater marsh before reaching the Harbor Outfall.

Storm water inflows from the Anaheim St./Gaffey St. will be routed to the vegetated basin proposed to be sited immediately southwest of the dam and will be naturally treated, as described above, before being released into the freshwater marsh. Without detailed topographic plans the need for a pump station is unknown. It is anticipated that low flows and early storm flows could be diverted to this vegetated basin via gravity through the use of a weir structure, while high flows would follow the existing watercourse.

As the vegetated basins will be similar to wetlands, a discussion on wetland benefits is provided here. The goal design goal for the vegetated detention basin will be the construction of a man-made wetland community to maximize water quality improvements prior to discharge to the freshwater marsh. The two site locations will be used to their fullest extent to maximize the size of the vegetated basin. A great deal of research has been performed documenting the ability of wetlands, both natural and constructed, to provide consistent and reliable water quality improvement. With proper execution of design and construction elements, constructed wetlands exhibit characteristics that are similar to natural wetlands in that they support similar vegetation and microbes to assimilate pollutants. In addition, constructed wetlands provide wildlife habitat and environmental benefits that are similar to natural wetlands. Constructed wetlands are effective in the treatment of BOD, TSS, nitrogen, phosphorus, pathogens, metals, sulfates, organics and other toxic substances. Water quality regulations must be considered in the design and permitting of these systems as well as the establishment of a wetland monitoring program.

3.1.2.4 Figueroa Drain Flow Improvements Pumping Based on available information, it appears that the flow from the Figueroa Street drain flows directly to the Harbor Outfall with limited opportunity to “treat” runoff. The proposed method of treating this flow is by modifying the existing outlet with a pump station and weir structure to divert low flow and possibly first flush from small storms to a detention basin and allow high storm flows to bypass the pump station. The vegetated detention basin will received pumped flows allowing for: 1) infiltration of runoff into the ground; 2) settlement of sediment out of the water column; 3)


3-11

Machado 121206.doc

filtration of water through persistent vegetation, 4) uptake up of water and nutrients by vegetation; and 4) when the infiltration and storage capacity of the basin is exceeded water will flow by gravity southward to the freshwater marsh. This configuration is shown on Figure 3-1. This would require some outlet modifications to convey the runoff to the basins. See the following section for information on the Figueroa Drain flow requirements.

Low Flow Diversion Low flows from the Figueroa Drain would be diverted to the vegetated basin immediately west of the LA Harbor College golf driving range, as shown on Figure 3-1. As such, the flow from the Figueroa Drain will receive treatment prior to entering the enhanced coastal valley freshwater marsh zone.

High Flow Channel The channel that conveyed the Figueroa Drain storm water inflows to the Harbor Outfall will be re-established to convey the high flows. This will allow for preservation of the habitat improvements that are discussed below.

Sediment removal at Hawaiian & Opp Avenues Correcting the existing sediment conditions associated with the Figueroa Drain has been identified by BOE as an important issue to be addressed within the scope of the Prop O project.

3.1.2.5 Habitat Improvements in Coastal Valley Freshwater Marsh Habitat improvements in this 32-acre area will include enhancing the plant community “health” by removing non-native invasive plants, planting native species and removing debris.

This preliminary configuration shown in Figure 3-1 is based on a review of the habitat information presented in the Parsons prepared Ken Malloy Harbor Regional Park Improvement Program Volume III Master Plan Update (Parsons 2002), which indicates the location of various habitats, as shown in Figure 1. Basically, the natural plant communities that would be enhanced are:

CVFM-1 – Coastal Valley Freshwater Marsh – Vernally Wet-Flooded Lowland Vegetation

CVFM-2 – Coastal Valley Freshwater Marsh – Bulrushes-Cattails)

NNF – Non-Native Forest ONLY when adjacent to CVFM-1 or CVFM-2

NNG – Non-Native Grassland ONLY when adjacent to CVFM-1 or CVFM-2

The final basin size and planting plan will be developed during final design. At that time, based on hydrologic analyses, it will be determined if the basin will be vegetated as a wetland plant community or an upland plant community. The


3-12

Machado 121206.doc

enhanced coastal valley freshwater marsh zone will contain regionally appropriate wetland/riparian vegetation such as cattails, bulrush, mulefat and be based on information contained in the KMHRP Improvement Program Master Plan (Parsons, 2002) as well as a local plant survey. Refer to Section 2.2.3 for a description of the habitat that exists and is suggested for this area.

The goal is to establish wetland plant communities within the vegetated detention basins, based on final hydrologic analyses and design. Where feasible, mature vegetation will be used to give the appearance of fully developed plant communities and to minimize the time for these communities to obtain 50% coverage, the point at which they may be considered self-sustaining.

According to a study on pollutant removal in plant mesocosms presented at the Fifth Biennial Stormwater Research Conference, cattail (Typha, spp.) demonstrated the following contaminant removal efficiencies (Kent, 1997):

Suspended Solids: 71 average percent removal

Cadmium: 83 average percent removal

Copper: 85 average percent removal

Nickel: 34 average percent removal

Lead: 91 average percent removal

Zinc: 77 average percent removal

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), the following pollutants are expected to be removed by constructed wetlands (EPA, 1999):


Nitrogen: < 30 percent removal


Pathogens: < 30 percent removal


3.1.2.6 Repair Outlet Structure The Harbor Outfall is the only storm water outlet in the Machado Lake Ecosystem, located at the terminus of the freshwater marsh in the southeastern corner of the park. It is important that the storm flows discharge properly to avoid problems with standing water, nitrification, mosquito infestations, and high coliform bacteria. As such, it may be necessary to modify or repair this structure since it is reported its


3-13

Machado 121206.doc

current condition results in downstream flooding. The repairs need to be done to address high flow conditions, and the specific design will be determined in the design phase, after hydraulic and hydrologic studies have been completed.

3.1.3 Strategic Parkland Areas This section describes the following elements of the project:





3.1.3.1 Pervious Paving Permeable or pervious paving are composed of materials that allow water to pass through yet are strong enough to structurally support pedestrian and vehicular traffic. There are several types of permeable paving products, including Ecocreto TM, which is described below, as well as permeable interlocking pavers. Pervious paving blocks are proposed to be utilized at the parking lot adjacent to the lake. The decision on which type of materials to install will be made during the design phase. These blocks, made of concrete or plastic, are supported by a stone base with large pore spaces. The base acts both as pavement support and as a reservoir to store water so that it can be infiltrated, if the soil conditions allow, or detained and slowly released to the storm drain system. See Figure 3-6.

The shape of these interlocking pre-cast units leave drainage openings that typically comprise approximately 10 percent of the paver surface area. When properly filled with permeable material, the voids allow for movement of storm water through the pavement surface into the layers below. The system is a highly durable, and yet permeable pavement is capable of supporting heavier vehicular loads than grass or gravel pavers. Interlocking concrete paving blocks are resistant to heavy loads, are easy to repair, require little maintenance, and are of high quality. They have been used in parking lots, private streets, driveways and pedestrian access ways.

Figure 3-6 Pervious Paving Blocks


3-14

Machado 121206.doc

The company Ecocreto™ has patented a resin, that when mixed with a concrete aggregate produces a permeable pavement that is able to withstand the stress of heavy equipment and high volumes of traffic.

The Ecocreto™ specifications indicate that the pavement system must be protected from landscape clogging by either grading to prevent run-on to the pavement, or by adding a filtering area between any mulch or dirt surface and the pavement. The filter area may be any well-vegetated surface, including turf. Porous pavements, including Ecocreto™, require maintenance including periodic vacuuming or jet-washing to remove sediment from the pores. When properly designed and maintained, pervious pavement systems can be an effective means of managing urban storm water runoff.

Provided that there is a minimum of 18-inches of soil beneath the subgrade material, Ecocreto™ pervious pavement is effective in the treatment of BOD, TSS, nitrogen, phosphorus, pathogens, metals, sulfates, organics and other toxic substances. Water quality regulations must be considered in the design and permitting of these systems as well as the establishment of a maintenance program.

For heavy traffic areas 6- inches of compacted Ecocreto™ is recommended. A schematic and a typical cross-section of the pervious pavement is shown in Figure 3-7 and Figure 3-8, respectively. Per the suggestion of an Ecocreto™ representative, it may be possible to recycle the existing asphalt parking lot by breaking it into 8-inch to 10-inch pieces and then using the pieces as the subgrade material provided that compaction specifications can be achieved.

Figure 3-7: Schematic of a typical Ecocreto™ paving situation (Source: Ecocreto, 2006)


3-15

Machado 121206.doc

Figure 3-8: Typical design detail of Ecocreto™ used for heavy pavement The following pollutants are expected to be removed by this BMP (EPA, 1999):




Pathogens: 65 to 100 percent removal


3.1.3.2 Bioswales at Parking Lot Perimeter and Maintenance Yard Bioswales would be installed at the downgradient end of the parking lots and maintenance yard.

Bioswales, also known as vegetated filter strips or biofilters, are engineered swales utilized to convey runoff and naturally pre-treat stormwater. Stormwater is conveyed through broad, shallow channels with dense vegetation covering the sides and bottom of the channel. These open channel systems are alternatives to impervious curb and gutter stormwater conveyance systems. These systems slow stormwater runoff, capture pollutants, and promote infiltration. Swales tend to be most effective when slopes are between two and six percent to increase the time for treatment, and when water depths do not exceed the vegetation height. If the slope is greater than six percent, check dams may have to be created using natural rip rap for the steep sections and vegetation to minimize erosion. Bioswales can either be dry, collecting runoff as it occurs, or wet, where the swale holds standing water and a wetland may be established over time. (Note: we may want to clarify the wetland issue).


3-16

Machado 121206.doc

Installation of bioswales would capture and treat runoff that currently drains to the lake. These would be installed at key areas, including along the downgradient perimeter of the parking lots and maintenance yards where contaminated runoff is more likely. Figure 3-3 and Figure 3-4 shows the approximate location of the parking lot and maintenance yard bioswales, respectively. Dimensions and other design elements of the bioswales will be determined in the design phase of the project; however, a typical plan and cross-section of a bioswale are provided in Figure 3-5. Pollutants that would be removed by the bioswales include sediment, organic matter, pesticides, fertilizers, oil and grease, solvents, phosphates, suspended solids, and heavy metals.

The following pollutants are expected to be removed by this BMP (EPA, 1999):






3-17

Machado 121206.doc

Figure 3-3: Approximate location of bioswale receiving runoff from the parking lot. (Source: CDM; aerial photograph provided by NaviGateLA)

Figure 3-4: Approximate location of bioswale receiving runoff from the maintenance yard. (Source: CDM; aerial photograph provided by NaviGateLA)


3-18

Machado 121206.doc

Figure 3-5. Schematic of Typical Bioswale. (Source: The California Stormwater Best Management Practice Handbooks, New Development and Redevelopment)

3.1.3.3 Maintenance Yard Wash Rack and Cover Repair Improvements to the maintenance yard wash rack include installing new wash rack components, a canopy over the wash rack, a new clarifier, and reconfiguring the wash rack area such that it captures all wastewater generated from vehicle washing and directs it to the clarifier system. These upgrades address current runoff issues resulting from the existing system that is not functioning well. Installing a new, close-loop clarifying system would reduce the amount of water and detergents used for cleaning and would help improve water quality in Machado Lake. The specific design will be determined in the design phase of the project.


3-19

Machado 121206.doc

3.1.3.4 “Smart” Irrigation System The term “smart” irrigation refers to the use of irrigation controllers to monitor irrigation based on actual weather data and soil moisture content. In addition to reducing the amount of water used through more efficient irrigation (i.e. no irrigating after a storm event when the soil is already saturated), this smart technology would, in turn, also reduce or eliminate dry weather runoff or overland flow in the park’s landscaped areas and any associated pollutant loading in the lake.

A “smart” irrigation device reduces the amount of over-watering (potable water use) by anywhere from 20 to 80 percent and the amount of associated runoff by 60 percent (City of Los Angeles IRP Facilities Plan, 2004). Irrigation improvements will be made to the landscaped areas in the western and northern portions of the park. The potential for use of recycled water, as is currently used at the adjacent Harbor College, will continue to be monitored through the design phase to determine if it is feasible at the site.

3.2 Water Quality Benefits 3.2.1 Current Water Quality Water quality monitoring (in the form of grab sampling performed on two days) was conducted for Lake Machado during dry and wet weather periods in 2003 (City of Los Angeles, Machado Lake Assessment, Final Project Report, March 2004). The data presented below is taken directly from that document. Note that long term monitoring would be required in order establish a large data set, which is essential for identifying pollutant trends.

Sampling was conducted at five locations during the wet weather events:

Sampling Location A: Wilmington Drain Pump Station, north of Pacific Coast Highway;

Sampling Location B: The first manhole upstream of Project 77/510 Storm Drain Outlet at the junction of Vermont Avenue/Normandie Avenue (note that the Project 77/510 Storm Drain discharges to Machado Lake, and other than Wilmington Drain, is the major discharge point to the lake);

Sampling Location C: Northern portion of the lake adjacent to an old willow tree;

Sampling Location D: Middle portion of the lake north of the boathouse; and

Sampling Location E: Southern portion of the lake north of the dam.

For the dry weather sampling, only sampling locations C, D and E were used as there was no runoff in the drains during this time. Table 3-2 shows the test results for various parameters from these wet and dry weather sampling events.


3-20

Machado 121206.doc

Table 3-2 Water Quality Monitoring

Sampling Location Parameter

Reporting Limit A B C D E

Wet Weather: sampling from Feb 11 & 13, 2003 pH -- 6.0 6.5 6.1 6.4 6.5 Temperature (oF) -- 54 58 60 60 62 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) -- -- -- 5.6 10.5 10.3 Conductivity (mS/cm) -- -- -- 0.20 0.19 0.20 Secchi Depth (inches) -- -- -- 11.0 12.0 10.7 Coper (total) (mg/L) 0.010 0.022/ 0.029 0.013 0.013 0.013 Lead (total) (mg/L) 0.005 0.0085 0.012 ND ND ND Ammonia-N (mg/L) 0.50 0.89 1.20 ND ND ND BOD (mg/L) 2 12 18 3.30 3.40 3.40 Nitrate-N (mg/L) 0.11 0.93 0.76 0.64 0.62 0.64 Nitrite-N (mg/L) 0.15 ND 0.18 ND ND ND Phosphorus (mg/L) 0.05 0.56 0.28 0.34 0.38 0.37 TSS (mg/L) 10 100 100 24 25 28 Total Coliform (MPN/100mL) <2 -- -- 24,000 50,000 >1,600 Fecal Coliform (MPN/100mL) <2 -- -- 3,000 11,000 >1,600

Wet Weather: sampling from February 24-26, 2003 pH -- 7.0 6.5 6.6 6.3 6.6 Temperature (oF) -- 51 57 58 58 59 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) -- -- -- 9.9 10.0 10.1 Conductivity (mS/cm) -- -- -- 0.15 0.15 0.17 Secchi Depth (inches) -- -- -- 11.4 12.4 14.1 Coper Copper (total) (mg/L) 0.010 0.0029 0.037 ND ND ND Lead (total) (mg/L) 0.005 0.014 0.022 ND ND ND Ammonia-N (mg/L) 0.50 ND ND ND ND ND BOD (mg/L) 2 16 6.6 3.60 3.60 3.80 Nitrate-N (mg/L) 0.11 0.52 0.68 0.43 0.39 0.34 Nitrite-N (mg/L) 0.15 ND 0.15 ND ND ND Phosphorus (mg/L) 0.05 0.54 0.45 0.35 0.23 0.30 TSS (mg/L) 10 86 150 21 23 19 Total Coliform (MPN/100mL))

<2 -- -- 8,000 14,000 8,000

Fecal Coliform (MPN/100mL) <2 -- -- 8,000 8,000 3,000 Dry Weather: sampling from May 29, 2003

pH -- -- -- 6.2 6.3 6.2 Temperature (oF) -- -- -- 74 74 74 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) -- -- -- 8.8 8.2 8.7 Conductivity (mS/cm) -- -- -- 0.55 0.55 0.57 Secchi Depth (inches) -- -- -- 36.5 41.5 38.2 BOD (mg/L) 2 -- -- 4.2 3.6 ND TSS (mg/L) 10 -- -- ND ND 11 Total Coliform (MPN/100mL) <2 -- -- 3,000 210 220 Fecal Coliform (MPN/100mL) <2 -- -- 8 11 13

Reference: City of Los Angeles, Machado Lake Assessment, Final Project Report, March 2004 Units: oF-degrees Fahrenheit, ND-Non Detectable, Ms/cm-microohm per centimeter, mg/L-milligram per liter, MPN-Most Probable Number Note that sampling was also done for several organochlorine pesticides and total PCBs, but none were detected in any of the samples, and are therefore not shown here.


3-21

Machado 121206.doc

Additionally, the report calculated the pollutant loading from wet weather runoff for the two main drains that enter Machado Lake: the Wilmington Drain and the Project 77/510 Drain. These values were estimated by multiplying the volume of runoff with the average concentration of each pollutant of concern during wet weather sampling events. The average annual runoff from each subwatershed was calculated by multiplying the average rainfall of 13.5 inches with the acreage of each subwatershed. Table 3-3 shows the results.

Table 3-3 Pollutant Loading Estimate

Average Concentration

(mg/L)

Annual Runoff (acre-ft/yr)

Pollutant Loading1 (lb/year)

Constituents

Wilmington Drain

Project 77/510 Drain

Wilmington Drain

Project 77/510 Drain

Conversion Factor

(bl/454,000mg)* (1,233,000

L/ac-ft) Wilmington

Drain Project 77/510 Drain

Copper 0.026 0.033 5,696 847 2.72 400 76 Lead 0.011 0.017 5,696 847 2.72 170 39 Ammonia-N 0.89 1.2 5,696 847 2.72 14,000 2,800 BOD 14 12 5,696 847 2.72 220,000 28,000 Nitrate-N 0.73 0.72 5,696 847 2.72 11,000 1,700 Nitrite-N ND 0.17 5,696 847 2.72 -- 380 Phosphorus 0.55 0.37 5,696 847 2.72 8,500 840 TSS 93 125 5,696 847 2.72 1,440,000 290,000 Source: City of Los Angeles, Machado Lake Assessment, Final Project Report, March 2004 Notes: 1 – Values are rounded to two significant figures.

3.2.2 Proposed BMP Effectiveness Table 3-4 identifies the BMPs included in the program and their effectiveness in reducing pollutants, as determined by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Table 3-4 In-Lake Rehabilitation and Treatment BMPs and Expected Benefits

In-Lake Rehabilitation Applicability Expected Benefit Lake Dredging Remove contaminated

sediments from the bottom of the lake

Improve the flood control capacity of Echo Park Lake and decrease the movement of contaminated lake sediments to downstream receiving waters

BMP Activity Applicability Expected Benefit Continuous Deflective Separation (CDS)

Captures 80% of TSS; captures 100% floatables; capable of capturing 80-90% oil and grease

Reduce trash in Wilmington Channel and Machado Lake and provides some treatment of flows

StormScreen Treats polluted runoff in drainage inlets

Treats runoff into Machado Lake

Enhanced Wetlands Reduces TSS by 50-80%; reduces nitrogen by approx. 30%; reduces total phosphorous by 15-45%; reduces heavy

Reduce sediment loads (and adsorbed pollutants) to Machado Lake; fix pollutants through root uptake; improve water quality;


3-22

Machado 121206.doc

Table 3-4 In-Lake Rehabilitation and Treatment BMPs and Expected Benefits

metals 50-80%; reduces fecal coliform by approx. 68%

improve habitat

Vegetated bioswales* Reduces TSS by 30-80%; reduces nitrogen by 15-80%; reduces total phosphorous by 15-80%; reduces heavy metals 15-80%

Reduce sediment loads (and adsorbed pollutants) to Machado Lake; fix pollutants through root uptake; improve water quality

Bioengineered Outfalls* Reduces TSS by 30-80%; reduces nitrogen by 15-80%; reduces total phosphorous by 15-80%; reduces heavy metals 15-80%

Reduce sediment loads (and adsorbed pollutants) to Machado Lake; fix pollutants through root uptake; improve water quality; improve habitat

Aeration System Provides mixing and circulation to lake

Reduce algal growth; reduce odors; increase oxygen levels; reduce inorganic chemical release from sediment; improve pH

Porous Pavement Reduces TSS by 65-100%; reduces total phosphorous by 30-65%; reduces heavy metals 65-100%

Reduce polluted runoff; reduce stormwater runoff

"Smart" Irrigation System Reduces water usage; reduces runoff that carries with it pollutants

Reduce polluted runoff; save water

TSS = total suspended solids. * Actual pollutant removal percentages vary depending on design of BMP and vegetation planted. Sources: EPA, 1999; EPA, 1993; CWP, 2000.

The City of Los Angeles, Bureau of Sanitation has determined the influent pollutant load to the Machado Lake Ecosystem BMPs and then calculated the resulting effluent load. The targeted pollutants are: trash, heavy metals (copper, lead, zinc), total coliform, fecal coliform, fecal enterococcus, oil & grease, and total suspended solids (TSS). The hand calculations were performed according to the location of the inflows and the associated BMPs. The calculations assume the average annual rainfall of 13.5 inches. The equation used to estimate total annual loading, L (kg/yr), for each targeted pollutant is as follows:

∑=n

iiii GCAASVRCL **

Where L = annual loading (kg/yr)

RC i = runoff/rainfall ratio for given land use (imperviousness ≈ 1.00)

Ci = anticipated concentration for given land use (mg/l)

G = unit conversion factor (10-6 kg/mg*28.3 l/cf)

AASVi = average annual storm volume for given drainage area (cf/yr)

= P*Ai *F and where;

P = annual rain fall = 15 in /yr

Ai= Drainage area


3-23

Machado 121206.doc

F = unit conversion factor (43,560sf/ac-1ft/12in)

The pollutant loadings were calculated with the inputted BMPs (except for trash and oil & grease). Effluent loading of the targeted pollutants is presented in Table 3-5. Please note that different sources, such as EPA and Caltrans, quote different percent removal for various BMPs. The table shows the pollutant loading at each storm drain that enters the Machado Lake Ecosystem. For each storm drain, the pollutant loading is shown for each pollutant and below it the amount of each pollutant that is removed by each proposed BMP. However, for trash and oil and grease, only the percent removal that is expected to be achieved based on the 1999 EPA studies is shown, as the loading amounts are not known at this time.

3-24

o 121206.doc

Table 3-5 Machado Lake Ecosystem Proposition O Project

Annual Pollutant Removal (in lbs) by BMP for each Storm Drain

Heavy Metals Bacteria General Mineral

Trash Total

Copper Total lead

Total Nickel

Total Zinc

Fecal Coliform

(MPN)

Total Coliform

(MPN)

Total Suspended

Solids Oil &

Grease Machado Lake/Riparian Areas Wilmington Drain Pollutant Loading: 1,273 419 161 10,848 2.12E+18 2.98E+18 6,024,944 Wetland Pollutants Removed by BMP: 637 251 64 5,424 1.59E+18 2.24E+18 4,518,708 Detention Basin Pollutants Removed by BMP: 350 101 39 2,983 2.92E+17 4.10E+17 1,129,677 CDS (trash capture devices)* BMP Removal Rate: 95-100% 80% 80-90% Project 77/510 Pollutant Loading: 714 235 89 6,083 1.21E+18 1.70E+18 3,347,252 Bioswale Pollutants Removed by BMP: 214 106 27 2,737 n/a n/a 1,506,263 Detention Basin Pollutants Removed by BMP: 275 78 25 1,840 6.66E+17 9.35E+17 1,380,741 CDS (trash capture devices)* BMP Removal Rate: 95-100% 80% 80-90% 78" RCP (D-24010) Pollutant Loading: 6 2 1 42 8.45E+13 1.37E+15 11,729 Biorention Pollutants Removed by BMP: 5 2 1 34 1.27E+13 2.06E+14 9,970 Detention Basin Pollutants Removed by BMP: 1 0 0 5 3.95E+13 6.40E+14 1,320 CDS (trash capture devices)* BMP Removal Rate: 95-100% 80% 80-90% 36" RCP (P-6545) Pollutant Loading: 5 2 1 38 7.65E+13 1.24E+15 10,629 Biorention Pollutants Removed by BMP: 4 2 1 30 1.15E+13 1.86E+14 9,035 Detention Basin Pollutants Removed by BMP: 1 0 0 4 3.58E+13 5.80E+14 1,196 CDS (trash capture devices)* BMP Removal Rate: 95-100% 80% 80-90%


3-25

o 121206.doc




Trash Total

Copper Total lead

Total Nickel

Total Zinc

Fecal Coliform

(MPN)

Total Coliform

(MPN)

Total Suspended

Solids Oil &

Grease Freshwater Marsh Project 643 Figueroa Drain Pollutant Loading: 164 54 21 1,399 1.93E+17 2.71E+17 777,292 Detention Basin Pollutants Removed by BMP: 90 32 8 769 1.06E+17 1.49E+17 582,969 Wetlands Pollutants Removed by BMP: 37 13 5 315 6.51E+16 9.15E+16 145,742 CDS (trash capture devices)* BMP Removal Rate: 95-100% 80% 80-90% Project 643 72" SD Pollutant Loading: 45 15 4 382 1.30E+17 1.83E+17 167,523 Detention Basin Pollutants Removed by BMP: 25 9 2 210 7.15E+16 1.01E+17 125,642 Wetlands Pollutants Removed by BMP: 10 4 1 86 4.39E+16 6.18E+16 31,411 CDS (trash capture devices)* BMP Removal Rate: 95-100% 80% 80-90% 33" RCP (LAUSD) Pollutant Loading: 5 2 1 32 6.60E+13 1.07E+15 9,163 Detention Basin Pollutants Removed by BMP: 3 1 0 18 3.63E+13 5.89E+14 6,872 Wetlands Pollutants Removed by BMP: 1 0 0 7 2.23E+13 3.61E+14 1,718 CDS (trash capture devices)* BMP Removal Rate: 95-100% 80% 80-90% 24" RCP (P-2533) Pollutant Loading: 1 n/m n/m 4 7.92E+12 1.28E+14 1,100 Detention Basin Pollutants Removed by BMP: 1 2 4.36E+12 7.04E+13 825 Wetlands Pollutants Removed by BMP: 0 1 2.67E+12 4.32E+13 206 CDS (trash capture devices)* BMP Removal Rate: 95-100% 80% 80-90%


3-26

o 121206.doc




Trash Total

Copper Total lead

Total Nickel

Total Zinc

Fecal Coliform

(MPN)

Total Coliform

(MPN)

Total Suspended

Solids Oil &

Grease 18" CMP (P-9481) Pollutant Loading: 3 1 n/m 18 3.56E+13 5.77E+14 4,948 Detention Basin Pollutants Removed by BMP: 2 1 10 1.96E+13 3.17E+14 3,711 Wetlands Pollutants Removed by BMP: 1 0 4 1.20E+13 1.95E+14 928 CDS (trash capture devices)* BMP Removal Rate: 95-100% 80% 80-90% Total Pollutant Loading 2,216 730 278 18,846 3.65E+18 5.14E+18 10,354,580 Amount Removed (lbs) 1,654 599 173 14,480 2.83E+18 3.99E+18 9,456,934 Average Removal Rate 95-100% 75% 82% 62% 77% 78% 78% 91% 80-90% nrv: No removal value, no valid removal data available; n/m: Not meaningful, no valid data available * Data for CDS units (Continuous Deflection Separators) is based on the 1999 EPA studies. The loading information was not available; therefore removal rates are presented in the table.


3-27

Machado 121206.doc

3.3 Additional Project Benefits The need for more parks and open space in Los Angeles is an issue that receives widespread support throughout the Los Angeles region. According to the Trust for Public Land, nearly 67 percent of children in Los Angeles do not live within walking distance of a park, ball field, or playground. Recent long-term struggles for acquiring parkland in the City and nearby region include Rio de Los Angeles Park (Taylor Yard), Cornfields, and Upper Las Virgenes Canyon Open Space Preserve (Ahmanson Ranch). The proposed project would help alleviate this substantial demand for additional and improved parks and recreation facilities.

Additionally, KMHRP is located in an area where the existing supply of park and recreational facilities is especially inadequate (0.68 acres per 1,000 people). Improvements outlined in this proposal would meet community needs, avoid future maintenance problems, and improve open space opportunities and quality of life to an increasingly dense and urbanized population. This project would help provide the necessary upgrades, renovations, and enhancements that KMHRP needs in order to continue to efficiently service the local community.


Section 4 Proposed Project Siting 4.1 Siting Location and Construction Constraints Siting Location The 45-acre lake is bordered by active recreational park space on the western shore and a largely inaccessible border abutting a park golf course on the eastern shore. North of the lake is sensitive habitat containing trees that must be protected throughout construction activities. South of the lake is a habitat, containing willow woodlands and riparian species that will need to be identified and protected. Also to the south of the lake is a former campground containing non-native grassland, maintenance roads, and utility access that could be used for contractor staging. This area is especially suitable as the southern park boundary along the Anaheim Street right-of-way is already fenced. As the site is accessed from major collector streets, at both Anaheim and Vermont, traffic at these entry points will are expected to have some impact by construction activities.

A significant amount of park space is expected to be required for lake dredging activities. Existing maintenance roads and a number of suitable lay down areas are available for contractor staging within the park proper near the lake, but these are in high use areas and will cause a greater impact to park activities. Fencing, signage, and barriers will need to be erected as precautions to protect the public from the proposed construction, and the contractor from vandalism. Contractor set-up zones will need to be identified in the construction plans for consideration and approval by RAP prior to the start of construction. Existing habitat will need to be monitored throughout construction to insure no impacts are dealt to the existing flora and fauna.

Design Criteria The proposed Machado Lake Ecosystem improvements include the construction of storm drains and culvert and watercourse modifications. The City of Los Angeles and Los Angeles County Flood Control District have developed design standards requirements and criteria for developing these types of infrastructure improvements. Design criteria will need to conform to the requirements contained in the following documents:

Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD) Hydrology Manual;

City of Los Angeles, Bureau of Engineering (BOE) Standard Details and Specifications;

Los Angeles County , Department of Public Works, Hydrology Manual (2006);

Los Angeles County , Department of Public Works, Sedimentation Manual (2006);

Los Angeles County , Department of Public Works, Hydraulic Design Manual (2002)

Section 4 Proposed Project Siting

4-2

Machado 121206.doc

City of Los Angeles, Bureau of Engineering Storm Drain Design Manual (Part G);

City of Los Angeles Bureau of Engineering (BOE) Survey Manual (Part J);

City of Los Angeles Bureau of Engineering (BOE) Permit and Procedure Manual for Work in the Public Right-of-Way

The proposed Machado Lake Ecosystem project calls for improvements to the lake in order for the lake to continue to serve as a storm water retention basin. The Capital Flood level of protection applies to all retention and detention basins designed to intercept sediment-laden flood waters. Sediment retention basins must be designed to handle the design sediment volume.

Constraint: Current Recreational Programs Due to the duration of construction, it is likely that use of parkland turf areas and picnic areas will resume before the entire project is completed. Construction activities should be completed in phases based on the needs of RAP. As owner, RAP may prefer to apply for multiple permits for each area of construction; namely the willow woodlands, the lake, the parkland and the freshwater marsh; so that use of the areas may resume with the sign-off and completion of construction in each area. For public safety, these areas will need to be made off-limits during periods of construction. The proposed work will impact any recreational activities scheduled for that area of the facility. All construction work will be coordinated with RAP, and abide by all current City of Los Angeles and regulatory permitting requirements.

4.2 Environmental Feasibility Machado Lake is fed by urban and stormwater runoff from a watershed of approximately 20 square miles, including inputs from the Wilmington Channel, Project Number 77, the Figueroa Drain, Harbor City Relief Drain, the Figueroa Drain, Anaheim and Gaffey Drains, and the PCH/110-Freeway Drain. As discussed, the flow from each of the storm drains will be treated.

As the site currently does have existing recreational program elements, construction of the proposed facilities will temporarily impact the recreational aspects of the site. However, the improvements will enhance the project site as a whole, and therefore once construction is complete, the recreational elements value of the site will be improved.

Items that will need to be procured include the pumps, the pipeline system that will divert the runoff from the Figueroa Drain to the wetlands, required pipeline diverting flow from the other freshwater marsh drains, the porous pavement, the evapo-transpiration device, controller and infrastructure for the irrigation system (i.e. Smart Irrigation), the trash capture devices, the aeration system, inlet and outlet materials, and any plant materials that will be introduced to the site.

Section 4 Proposed Project Siting

4-3

Machado 121206.doc

The site investigations and studies, including, but not limited to, the soil sampling associated with sediment removal, should be undertaken as early as possible in the process since they will provide useful and necessary data. Furthermore, they are required for pre-design, scope and phasing relative to sediment removal and other related water quality improvement elements.

Chemical and geotechnical soils analysis will enable further design evaluation of concept approach and allow necessary modifications to the current pre-conceptual design proposal. Issues such as suitability of onsite materials to be re-used will be evaluated.

Final vegetative selections will be made based on plant materials suitability towards the hydraulic operations of the wetland and ability to function in a detention wetland/settling basin system, as well as satisfy the projects habitat enhancement objectives. Where feasible, stock will be propagated from local or upstream sources; or procured from local native plant sources and conservancies. Bureau of Sanitation is currently producing a wetland operation and maintenance manual that will contain a list of recommended species.


Section 5 Operations and Maintenance The proposed water quality improvements will not change the overall use or size of the lake, though an increase in passive recreation is anticipated in other areas of the park. Overall operations and maintenance of Machado Lake and KMHRP is the responsibility of RAP. Current staff include: one senior gardener, three gardener caretakers, and 2 special programs assistants II. RAP will continue to maintain the site after the proposed improvements are complete. The maintenance and operations management divisions within RAP will update this staffing profile to identify the types of positions (both recreation and maintenance) necessary to operate the new facility along with an estimate of associated costs.

The Bureau of Sanitation lake water quality monitoring results will continue to be provided, and will assist in providing recommendations for park maintenance activities and procedures.

The Machado Lake improvements will require additional effort to maintain the vegetative treatment, pollution control and runoff reduction elements. Maintenance responsibilities will include (but not necessarily be limited to):

The Figueroa Drain low flow pumps will require periodic maintenance and regular monitoring to ensure maximum lifetime operations and cost benefit.

The aeration system will require continued maintenance.

Vegetative elements in the park, flow channels, basins, wetlands and at the lake perimeter, must be maintained seasonally and as needed to maintain health and vigor.

Park areas and BMP’s must be periodically cleared of trash and plant debris.

The “Smart” Irrigation System will require periodic maintenance to insure that the sensors system and infrastructure remain functional.

The permeable parking lots will require additional maintenance. Maintenance activities will vary pending the type of permeable surface selected. Permeable interlocking pavers will require upkeep if they are damaged or worn down over time. If Ecocreto™ is selected, the Ecocreto™ specifications include a section regarding “maintenance, clogging, special recommendations”. Ecocreto™ recommends that the surface be vacuumed at least 2 times per year, on six-month intervals, to lift any silt or debris from the surface. This process will prevent clogging of the pervious system. Frequency may be increased due to over hanging vegetation and/or excessive dirt & pollutants, which may wash into or over & foul the surface of the pervious system. Power washing is also recommended on an annual basis, but not limited to annually, in order to flush silt or other contaminants, which is essential to maintaining the permeability of the

Section 5 Operations and Maintenance

5-2

Machado 121206.doc

system. It has been determined that these fines cause little to no threat to the system when washed into the lower & larger aggregate. It should also be noted that LA City parking lots are required to have a 50 percent shade cover, therefore this should be taken into consideration during design and final selection of paver type if overhanging vegetation is deemed unsuitable due to the increase in cleaning frequency required.

Long-term success will hinge on the development and implementation of a comprehensive and adaptable lake management plan and promoting a lasting stewardship of the ecosystem through community education programs and collaborative public and private partnerships.


Section 6 Regulatory Permit Requirements This section describes the environmental review process and appropriate regulatory requirements for the project.

6.1 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) For purposes of this Concept Report, a Program EIR is assumed to be the most likely CEQA document required for the project due to the programmatic nature of the project concept and the project phases described earlier in the project description.

Timing: The City of Los Angeles anticipates commencing with CEQA documentation in November 2007 following Proposition O funding approvals. For purposes of this Concept Report, it is assumed that a Program EIR will be completed within12 months from November 2007 to November 2008.

6.2 Permit Requirements Construction General Permit issued by State Water Resources Control Board

(SWRCB) which includes the Storm water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).

Traffic Control Plan

Erosion Control Plan

Access Plan

Flood plain

California Department of Fish and Game 1603 Permit

United States Army Corps of Engineers 404 Permit

Regional Water Quality Control Board 401 Permit

National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit


Section 7 Public Outreach Program 7.1 Stakeholders The Bureau of Sanitation will be responsible for the planning phase of the proposed project. The Bureau of Engineering will be responsible for the pre-design and through implementation phases of the proposed project. As owner, RAP will be responsible for the operations and maintenance of the proposed project. Interested stakeholders include: Ken Malloy Harbor Regional Park Advisory Board (KMHRP), California Coastal Conservancy (CCC), California Department of Fish & Game (CDFG), Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB), US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), City of Lomita, LA County Department of Public Works (LADPW), LAPD Harbor Division, Park Advisory Board and the Palos Verdes/South Bay Audubon Society, Harbor Regional Task Force, Harbor City Neighborhood Council, Endangered Habitats League, Harbor City/Harbor Gateway Chamber of Commerce and the Office of Councilwoman Janice Hahn, 15th Council District.


Section 8 Preliminary Cost Estimates The total project cost is estimated at $99,523,897. The amount requested from Prop O is $99,523,897. Detailed cost breakdowns are shown in Tables 8-1 and 8-2 below.

Water Quality Benefits Cost

Other Project Benefits

(a)

Construction Cost (including estimating contingency, moblization, allowances,

construction contengency, and material cost escalation

$74,592,144 $1,817,757 $76,409,901

(b) Land Purchase/Right-of-Way acquisition $0 $0 $0

(c)Pre-Design and Design (including

environmental clearance, design project management)

$12,680,664 $309,019 $12,989,683

(d) Construction and Post-Construction management $9,883,459 $240,853 $10,124,312

(e) Grand Total [Sum (a) through (d) for each column] $0 $97,156,268 $2,367,629 $99,523,897

Table 8-1. Project Cost Estimate Table

Budget CategoryNon-Proposition O

Funding (if applicable) Project Benefits

Requested Proposition O

Total

Basis of Estimate The following comments refer to the lettered rows shown on Table 8-1:

(a) This is the construction cost estimate, which is further detailed in Table 8-2 below.

(b) This is the land purchase amount, which for the Machado Lake Ecosystem Project does not apply as there is no land purchases required.

(c) This is for the pre-design and design phase of the project, which is 17 percent of the total construction cost.

(d) This is the construction and post-construction management costs, which is 13.25 percent of the total construction cost.

(e) This is the total of all of the above (a through d).

Note: Project costs for Wilmington Drain will be provided under separate cover.

Table 8-2 summarizes the raw construction costs for the Machado Lake Ecosystem Project.

Section 8 Implementation Costs

8-2 Document Code

Unit Quantity Unit Price Item Total

327,000 CY $50 $16,350,000 30 AC $10,000 $300,000 30 AC $33,000 $990,000 2 EA $250,000 $500,000 1 LS $90,000 $90,000 1 EA $500,000 $500,000 26 AC $10,000 $260,000 1 LS $950,000 $950,000 3 EA $662,500 $1,987,500

40 AC $8,500 $340,000 53 AC $15,000 $795,000

3,000 LF $500 $1,500,000 20 AC $30,000 $600,000

7,500 CY $50 $375,000 1 LS $1,000,000 $1,000,000

7,600 CY $50 $380,000 5 EA $662,500 $3,312,500 1 LS $50,000 $50,000

40,000 SF $10 $400,000 1,875 LF $20 $37,500

25 AC $19,000 $475,000 25 AC $30,000 $750,000 1 LS $50,000 $50,000 1 LS $15,000 $15,000

65,000 CY $12 $780,000

$32,787,500

$655,750$983,625

$1,639,375$36,066,250

$9,016,563$45,082,813

$24,380,734$69,463,547

$6,946,355$76,409,901

Table 8-2PROJECT CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE

Create Nesting Islands (Grading cut /fill)

Figueroa Drain Low Flow Improvements

Escalation - 5% to 10% per year of Subtotal (3), used compound amount factor: (1+i)^nSubtotal (4)

Construction Contingency - 10% to 20% of Subtotal (4), used 10%Total Estimated Project Construction Cost

Estimating Contingency - 10% to 25% of Subtotal (2), used 25%Subtotal (3)

Subtotal (1)

Mobilization - 0% to 7% of Subtotal (1), used 2%Permits Allowances - 1% to 3% of Subtotal (1), used 3%

Subtotal (2)

STRATEGIC PARKLAND AREASParking Lots/ Permeable Parkland Paving Parking Lots/ Bioswales

Other Allowances - 5% of Subtotal (1), used 5%

"Smart" Irrigation system Re-seeding (turf)KMHRP Golf Course Maintenance Yard Wash RackKMHRP Golf Course Maintenance Yard Canopy

Other Beneficial Improvements

BMP: Stormdrain Treatment unitsHarbor Outfall Structure Repairs

FRESHWATER MARSH

Construction of Low-flow channel (dam to outlet)

Hawaiian & Opp Sediment Removal

Vegetated Basins

Marsh Enhancement (exotic removal/planting)

Figueroa Drain High Flow Improvements

Aquatic/Riparian Habitat Improvements

Proj. 77/Harbor Hardscape Removals

BMP: Stormdrain Treatment unitsLake Aeration System

Dam Outlet & Spillway ImprovementsShoreline and littoral zone vegetation enhancement

Proj. 77/Harbor Relief Stormdrains

Description

Wilmington Drain Outflow (Dispersion)

MACHADO LAKEHydraulic Dredging & Sediment RemovalWillow Riparian Habitat Improvements (exotic removal planting)

Section 8 Implementation Costs

8-3 Document Code

Operation and Maintenance Costs Operation and maintenance costs were determined based on the assumption that operation and maintenance costs will be approximately 8 percent of the total estimated capital costs. However, the hydraulic dredging of the lake and disposal of any contaminated sediment (a cost of $16.1 million) will not require operation and maintenance costs in the future and was therefore subtracted from the capital cost before the 8 percent was calculated. As such, by taking the construction cost shown in Table 8-1 and 8-2 of $76.4, million minus $16.1 million (shown in Table 8-2), there was a resulting $60.3 million that would be subject to operation and maintenance costs. Therefore, 8 percent of this amount computes roughly to $4.8 million of operation and maintenance costs per year. However, operation and maintenance costs are not being requested through Proposition O.

Other Funding Sources Other secured funding sources for improvements to the Machado Lake ecosystem include: $1,100,000, from Proposition K, $300,000 of Coastal Conservancy funding for project planning purposes, and $1,169,000 of Prop 40 funding to be shared between Echo Park Lake and Machado Lake (see Section 10: Project Recommendations). For the Wilmington Drain Project, which is detailed in a separate Concept Report, Proposition 50, Chapter 8 funds have been awarded and are anticipated in the amount of $4,500,000. Other potential future funding sources include grant programs administered by the State Water Resources Control Board, California Department of Water Resources, California Department of Parks and Recreation, the State Coastal Conservancy, and other state and federal agencies and non-governmental organizations.

Potential Sources of Revenue While there is no potential for additional revenues as a result of this project, however the improvements proposed for this project would result in increased facilities and use at Machado Lake and the surrounding areas.


Section 9 Implementation Schedule As identified on the schedule presented in Table 9-1, design and permitting for the Machado Lake Ecosystem improvements are expected to be completed by 2009. Following the contractor bid and award period, construction will continue for approximately 48 months. Prior to and during construction, public outreach in the form of public notices, public meetings and postings throughout the affected neighborhoods will occur to notify residents of the projects as well as to advise them of any construction-related activities that may affect them.

Permits For each project, permits will be obtained as identified in Section 6 of this Conceptual Report. Permit/plan approval and acquisition by the regulatory agencies may affect the project schedule. Neither land nor easement acquisition is anticipated at this time.

Section 8 Implementation Schedule


Note: Throughout the duration shown above for construction, work may not be continuous. It is anticipated that no work will be permitted during the mid-March to mid-September nesting season.

ItemActifity Description Start F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A

1 CEQA Nov-07

2Public Outreach Feb-07

3 Pre-Design Mar-074 Design Apr-08

5

Permitting Identification/Acquisition Mar-07

6Contract Bid & Award Nov-09

7 Construction Jul-10

8

Post Implement-ation Jun-14

* Note that the years 2011 through 2013 are shown in one cell for the purpose of fitting the table on one page, and it should read that construction continues during these years.

2015Machado Lake Ecosystem Rehabilitation Project Implementation Schedule

Table 9-1

20142011 / 2012 / 2013*2007 2008 2009 2010


Section 10 Project Recommendations The following project recommendations will reduce delays, costs and improve project benefits:

1) Begin CEQA biological and plant surveys immediately upon funding approval.

2) Order all routine pre-design surveys immediately upon funding approval.

3) Obtain approval for required mitigation by California Department of Fish and Game (Streambed Alteration Agreement) at earliest possible phase in design to avoid delays and to insure all mitigation issues are addressed in the construction documents.

4) Review operational and maintenance requirements for all pump systems, electrical, and mechanical elements with RAP maintenance staff prior to design selection and specification.

5) Sample the sediments in Machado Lake that are to be removed and determine the waste characterization. Based on the findings, determine the required permits and methods of disposal that will be required.

6) Coordinate with the county to develop inter-agency cooperation and dialogue to address flood constraints with respect to channel rehabilitation.

7) Hold regular meetings with stakeholders at regular intervals through the pre-design and design phases so that the beneficial use goals (bird islands, wetland habitat, bike paths, etc.) remain integrated with the primary water quality improvements.

8) Require an extended maintenance period to allow for plant naturalization. Project planting periods during construction should be required (defined in specifications) to commence within appropriate seasonality to achieve the highest survival rate.

9) Long-term success will hinge on the development and implementation of a comprehensive and adaptable lake management plan.

10) Include the existing fencing plans which were prepared for KMHRP by the Department of Recreation & Parks with the Prop O Project if Prop 40 funding is available (funding is to be shared with Echo Park Lake).

11) Continue to support and recommend the establishment of a permanent supply of recycled/reclaimed water for use in irrigation and lake leveling. If a supply becomes available during project outreach and design, include a specification for reclaimed water system. Options for future advanced treatment supply in this region have been identified by BOS (See Appendix E).

A-1 Machado 121206.doc

Appendix A References California Resources Agency. “The California Environmental Quality Act.” 2005. http://ceres.ca.gov/topic/env_law/ceqa/stat/

Proposition O Project Review Committee. “2005 Fall Funding Cycle Categorization of Projects: Recommendations of the Project Review Committee.” February 9, 2006.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. “Preliminary Data Summary of Urban Stormwater Best Management Practices”. August, 1999. Accessed June 15, 2006. http://www.epa.gov/ost/stormwater/usw_c.pdf.

URS. “Machado Lake Water Quality and Habitat Improvement Program Assessment of Existing Information and Preliminary Recommendations”. November 2005

United States Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, “7.5 Minute Series (Topographical) Map, Torrance Quadrangle,” 1964, photo revised 1981.

Parsons, “City of Los Angeles Department of Recreation and Parks, Ken Malloy Harbor Regional Park Implementation Program, Volume III, Master Plan Update, July 2002.

Parsons, City of Los Angeles Department of Recreation and Parks and Palos Verdes/Southbay Audubon Society, “Ken Malloy Harbor Regional Park Development Program Volume I Habitat Restoration and Lake Water Quality Improvement Design Development Report,” undated.

California Department of Fish and Game, Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch, “California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), Rarefind 3.”

Jones & Stokes, “Archaeological Survey Report: Storm Drain and Street Improvement Project on Vermont, South of PCH, Los Angeles, California,” March 2006.

Jones & Stokes, “Nesting Bird Survey Report of Streambed Alteration Agreement No 1600-2003-5053-R5, for Machado Lake, Ken Malloy Harbor Regional Park, Los Angeles County, California,” August 2005.

City of Los Angeles Bureau of Engineering Environmental Management Group, “Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Vermont Avenue South of Pacific Coast Highway, “April 17, 2006.

B-1 Machado 121206.doc

Appendix B Machado Lake Letters of Support

Palos Verde/South Bay Audubon P.O. Box 2582 Palos Verdes, CA 90274 To: Steve Nikaido, BOS/WPD Prop O Coordinator, [email protected]

Kosta Kaporis, BOS/WPD Prop 50 Project Manager, [email protected] Deborah Deets, BOS/WPD Prop O Project Manager, [email protected] Peter Tonthat, BOS/WPD Engineer, [email protected] Wendy Katagi, CDM/Prop O Project Manager, [email protected]

Fr: Jess Morton, on behalf of Palos Verdes/South Bay Audubon Board of Directors Re: Wilmington Drain Restoration Multiuse Project/Proposition O Project DRAFT

Project Concept Report, October 2, 2006 October 16, 2006 The Palos Verdes/South Bay Audubon supports the proposed project as a very important first step in addressing water quality issues in the Wilmington Drain and Dominguez Channel Watershed. It has the added benefits of providing the people who live and work in Harbor City/Wilmington and the South Bay with more and improved opportunities to use and enjoy Ken Malloy Harbor Regional Park. PV/South Bay Audubon is eager to work with you, the Park Advisory Board, local Neighborhood Councils, and Dominguez Watershed Advisory Council to assist with outreach to the community, as the plans for Wilmington Drain and Harbor Park move from concept to reality. As you know, this area has long been neglected. There are a host of physical needs in the Park. Many go beyond this current proposal, but this is a great start. We think that by working together we will be able to not only use Proposition 50 and Proposition O monies wisely and appropriately, but also will be able to target future dollars toward compelling, complementary projects. Ken Malloy Harbor Regional Park, one of the largest parks in Los Angeles, is a valuable City asset. It has grassy areas for picnics and games, a youth camp, and many natural habitats—the lake, wetlands, and uplands—for wildlife and those who enjoy watching wildlife. Each of these values must be protected, which means that public access to the wild areas must not be at the expense of the habitat values for animals and plants. In our chapter we have experts on hydrology, birds, insects, and plants, and on specific ecological and historical issues unique to the Park. We stand ready to assist you. It is our understanding that Proposition 50 monies have been approved by the Los Angeles Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Steering Committee, but have not yet been approved by the State. That decision will be made in November. However, the approved amount is $4.5 million, not $5 million as stated in the draft report.

We do question whether Proposition 50 funds will cover an off-leash dog area,

park furnishings and new access facilities. State Prop 50, Chapter 8, and Proposition O both fund only watershed/water quality actions. Hence, it will be important that the benefits of the projects proposed in the draft meet the criteria for both.

You undoubtedly know there was recently a 25-acre fire in the Park. While this

was not wanted, it does give the City an opportunity to take some actions now that will be important to meeting the goals of Proposition O. The fire simplifies finding and removing large trash and dumped items. Burned and partially burned non-native trees and other unwanted vegetation are also accessible. In addition, an aerial survey of the site—now that it is more open--would be useful for establishing a baseline for planning and monitoring purposes.

As you know, our Palos Verdes/South Bay Audubon Board and members will do

everything we possibly can to assist you in turning this park and this part of the City of Los Angeles into an example of what the voters meant to accomplish when they supported the Proposition O bond measure. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the following Audubon leaders on Ken Malloy Harbor Regional Park:

Martin Byhower, co-President, PV/South Bay Audubon, [email protected] Jess Morton, Board member and member of the Dominguez Watershed Adcisory Council, [email protected]

C-1 Machado 121206.doc

Appendix C July 11, 2006 Meeting Minutes

MACHADO LAKE PROPOSITION O

MEETING MINUTES

TO: FILE FROM: WPD/CDM MEETING LOCATION: ON SITE.

Meeting began at Southwest Parking Lot, followed by a walk across land bridge and lake

MEETING DATE: 11 July, 2006 TIME: 1:45 -3:30 IN ATTENDANCE: Erick Moody, Council District 15 (EM)

Jess Morton, Audubon (JM) Martin Byhauer, KMHRP Advisory Board (MB) David Attaway, RAP (DA) Leila Barker, RAP (LB) Wendy Katagi (WK) Teresa Raine (TR) Meherwan Irani, BOS (MI) Peter Tonthat, BOS (PT) Deborah Deets, BOS (DD)

A meeting was held at Ken Malloy Harbor Regional Park (KMHRP) to discuss the Prop O and the Prop 50/Section 8 Wilmington Drain Proposal. The following were discussed at the site, followed by an abbreviated tour of the lake dam and tules led by Martin Byhauer.

1. Established Understanding: Discussion of Concept. Survey and all preliminary design studies to be performed for proposal to move beyond concept stage.

2. The Prop 50/Section8/IRWMP Proposal for the Wilmington Drain was presented

as was a package describing the Fresh Creek Netting and Trash Trap systems to be installed at north end and east side off the Wilmington channel. MI described the system, and distributed photos, details, and information on the project. LB noted that additional discussion was necessary as to the fate of the existing boom (owned by the County) as it would become obsolete with the installation of the proposed system.

3. The decision not to install sediment basins at the Wilmington drain was justified

as being due to a lack of space for sufficient velocity reduction and settling to occur. Following the discussion of the concept, and input on cleanup and restoration of the Willow habitat north of the lake, MB believed the sediment issue was adequately addressed by the concept approach.

Appendix C July 11, 2006 Meeting Minutes

C-2

Machado 121206.doc

4. A 4-celled treatment wetland approach is being developed by the consultant for the Prop O concept proposal to be submitted to the City, COAC, and AOC for further review. The wetland treatment area will receive dry weather flows from a potential bypass system (see item 5 below). Storm water will either be discharged through the harbor outfall, as currently occurs, or will be pumped into the upstream end of Machado Lake.

5. A potential flow bypass was discussed near the south end of the Wilmington

Drain into the treatment wetlands at the south-end of KMHRP.

6. MB recommended a large-scale cleanup and plant removal in the willow wetlands in order to provide for wet weather flow. Possibly this area, and surely others would require significant plant removal and grading. This work item was agreed to be necessary and acceptable by MB, as it would be followed by native plant restoration. Plant removal would include removing both non-native vegetation and dead native vegetation.

7. A southward “natural” course for wet-weather flow from the Wilmington Channel

through the willow wetlands, into the lake, through an adjustable flood-gate, into the treatment wetlands and harbor overflow channel was drawn and depicted in a concept diagram brought by the consultant. The possibility of water flow dispersed towards the east, resulting in a sheeting flow through the willows habitat and into the Lake was also discussed.

8. Agreement on the objective of using the treated water from the wetland area to

reduce the potable water demands of the lake, and to establish the lake as a recreational water feature with the long term goal of reaching REC-1 standards was discussed. Along these lines, there was a discussion concerning the a potential layer of contaminated soils under the current thick sediment layer in the lake. It was suggested that dredging should take care to not dig through to the contaminated layer, essentially confining it within the lake. The concept report should note that a thorough investigation of the sediments and layers take place before dredging begins. The potential for essentially confining known contaminated soils within the lake should also be researched prior to project implementation.

9. There was some discussion concerning the property development along the west

side of the site (just west of the parking area) and its potential impacts to the lake. In particular there was concern that runoff from the new developments (one proposed, one confirmed/approved) would add to pollutant loadings in the lake.

10. MB pointed out birds sited (California least tern, greatest tern, and great blue

heron) along with prime habitat (tules and cattails) while crossing the dam.

11. There was discussion regarding the siting of a bypass channel or conduit from the north into the proposed wetland cells. This needs to be studied further along with the optimal means of diverting flows from the other inlet storm drains.

cc: Meeting Attendees, Morad Sedrak, Shahram Kharghani, Robert Vega, Doug Walters

D-1 Machado 121206.doc

Appendix D Additional Sources of Funding Awarded To Be Inserted

E-1 Machado 121206.doc

Appendix E Potential Sources of Recycled Water

_̂

_̂

_̂

§̈¦I-710

§̈¦I-110

§̈¦I-405

Terminal Island Treatment Plant

Recycled Water Options

[Not to Scale]

DRAFT/

Carson Regional WaterReclamation Plant

Joint Water PollutionControl Plant

Conoco-PhillipsRefinery

Ken MalloyRegional Park

Dominguez Gap

Option 3(from CarsonReclamation Plant)

Option 2(from HyperionTreatment Plant)

Option 1(from TITP RecycledWater Pipeline)

Legend

_̂ Treatment Plants

TITP Pipeline

Dominguez Gap

Refineries

Alignment Option 3

Alignment Option 2

Alignment Option 1

WILMINGTON DRAIN

gronbergjl

Text Box

Figure 3-3

proposition o final project concept report machado...

Documents