Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerationsclkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2010/10-2281_misc_06-2010d.pdf · Machado Lake Ecosystem Rehabilitation Project SCH#2009081093 CITY

Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

for the

Wilmington Drain Multi-use and Machado Lake Ecosystem

Rehabilitation Project SCH#2009081093

CITY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

June 2010

FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS

City of Los Angeles, Bureau of Engineering Wilmington Drain /Machado Lake Project Final EIR State Clearinghouse No. 2009081093 i June 2010

Contents

Section Page 1.0 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Purpose of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations ............ 1 1.2 Overview of the Proposed Project ...................................................................... 2 1.3 Document Organization ....................................................................................... 7

2.0 Findings of Environmental Effects ................................................................................ 7 2.1 Aesthetics ................................................................................................................ 9 2.2 Air Quality .............................................................................................................. 9 2.3 Biological Resources ........................................................................................... 10 2.4 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................... 14 2.5 Geology and Soils ................................................................................................ 16 2.6 Greenhouse Gases ............................................................................................... 16 2.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ................................................................... 16 2.8 Hydrology and Water Quality ........................................................................... 17 2.9 Land Use ................................................................................................................ 17 2.10 Noise ....................................................................................................................... 18 2.11 Public Services ..................................................................................................... 19 2.12 Recreation .............................................................................................................. 19 2.13 Transportation and Traffic ................................................................................. 19 2.14 Utilities .................................................................................................................. 21 2.15 Cumulative Effects .............................................................................................. 21

3.0 Alternatives Considered ............................................................................................... 22 3.1 Preferred Project................................................................................................... 25

4.0 Statement of Overriding Considerations ................................................................... 27


City of Los Angeles, Bureau of Engineering Wilmington Drain /Machado Lake Project Final EIR State Clearinghouse No. 2009081093 ii June 2010

This page left intentionally blank

City of Los Angeles, Bureau of Engineering Wilmington Drain /Machado Lake Project Final EIR State Clearinghouse No. 2009081093 1 June 2010

1.0 Introduction This Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations summarizes the findings of environmental impacts of the Wilmington Drain Multi-use and Machado Lake Ecosystem Rehabilitation Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR) - (City of Los Angeles 2010, SCH No. 2009081093) and presents the Statement of Overriding Considerations.

This section presents an overview of the purpose of this document, summarizes the proposed project (which is the Preferred Project), and presents the organization of this document. 1.1 Purpose of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Section 21081 of the California Public Resources Code and Section 15091 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines require a public agency, prior to approving a project, to identify significant impacts of the project and make one or more written findings for each such impact. According to Section 21081, “no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report has been certified which identifies one or more significant effects on the environment that would occur if the project is approved or carried out unless both of the following occur:

(a) The public agency makes one or more of the following findings with respect to each significant effect:

1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the

project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.

2. Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency.

3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations,

including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report.

(b) With respect to significant effects which were subject to a finding under paragraph

(3) of subdivision (a), the public agency finds that specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects on the environment.”

Section 21081.6 of CEQA also requires public agencies to adopt a monitoring and reporting program for assessing and ensuring the implementation of proposed mitigation measures. The mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Plan for the Wilmington Drain Multi-use and Machado Lake Ecosystem Rehabilitation



Project, which is provided under separate cover, are those identified within this Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations.

1.2 Overview of the Proposed Project The proposed project, as described in detail in Section 2 of the EIR is composed of the components described below:

1.2.1 Wilmington Drain Component The Wilmington Drain (a remnant of Bixby Slough) is a 150-foot wide and approximately 1.25 mile-long Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD) stormwater drainage channel within the City of Los Angeles and managed by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (LACoDPW). The Wilmington Drain Component is bounded on the north by I-110, on the east by I-110 and residential development, on the west by commercial and residential development, and on the south by Pacific Coast Highway (PCH). The segment of the drain within the project site is approximately 0.60 mile long primarily located within the City of Los Angeles; however, a small portion (approximately 6.7 acres) north of Lomita Boulevard to the I-110 is within unincorporated Los Angeles County. The Wilmington Drain project site extends south from I-110 to PCH where it then empties into Machado Lake within Ken Malloy Harbor Regional Park (Harbor Regional Park).

The Wilmington Drain Component includes three elements: 1) habitat and park design; 2) channel improvements and bank stabilization; and 3) Best Management Practices. Construction of the proposed Wilmington Drain Component would occur over an approximate 10-month period, from January 2011 to October 2011. A summary of each element is provided below.

Habitat and Park Design

The Wilmington Drain Component includes a passive recreation area and nature park with targeted species restoration, flood management improvements, water quality improvements, and improved trails and interpretive/educational opportunities. The improvements would be designed to provide the surrounding community with passive recreational opportunities encouraging interaction with a restored native riparian environment. Passive recreation opportunities include accessible nature study, educational areas, interpretive exhibits, and wildlife viewing along meandering walkways throughout the westerly portion of the park site.

As part of the habitat and park design, an invasive species removal program would be developed for Wilmington Drain that addresses the removal of invasive plant species from the channel banks and the island. A natural park featuring walking trails and educational opportunities would be constructed south of Lomita Boulevard on the banks of the channel and adjacent county-owned parcels, which is currently undeveloped. Interpretive signage would be installed at the major park access areas located in the new parking lot (designed for approximately 18 spaces) south of Lomita Boulevard, and at the trail heads on Lomita Boulevard and PCH. Lighting improvements would be installed including light poles at the entrances and parking lot,



and pathway lighting (low, likely solar-powered, light fixtures placed at regular intervals).

Channel Stabilization

The proposed project would improve the hydraulic and sediment capacity of Wilmington Drain by excavating approximately 30,300 cubic yards (cy) of sediment from the channel and regrading slopes. The sediment plug on the northeastern side of the island, which currently acts as a hydraulic constraint, would be removed, thereby creating a low-flow channel on both the east and west sides of the island. Additionally, bioengineered streambank stabilization measures would be incorporated into the channel design to reduce the adverse effects of flow velocities, primarily on the western bank of the channel near PCH and as needed on banks throughout, and a sediment basin would be created at the southern end of the channel at PCH. Clearing and/or cutting of vegetation on the island and north of Lomita Boulevard would be limited in order to minimize disturbance of the existing habitat. Invasive plant removal and habitat improvements may occur on the channel island, as needed. Construction of access roads would occur as needed for construction and maintenance activities.

Best Management Practices

A combination of in-channel/end-of-pipe BMPs and source control/site design BMPs would be implemented to improve water quality. In-channel BMPs would include two trash netting systems, a 22-net system at the Wilmington Drain outlet below the I-110 Freeway and a 3-net system at the Project 510 storm drain. Additional BMPs would include installation of education and enforcement signage, litter receptacles and pet waste dispensers at the major park access nodes. The BMPs would reduce trash, sediment and metals loadings from wet-weather flows within the Wilmington Drain and ultimately to Machado Lake. They may also provide slight reductions in bacteria concentrations in Wilmington Drain.

1.2.2 Machado Lake Component Machado Lake (formerly known as Harbor Lake) is located south of Wilmington Drain within Harbor Regional Park in the City of Los Angeles at 25820 Vermont Avenue. Harbor Regional Park is a 231-acre park that is owned, operated and maintained by the City of Los Angeles Department of Recreation and Parks (Recreation and Parks). The proposed Machado Lake Component would be contained within Harbor Regional Park. The park is bordered by PCH to the north, with residential and commercial development farther north. The City’s Harbor Park Golf Course (hereafter referred to as Harbor Golf Course) and commercial development borders the northeast perimeter of the park, the Los Angeles Harbor College (LAHC) and residential development borders the southeast perimeter and portions of the park’s Freshwater Marsh. To the west is Vermont Avenue, which is lined with residences, and the Kaiser Permanente Harbor City facility, and to the southwest (at the 5-way intersection of Anaheim Street, Vermont Avenue, Gaffey Street and Palos Verdes Drive North) the construction of a new multi-family residential development (townhouses) is almost complete, open space along Anaheim Street and the Conoco-Phillips Oil Refinery.



The Machado Lake Component includes five elements: 1) Habitat and Park Design; 2) BMPs; 3) Lake Improvements; 4) Wetlands Improvements; and 5) Recreational Improvements. Construction of the proposed Machado Lake Component would occur over an approximate 22-month period, from March 2011 to December 2012. A summary of each element is provided below.

Habitat and Park Design

The habitat and park design element would create and expand opportunities for passive recreation within an enhanced natural environment while controlling pedestrian circulation and access in order to minimize impacts to habitat. Passive recreation opportunities would include catch and release fishing, educational and interpretive exhibits, and wildlife photography and viewing platforms along meandering walkways, boardwalks, and trails throughout Harbor Regional Park. The proposed improvements would be designed to protect species and habitat, while maximizing public access to park elements and enriching the overall park program with community desired features such as incorporating visual continuity in all new park elements and including interactive opportunities for visitors to interact with the environment in varied ways.

As with the Wilmington Drain, a program would be developed to address the removal of invasive plant species from Machado Lake and natural vegetation communities throughout Harbor Regional Park, and identify vegetation means to promote regrowth and/or propagate on-site species. Invasive plant species, more specifically water primrose (Ludwigia) would be removed, while native plant species such as the southern willow scrub, southern tarplant, and the coastal sage scrub communities would be enhanced. Additional park improvements would include smart irrigation controllers, new trails, fishing piers, and other site amenities. Lake edge treatments, or planted bioinfiltration areas, would be constructed along the lake’s perimeter. These buffers would be designed and constructed to encourage pedestrians to utilize the park trails and designated access points to limit erosion, and to intercept any overland flows from reaching the lake.

Best Management Practices

A combination of trash netting systems, source control/site design BMPs, and the excavation of sediment would have a positive effect on water quality by reducing trash, sediment and metals loadings from wet-weather flows to Machado Lake. During the pre-design phase, various BMPs were evaluated for each of the major storm drain outfalls in order to determine the best methods for removing trash and sediment from runoff before discharging to Machado Lake or the Freshwater Marsh. The end-of-pipe BMPs selected for the proposed project include pretreatment Continuous Deflection Separation (CDS®) or equivalent unit at the D24010 Drain and at the Figueroa Drain/Project 643; and a Gross Solid Removal Device (GSRD) or trash netting system (up to 6 nets) at the Project 77 outfall. Source control/site design BMPs would include: a bioengineered vegetative swale for dry-weather treatment at Project 77; a bioengineered vegetative swale at the Project 510 Line C outfall; and smart irrigation controllers with recycled Title 22 water. Additional BMPs would include the installation of education



and enforcement signage, litter receptacles and pet waste dispensers at the major park access nodes. Wash rack and bulk storage containment BMPs would also be implemented at the Recreation and Parks maintenance yard located adjacent to Harbor Regional Park between Harbor Golf Course and L Street to control runoff.

Lake Improvements

Water quality in Machado Lake has deteriorated through excessive external and internal loading of organic matter, nutrients, and sediment. Results of excessive loading include seasonal algal blooms, favorable growing conditions for nuisance aquatic plant species, and decreased lake volume. The eutrophic conditions deteriorate the lake’s aesthetic quality, attractiveness for recreation, and the biodiversity of the aquatic habitat. The proposed project would include elements aimed at improving water quality and restoring habitat to reestablish important missing or altered lake processes and native aquatic species.

A suite of lake rehabilitation improvements would be implemented as part of the proposed project, including:

Hydraulic dredging of the lake bed to remove approximately 300,000 cy of accumulated sediment that is currently over-enriched with nutrients and contributing to the internal nutrient loading problem in Machado Lake;

Lake recharge with supplemental microfiltration (MF)/reverse osmosis (RO) treated water from Terminal Island Water Reclamation Plant (TIWRP) would be used for minimizing fluctuations in the lake level during the dry season and to achieve and maintain a lake depth of approximately 8 feet, thereby minimizing internal nutrient loading;

Construction of off-line treatment wetlands that recirculate lake water to further reduce nutrients within the lake and improve water quality;

Installation of an aeration/oxygenation system to increase dissolved oxygen at the sediment-water interface, which would help to address the Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) for eutrophication and odor;

Alum injection (or alternative phosphorus inactivation method) to remove elevated nutrient levels in the water column and immobilize phosphorus, as needed;

Stabilization of the shoreline to limit nutrients and sediment from entering the lake and to enhance aquatic and riparian habitats;

Establishment of an aquatic plant management program, including macrophyte management and littoral zone modifications/enhancements that would improve overall water quality and reduce conditions favorable to mosquito breeding;



Two in-lake sediment basins in the northern portion of the lake just south of the Riparian Woodland and near the Project 77 outfall to promote localized sediment deposition;

Biomanipulation to directly enhance aquatic ecosystem, which is best used in concert with carp and small fish reductions, managed submerged macrophyte beds and modest nutrient reductions (as by artificial circulation and dredging);

Up to six floating islands would also be created within the lake to provide additional habitat for bird species and fish;

Establishment of a Lake Water Quality Management Plan, required as part of implementation of the Nutrient TMDL; and,

Modifications to the Machado Lake dam to improve pedestrian access, to provide better public safety during overflow conditions by improving flood control, and to facilitate draw-down, as needed.

Wetlands Improvements

Because of their habitat value, potential for contaminant removal and extensive distribution throughout Harbor Regional Park, use of wetlands is considered a sustainable way to support the water quality improvement and habitat enhancement goals of the proposed project. Wetlands creation/enhancement options would include the creation of an off-line treatment wetland adjacent to Machado Lake as described above, and changes in the water flow regime of the Riparian Woodland and lower Freshwater Marsh to increase the removal of storm water contaminants. Riparian woodland improvements would include a runoff capture area and secondary flow channel. In the lower Freshwater Marsh, various methods would be used to increase flow dispersal, including a series of swales and berms at storm drain D7223. In addition, up to 6 acres of new emergent wetlands would be developed in the Freshwater Marsh.

Recreational Improvements

Based on the availability of funds, the proposed project would include improvements to the Camp Machado area of Harbor Regional Park. These improvements may include restroom refurbishment (no planned increase in capacity), trail improvements, and campsite improvements. The project may also include other improvements such as interpretive and educational signage (possibly audio/visual), and an outdoor amphitheatre. Additional funding sources other than Proposition O have been identified for project elements that are not related to water quality such as Quimby Funds.

1.2.3 Supplemental Water Supply Pipeline Component

A new 16-inch (or smaller) supplemental water pipeline would be constructed to deliver MF/RO treated water to Machado Lake for lake replenishment during the dry season. The pipeline would extend from the nearest distribution line connecting to the TIWRP facility, which is located approximately 4.1 miles south of Harbor Regional Park. The



new pipeline would extend from the planned San Pedro Waterfront Development Pipeline in the vicinity of Figueroa Street/Harry Bridges Boulevard. The new pipeline would then extend northward along Figueroa Street to Anaheim Street (0.60 mile, or 3,200 linear feet [LF]), westward along Anaheim Street to the Harbor Regional Park entrance (1 mile or 5,280 LF), and northward through the park to the Project 77 storm drain and Project 510 Line C (0.30 mile, or 1,500 LF). The proposed pipeline would be constructed primarily within public rights-of-way, adjacent to roadways, with a small segment being located within Harbor Regional Park.

Section 2.0 below presents the impact findings for the proposed project.

1.3 Document Organization This Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations is organized in the following way:

Section 1.0, Introduction, provides background information of the purpose of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations and presents the organization of this document and provides a brief overview of the proposed project.

Section 2.0, Findings of Environmental Effects, identifies the issue areas for which the proposed project would have no impact or a less than significant impact and presents a summary of the significant effects of the proposed project.

Section 3.0, Alternatives Considered, describes the alternatives evaluated in the EIR, and the rationale for selection of the proposed project and rejection of the alternatives.

Section 4.0, Statement of Overriding Considerations, presents the Statement of Overriding Considerations for the significant adverse effects that cannot be avoided, even with proposed mitigation measures.

2.0 Findings of Environmental Effects This section discusses the impacts and mitigation measures identified for the proposed project, and makes findings for all areas of potential impact.

The EIR focused on those potential effects of the proposed project on the environment that the Lead Agency has determined may be significant. The Notice of Preparation process, including completion of an Initial Study, determined that the proposed project would have no impact regarding the following issues areas:

Agriculture Resources

Mineral Resources

Population and Housing

Utilities and Service Systems (wastewater only)



As described in Section 15128 of the CEQA Guidelines, and detailed in the EIR, these issues having no potential for significant impacts required no further environmental review or analysis in the EIR.

The following issue areas analyzed in Section 3.0 of the EIR were determined to result in less than significant impacts:

Aesthetics

Geology and Soils

Greenhouse Gases

Hydrology and Water Quality

Land Use

Public Services

Recreation

Utilities and Service Systems (water consumption and solid waste)

Potentially significant impacts (from construction and/or operation) occurring as a result of implementation of the proposed project (see Section 3.0, below) that warrant mitigation measures would be in the following resource areas:

Air Quality

Biological Resources

Paleontological Resources

Archaeological Resources

Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Noise

Transportation and Traffic

Cumulative

The issue areas determined in the Draft EIR to have unavoidable significant impacts from the construction of the proposed project, even after mitigation, include:

Air Quality

Noise

Cumulative



Each of the resource areas analyzed in the EIR is discussed in terms of:

Descriptions of Potential Effects are specific descriptions of the environmental effects identified in the EIR as significant or potentially significant.

Mitigation Measures are the proposed mitigation measures for the impacts identified as significant or potentially significant.

Findings are the findings made in accordance with Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code. One of three findings is made for each significant or potentially significant impact, in response to Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines. The significance of the environmental impacts after mitigation is also provided.

Rationale is a summary of the reasons for the findings.

References are notations on the specific section in the EIR that supports the findings.

2.1 Aesthetics No significant or potentially significant impacts to aesthetic resources were identified in the Section 3.2 of the Draft EIR.

2.2 Air Quality This section discusses the significant or potentially significant air quality impacts related to the proposed project.

2.2.1 Description of Potential Effects For proposed project construction only, the peak daily emissions of NOx would exceed SCAQMD mass thresholds for peak daily emissions and, therefore, would be significant. Peak daily construction-related emissions of CO, VOC, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 would not exceed their respective significance thresholds. The peak-hourly and annual concentrations of NO2 resulting from project construction would be less than significant. Mitigation measures would be implemented during construction of the proposed project to reduce emissions of NOx from off-road equipment, especially during site grading activities.

2.2.2 Mitigation Measures To minimize NOx emissions during construction, mitigation measure AQ-1 (described in Section 3.3.4 of the Draft EIR and Section 3.1 of the MMP) will be implemented. The implementation of mitigation measure AQ-1 would result in a minimum reduction of approximately 20 percent in NOx (145 pound reduction, and 582 pounds generated). NOx emissions would still exceed the significance threshold of 100 pounds per day during construction.



2.2.3 Findings Regarding air quality impacts, the following finding is made:

[ XX ] Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.

[ ] Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction

of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.

[ ] Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations,

including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR.

Implementation of the proposed project would result in unavoidable significant impacts from NOx during construction despite emission reduction from the implementation of mitigation. Therefore, construction of the proposed Wilmington Drain /Machado Lake could have the potential for a significant NOx impact; thus, remaining impacts are found to be:

[ XX ] Significant [ ] Not significant

2.2.4 Rationale Since the NOx emissions are mostly due to off-road diesel exhaust, feasible mitigation measures must be implemented for these pieces of equipment. Although NOx emissions cannot be prevented through implementation of feasible controls on diesel equipment, the measures specified in the required mitigation would result in a reduction of emissions. During the peak day, without mitigation, construction would generate approximately 727 pounds per day of NOx, which would require an 86 percent reduction to fall below the threshold of 100 pounds per day. The implementation of feasible mitigation would result in a minimum reduction of approximately 20 percent in NOx (145 pound reduction, and 582 pounds generated). NOx emissions would still exceed the significance threshold of 100 pounds per day. There are no additional feasible mitigation measures. Although the construction-related NOx air quality impacts would be temporary in nature, project construction would result in an unavoidable adverse impact to air quality.

2.2.5 References Section 3.3 of the Draft EIR addresses the project’s air quality impacts and mitigation.

2.3 Biological Resources This section discusses the significant or potentially significant biological resource impacts related to the proposed project.



2.3.1 Description of Potential Effects Construction of the proposed project would result in significant direct impacts on a sensitive plant (tarplant) and sensitive habitats which would result in significant impacts. However, the proposed project includes a habitat restoration element that would restore habitat and provide long-term benefits to the Machado Lake ecosystem overall. Likewise, construction and maintenance activities would result in potentially significant direct and indirect impacts to sensitive wildlife species; however, restoration elements of the proposed project would provide long-term benefits by improving water quality and enhancing sensitive habitat.

2.3.2 Mitigation Measures In order to mitigate potential significant direct and indirect impacts on biological resources, mitigation measures BIO-1 through BIO-13 would be implemented for the Wilmington Drain and Machado Lake Components (described in Section 3.4.4 of the Draft EIR and Section 3.2 of the MMP). No significant impacts would occur with implementation of the Supplemental Water Pipeline Component. Implementation of mitigation activities would result in beneficial impacts and would not adversely impact areas on-site.

2.3.3 Findings For the above impacts to biological resources, the following finding is made:






With mitigation, the potential impacts to biological resources from the operation of the proposed Wilmington Drain and Machado Lake Components are found to be:

[ ] Significant [ XX ] Not significant

2.3.4 Rationale Mitigation measures apply to both project components unless otherwise specified. Implementation of mitigation measure BIO-1 would require a seed collection plan for southern tarplant to be prepared that provides details regarding the collection of seeds from the project site and the storage of seeds and eventual replanting at Machado Lake. This measure would address direct impacts resulting from disturbance of tarplant at the



Wilmington Drain project site by ensuring that seeds from the affected plants would be preserved in a seed bank, as well as used for restoring tarplant at Machado Lake.

BIO-2 would require the implementation of best management practices (BMPs) during construction such as trash collection and dust suppression, to reduce potential indirect effects to sensitive species and habitat resulting from disturbance by construction activities and equipment.

Prior to initiation of ground-disturbing activities at the Wilmington Drain and Machado Lake project sites, BIO-3 would require a biological resource awareness training to be provided by a qualified biologist to all construction personnel. The training must include information regarding sensitive species with the potential to occur at the site as well as minimization and avoidance measures to reduce potential indirect effects on the habitat.

BIO-4 would require a qualified biological monitor to be present to make certain that impacts on riparian habitats are minimized and that measures in the biological opinion issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) are followed during initial clearing and grubbing of access roads and park improvements at the Wilmington Drain and Machado Lake project sites adjacent to or within riparian habitats. The monitor is required to have experience with the sensitive species to which impacts are to be avoided/minimized and would be carried out periodically throughout the project site as he/she deems necessary.

To minimize direct and indirect impacts to the least Bell's vireo, BIO-5 would require all habitat removal, habitat restoration, and maintenance activities occurring within riparian vegetation to occur between September 15 through March 15 which is outside the breeding window of this species. Should this not be feasible, a qualified biologist would be required to conduct a focused survey (at least three visits) for least Bell's vireo within the disturbance area to determine if the species is present. If the species is present, the biologist would be required to establish a buffer around the nest or occupied area. No vegetation removal or construction activities could occur within the buffer until the biologist determines that the nest is no longer active or the individual is no longer present.

To reduce potential indirect impacts on sensitive species and habitat within Wilmington Drain during project operation, BIO-6 would require the following items to be incorporated into the project design: 1) measures to keep pedestrians on trails and preclude entry into environmentally sensitive areas (such as fencing, boulders, or unfavorable vegetation); 2) signage indicating environmentally sensitive areas; 3) signage indicating dogs should be leashed; 4) measures to minimize the potential for establishment of transient homes and vandalism (such as regular patrols and fencing); and 5) lighting in the park shall be designed to minimize glare into the riparian habitat including using low level light and designing the light posts so the light is shielded and directed towards the trail.

To reduce potential direct and indirect impacts on birds protected under the Migratory Bird Species Act, BIO-7 requires that all vegetation removal occur during the non-



breeding season (between September 1 and January 14); or, if this cannot be avoided, a qualified biologist must conduct a nesting bird survey within one week prior to ground disturbance. If nesting birds are present, the biologist would be required to establish a buffer around the nest or occupied area. No construction or ground-disturbing activities would be allowed to occur within the buffer until the biologist has determined that the nest is no longer active.

To reduce potential impacts on trees protected by the City of Los Angeles Native Tree Protection Ordinance, BIO-8 requires all western sycamore trees that are located directly within or adjacent to the project site (within 25 feet) to be flagged by a qualified biologist for avoidance.

To reduce potential direct impacts of the population of southern tarplant at Machado Lake, BIO-9 would require populations of southern tarplant to be mapped on final project plans. If this area of impact exceeds 0.14 acre, additional restoration and enhancement is required occur within the site so that the final ratio restoration to impact ratio is 2:1. Southern tarplant areas that are to be protected from construction activities must be designated as Environmentally Sensitive Areas on construction drawings. Prior to affecting the population, preparation of a restoration plan is required that provides details regarding the avoidance areas, restoration/enhancement areas, the collection and storage of seeds from the project site, seeding of the mitigation site, and monitoring the restoration effort to determine restoration success.

To reduce potential impacts on the southern willow scrub vegetative community, BIO-10 requires edge treatment measures at Machado Lake to include the revegetation of southern willow scrub at a minimum 1:1 ratio. Preparation of a revegetation plan that identifies the acreage and location of southern willow scrub to be removed and the acreage and location where revegetation would occur is required prior to removal of the southern willow scrub habitat.

To reduce potential indirect impacts on the Los Angeles Harbor nesting colony of California least terns, BIO-11 requires that dredging and recontouring on Machado Lake must be phased between June 7 and August 15 to no more than 50 percent of the lake with a 100 meter buffer from the 50 percent diversion. California least tern would also be addressed during consultation with the USFWS.

To reduce potential impacts on freshwater marsh habitat, prior to removal of freshwater marsh habitat at Machado Lake, BIO-12 would require a Freshwater Marsh Management Plan to be prepared that documents the location and total amount of freshwater marsh habitat that will be permanently and temporarily removed, as well as the amount of freshwater marsh that will be restored.

To reduce potential impacts on freshwater marsh bird species, BIO-13 would require focused surveys for freshwater marsh bird species to be conducted by a qualified biologist the season prior to implementation of the Machado Lake Component. If special status bird species are observed during the focused surveys, the location must be documented and mapped. The phasing schedule provided in the Freshwater Marsh



Management Plan is required to include avoidance of occupied areas during the nesting season and other applicable avoidance measures relevant to the species and location of occupied area.

With implementation of mitigation measures BIO-1 through BIO-13, the proposed project is not expected to result in significant impacts to biological resources.

2.3.5 References Section 3.4 of the Draft EIR addresses the project’s biological resource impacts and mitigation measures.

2.4 Cultural Resources This section discusses the significant or potentially significant cultural resource impacts related to the proposed project.

2.4.1 Description of Potential Effects Paleontological resources are not expected to be encountered during construction of the Wilmington Drain Component due to the past disturbances at the sites, but could potentially be encountered during construction related earth-moving activities of Machado Lake improvements and the supplemental water pipeline, if such resources are present. This is a potentially significant impact.

The potential to encounter archaeological resources is anticipated to be low due to previously disturbed nature of project site and the fact that much of the soil being removed from Wilmington Drain and Machado Lake has accumulated from off-site. However, portions of the Wilmington Drain are located in the vicinity of a known ethnographic village, the discovery of archeological resources has been documented in the area, and the southern portion of the project site is in an area of high sensitivity for archeological resources. Therefore, there could be a potential to significantly impact to archeological resources during construction of the proposed project, if such resources are present and encountered.

2.4.2 Mitigation Measures To minimize potential impacts to paleontological resources from construction of the proposed project should they be encountered, mitigation measure CUL-1 (described in Section 3.5.4 of the Draft EIR and Section 3.3 of the MMP) will be implemented.

To minimize potential impacts to archaeological resources, including human remains, from construction of the proposed Wilmington Drain and Machado Lake component, should they be encounted mitigation measure CUL-2 and CUL-3 (described in Section 3.5.4 of the Draft EIR and Section 3.3 of the MMP) will be implemented.

2.4.3 Findings For potential impacts to paleontological resources, archaeological resources, and historical resources, the following finding is made:



[ XX ] Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the

project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.





With mitigation, the potential impacts to paleontological resources, if present, from construction of the proposed project are found to be:


With mitigation, the potential impacts to archaeological resources, including human remains, if present, from construction of the proposed project are found to be:

[ ] Significant [XX ] Not significant 2.4.4 Rationale Paleontological Resources Although no paleontological resources are expected to be encountered, in the event that such resources are found during construction, standard practices and implementation of CUL-1, which requires development activities to cease in the vicinity of the find until the paleontological resources are properly assessed by a qualified paleontologist will ensure that any potential impacts are less than significant.

Archaeological Resources Although no archaeological resources, including human remains, are expected to be encountered at the proposed project sites, in the event that such resources are found during construction, standard practices and implementation of CUL-2 and CUL-3, which require a qualified archaeology monitor to be present when native soils are disturbed and temporarily halt construction should resources be uncovered until the find can be evaluated and a determination made on the best course of action, will reduce any potential impacts to a less than significant level.

2.4.5 References Section 3.5 of the Draft EIR addresses the project’s cultural resource impacts and mitigation measures.



2.5 Geology and Soils No significant or potentially significant impacts to geology and soils were identified in the Section 3.6 of the Draft EIR.

2.6 Greenhouse Gases No significant or potentially significant impacts to greenhouse gases were identified in the Section 3.7 of the Draft EIR.

2.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials This section discusses the significant or potentially significant hazardous materials impacts related to the proposed project.

2.7.1 Description of Potential Effects Construction of the proposed project could encounter contaminated soils, but if encountered, such materials would be handled, transported, and treated/disposed of in accordance with all applicable laws, regulations, and rules. Based on this, construction is not expected to result in significant impacts related to hazardous materials. Operation of the restored ecosystems has the potential to create conditions favorable to mosquitoes due to vegetative growth, which in turn could result in potential health hazards. As a consequence, the proposed project is considered to have a potential for significant impact on human health and public nuisance

2.7.2 Mitigation Measures To mitigate potential increases during operation of the proposed Wilmington Drain and Machado Lake Components in vector-related health hazards from mosquitoes, mitigation measure HAZ-1 (described in Section 3.8.4 of the Draft EIR and Section 3.4 of the MMP) will be implemented.

To address the potential for impacting soil by hazardous materials, mitigation measure HAZ-2 (described in Section 3.8.4 of the Draft EIR and Section 3.4 of the MMP) will be implemented.

2.7.3 Findings For the above potential hazards impacts, the following finding is made:





including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained



workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR.

With implementation of mitigation measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2, the potential hazards impacts related to the proposed project is found to be:


2.7.4 Rationale Prior to design and operation of the Wilmington Drain and Machado Lake Components of the project, HAZ-1 requires the preparation of a Vector Control Plan for inclusion in the Harbor Regional Park’s Operations and Maintenance Manual and subject to review and approval by the Greater Los Angeles County Vector Control District (GLACVCD) that would provide step-by-step field guidance for vector control management. The Vector Control Plan would include requirements such as physical controls (vegetation control based on the seasonal mosquito life-cycle), biological controls (such as mosquito fish), and chemical controls (larvaecides). This measure would mitigate potential impacts to a less than significant level.

The potential exists that contaminated soils could be encountered during construction. While this is not expected to result in significant exposure of people to health hazards or public nuisances, mitigation measures HAZ-2 (described in Section 3.8.4 of the Draft EIR and Section 3.4 of the MMP) will be implemented. HAZ-2 requires that should soil be encountered that is suspected of being impacted by hazardous materials, work must be halted and the suspect site conditions evaluated by a qualified environmental professional. Should soil contamination be identified, soils shall be tested to determine the appropriate disposal and treatment options. With or without implementation of HAZ-2, the proposed project is not expected to result in significant exposure of people to health hazards or public nuisances.

With implementation of mitigation measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2 the proposed project is not expected to result in significant exposure of people to health hazards or public nuisances; therefore, impacts after mitigation are found to be less than significant.

2.7.5 References Section 3.8 of the Draft EIR discusses the project’s impacts related to health hazards or public nuisances and mitigation measures.

2.8 Hydrology and Water Quality No significant or potentially significant impacts to hydrology and water quality were identified in the Section 3.9 of the Draft EIR.

2.9 Land Use No significant or potentially significant impacts to land use were identified in the Section 3.10 of the Draft EIR.



2.10 Noise This section discusses the significant or potentially significant noise impacts related to the proposed project.

2.10.1 Description of Potential Effects Construction of the proposed Wilmington Drain Component would result in significant noise impacts to sensitive receptors (residences) in the immediate vicinity of the Wilmington Drain. Estimated noise levels as high as 82 dBA could be experienced at the nearest sensitive receptor during daytime site excavation activities, which are the worst-case noise levels when excavation or grading is closest to the receptors.

Construction of the proposed Machado Lake Component would result in significant noise impacts to sensitive receptors (school, residences, and recreational areas) in the immediate vicinity of the Machado Lake site. Estimated noise levels as high as 83 dBA could be experienced at the nearest sensitive receptor during daytime site excavation activities, which are the worst-case noise levels when excavation or grading is closest to the receptors.

Construction of the proposed Supplemental Water Supply Pipeline Component could result in noise that affects a single location for up to 3 months. Construction noise would result in elevated ambient noise levels of 78 dBA at sensitive receptors along the alignment, which would represent a significant impact.

Operation of the proposed project is not expected to result in an increase in noise.

2.10.2 Mitigation Measures To mitigate potential noise impacts during the construction of the proposed project, mitigation measures NOS-1, NOS-2, and NOS-3 (as described in Section 3.11 of the Draft EIR and Section 3.5 of the MMP) will be implemented.

2.10.3 Findings For the above potential noise impacts, the following finding is made:








With mitigation, the potential noise impacts associated with the construction of the proposed project are found to be:

[XX] Significant [ ] Not significant

2.10.4 Rationale To reduce construction noise, Mitigation measures NOS-1 would implement equipment noise controls such as mufflers and noise attenuation devices, and NOS-2 would place sound curtains or barriers between construction activity and nearby sensitive receptors that have a line of sight to the construction site.

Mitigation measure NOS-3 establishes noticing requirements to sensitive receptors located within 500 feet of the construction site and requires a notice to be posted at the construction site indicating dates and durations of construction activities, and providing a telephone number where residents can inquire about the construction process and register complaints.

These measures are expected to reduce the temporary increase in ambient noise levels from construction. However, construction would still result in short-term increases in ambient noise levels that exceed the City’s significance threshold. The noise curtain, in conjunction with other mitigation measures, would not provide sufficient noise attenuation to prevent increases in ambient noise levels at adjacent sensitive receptors by 5 dB. There are no other feasible mitigation measures. Therefore, significant unavoidable adverse noise impact from project construction would remain.

2.10.5 References Section 3.11 of the Draft EIR discusses the project’s noise impacts and mitigation measures.

2.11 Public Services No significant or potentially significant impacts to public services were identified in the Section 3.12 of the Draft EIR.

2.12 Recreation No significant or potentially significant impacts to recreation were identified in the Section 3.13 of the Draft EIR.

2.13 Transportation and Traffic This section discusses the significant or potentially significant transportation and traffic impacts related to the proposed project.

2.13.1 Description of Potential Effects Construction-related traffic for the proposed project and construction of the supplemental water pipeline would result in temporary significant impacts to the following intersections:



Vermont Avenue/PCH –AM and PM peak hours.

I-110 SB on-off ramp/PCH – AM and PM peak hours.

Figueroa Street/PCH – AM and PM peak hours.

Vermont Avenue-Palos Verdes Drive N/Anaheim Street/Gaffey Street – AM and PM peak hours.

Figueroa Place (I-110 SB on and off ramps)/Anaheim Street – AM and PM peak hours.

Figueroa Street (I-110 NB on and off ramps)/Anaheim Street – AM and PM peak hours.

2.13.2 Mitigation Measures To mitigate anticipated construction-related traffic impacts associated with construction of all project components, mitigation measures TRA-1 and TRA-6 (described in Section 3.14.5 of the Draft EIR and Section 3.6 of the MMP) will be implemented.

2.13.3 Findings For the above potential transportation and traffic impacts, the following finding is made:






With mitigation measures TRA-1 through TRA-6, the above potential transportation and traffic impacts related to the proposed project are found to be:


2.13.4 Rationale Mitigation measure TRA-1 includes maintaining left-turn lanes and other approach lanes (as feasible) in close vicinity to major intersections along the proposed project route. To improve traffic flow through the restricted area, mitigation measure TRA-2 includes temporarily relocating transit stops adjacent to work areas as feasible to areas beyond the immediate construction work area. During the construction period,



mitigation measure TRA-3 maintains access to adjacent driveways, at least for right-in/ right-out access movements. Mitigation measure TRA-4 includes prohibiting construction truck trip movements to and from the project site during peak traffic periods (the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.); mitigation measure TRA-5 requires construction employees to report to the site outside of that peak traffic period. For construction of the Supplemental Water Supply Pipeline, mitigation measure TRA-6 requires that work in travel lanes shall only occur during non-peak traffic hours. During peak traffic periods (the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.), the portions of the trench within travel lanes would be plated and the travel lanes.

With implementation of the above mitigation measures, construction-related traffic impacts would not be significant. Therefore, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts relative to transportation/traffic are expected to occur.

2.13.5 References Section 3.14 of the Draft EIR discusses the project’s transportation and traffic impacts and mitigation measures.

2.14 Utilities No significant or potentially significant impacts to utilities such as water consumption or solid waste service systems were identified in Section 3.15 of the Draft EIR.

2.15 Cumulative Effects This section discusses the significant or potentially significant cumulative impacts due to the proposed project.

2.15.1 Description of Potential Effects Cumulative effects associated with the proposed project would include the following:

Air Quality: Construction of several other projects (i.e., day care center, fast food restaurant, private school, residential condo/townhouse, Kaiser Permanente Hospital, Harbor Refineries Recycled Water Pipeline, and LAHC master plan projects) and the proposed project would overlap, and construction emissions from these projects could affect the same local sensitive receptors. Construction could result in significant localized project-level impacts from NOx emissions, thus making a cumulatively considerable contribution to air quality impacts (NOx emissions) after implementation of mitigation measures.

Noise: Construction of the proposed project would result in significant noise impacts to nearby residential and sensitive receptors because increases in ambient noise levels would remain above the significance threshold, despite mitigation. Elevated noise levels during project construction, in conjunction with other projects could result in cumulative noise levels that are greater than 5 dBA over ambient conditions at nearby sensitive receptor locations, which could considerably contribute to a cumulatively significant construction noise impact after mitigation.



2.15.2 Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measures AQ-1, NOS-1, NOS-2, and NOS-3 (described in Section 3.3 and Section 3.11 of the Draft EIR and Section 3.1 and Section 3.5 of the MMP) will be implemented for the project as approved.

2.15.3 Findings






With project-level mitigation, the above potential cumulative air quality and noise impacts are found to be: [ XX ] Significant [ ] Not significant

2.15.4 Rationale Where feasible, project-specific mitigation has been identified and will be implemented that would reduce the potential impact. There is no assurance that implementation of project-level mitigation associated with the proposed Wilmington Drain/ Machado Lake Project (described above and in Section 3.0 of the Draft EIR and the MMP) will reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, significant localized and temporary project-level impacts and cumulative impacts would still potentially exist during construction related to air quality and noise.

2.15.5 References Sections 5.1.3 and 5.1.11 of the Draft EIR addressed the potential cumulative impacts to air quality and noise, respectively.

3.0 Alternatives Considered As described in Section 2.8 of the Draft EIR, three project alternatives and the No Project Alternative were considered during preparation of the Draft EIR. The range of alternatives is governed by the "rule of reason" that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasonable choice. Of these, three alternatives (including the proposed project), which meet all of the project objectives, and the No Project Alternative required by CEQA were carried forward for detailed analysis in the



Draft EIR (refer to Section 2.0 of the Draft EIR for a detailed description of proposed project, alternatives and no project). The alternatives analyzed in the Draft EIR were as follows:

Proposed Project. The proposed project is comprised of three components. There are two primary components - Wilmington Drain Multi-use (Wilmington Drain Component) and Machado Lake Ecosystem Rehabilitation (Machado Lake Component), and one secondary component - a Supplemental Water Supply Pipeline (Supplemental Water Supply Pipeline Component), which would deliver treated water to Machado Lake Because the stormwater and urban runoff that is conveyed through the Wilmington Drain flows into the Machado Lake, and the supplemental water pipeline would deliver treated water to augment Machado Lake during the dry season, these components are being evaluated as one project. The proposed project includes a variety of measures designed to improve water quality; help meet adopted and future Total Maximum Daily Loads criteria; enhance riparian, wetland, and upland habitats; improve hydrologic and hydraulic conditions; and restore existing recreational amenities as well as develop new ones. a In addition to the improvements above, the proposed project includes the construction and operation of new 16-inch (or smaller) supplemental water pipeline to deliver microfiltration/reverse osmosis treated water from the Terminal Island Water Reclamation Plant to Machado Lake for lake replenishment during the dry season. The pipeline would be constructed primarily within public right-of-way along existing roadways. The following construction elements are common to the proposed project and selected alternatives: dredging at Machado Lake; BMPs at major storm drain outfalls; park landscape design elements; smart irrigation system; lake edge treatment; in-lake sediment basins/traps; invasive plant removal; native plant enhancement; interpretive and educational signage; and floating islands in the lake.

Alternative 1: Alternative 1 incorporates the various common elements listed above, most notably the dredging of Machado Lake by approximately three feet, provision of BMPs at major storm drain outfalls, removal of invasive plants, and use of native plants, among others. In addition, other elements common to the alternatives include use of MF/RO treated water from the TIWRP to maintain the appropriate lake water level, recycled Title 22 water for park irrigation, smart irrigation controllers, lake edge treatment, in-lake sediment basins, and islands. Alternative 1 would include invasive plant removal and re-vegetation in both the Riparian Woodland and the lower Freshwater Marsh areas.

Alternative 1 differs from the proposed project in that it would not involve re-contouring portions of the Riparian Woodland or the Freshwater Marsh with the creation of a secondary high-flow channel, containment berms, vegetated berms, vegetated swales, or drainage channels to significantly change the flow regime. Further, this alternative would not include bioengineered vegetated drainage swales at Project 77 or ML Project 510 – Line C, improvements to the emergent wetlands in the Freshwater Marsh, or the treatment wetlands adjacent to Machado Lake. The



type, location, and quantity of BMPs included in this alternative also differ from the proposed project.

Alternative 2: Alternative 2 includes BMPs at major storm drain outfalls, a 4.3-acre off-line recirculation wetland, 6 acres of new Freshwater Marsh wetlands, an enhanced vegetative swale at Storm Drain 77 Outfall, and BMPs at Harbor College and P6545 for trash collection. More specifically, key elements of Alternative 2 would include:

o Use of MF/RO treated water for lake augmentation;

o Construction of a 4.3-acre off-line recirculation wetland on the southeast side of the lake;

o Creation of approximately 6 acres of emergent wetlands in the Freshwater Marsh, downstream of the Machado Lake dam;

o Creation of an enhanced vegetative swale at the Storm Drain 77 Outfall; and

o Inclusion of stormwater BMPs at Harbor College and P6545 to provide supplemental collection of trash from these smaller watersheds.

Alternative 2 differs from the proposed project in that it would not involve re-contouring portions of the Riparian Woodland with the creation of a secondary high-flow channel or containment berms. Nor would this alternative involve re-contouring the Freshwater Marsh with vegetated berms and swales. The type, location, and quantity of BMPs included in this alternative also differ from the proposed project.

Alternative 3: Alternative 3 is based on Wilmington Drain Alternative 3 and Machado Lake Alternative 3A, as identified in the Pre-Design Report (PDR). It contains common elements described previously, all the components of Alternative 2, as well as a lake aeration system with the capability of alum treatment and a Riparian Woodlands runoff capture area. More specifically, key features of Alternative 3 would include:

o Use of MF/RO treated water for lake augmentation;

o Construction of a 4.3-acre off-line recirculation wetland on the southeast side of the lake;

o Creation of a Riparian Woodland runoff capture area at the upper margin of Machado Lake;

o Creation of approximately 6 acres of new Freshwater Marsh wetlands, in the area downstream of Machado Lake dam;



o Provision of a lake aeration system, with the capability of alum treatment, as needed, to enhance lake water quality; and

o Inclusion of stormwater BMPs at Harbor College and P6545 to provide supplemental collection of trash from these smaller watersheds.

Unlike the proposed project, Alternative 3 would not involve re-contouring the Freshwater Marsh area with vegetated berms and swales, or bioengineered vegetated swales at Project 77 or Project 510 – Line C. Unlike Alternative 2, Alternative 3 would include the construction of a pump station and alum treatment system. The type, location, and quantity of BMPs included in this alternative also differ from the proposed project.

No Project Alternative. The No Project Alternative would result in not implementing improvements proposed under the Wilmington Drain Multi-Use and Machado Lake Ecosystem Rehabilitation project. Under this alternative, the current uses and conditions of the project site would remain unchanged. This analysis includes discussion about the existing conditions within the project site, as well as reasonably foreseeable consequences or conditions if the project were not approved and implemented.

3.1 Preferred Project This section presents the Preferred Project, which is the proposed project, including a discussion of the rationale for the selection and the benefits of the Preferred Project. All the build alternatives were deemed to be superior to the No Project Alternative because they would meet all the project objectives, which are as follows:

Improve the water quality conditions and help the City and stakeholders to meet the existing and future TMDL requirements mandated by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board;

Improve the flood control capacity of the Wilmington Drain to convey the flow from a 50-year storm event;

Improve the biological diversity of the Machado Lake ecosystem by restoring and enhancing native habitat for threatened and sensitive species and by removing invasive plant species;

Improve visual aesthetics of the Wilmington Drain, Machado Lake, and Harbor Regional Park in the context of a reduced water supply;

Enhance the provision of open green space, public-use facilities, and recreational and educational amenities; and

Meet the requirements of available funding sources (Proposition O – a $500-million bond measure approved in 2004 to improve water quality for water bodies within the City, and Proposition 50 – Chapter 8, of the State of California’s Integrated



Regional Water Management Plan Implementation Grant Program), which are instrumental in bringing the project to fruition.

The majority of the potentially significant impacts are associated with components that are common to all of the alternatives, such as the excavation/dredging, installation of BMPs, habitat and park improvements, etc. Differences in impacts relate to the number (or magnitude) of the amount of excavation and improvements proposed under the different alternatives.

Subsequent to the close of the comment period on the Draft EIR, the City staff: (1) reviewed the comments on the Draft EIR, and (2) considered the environmental analysis in the Draft EIR, the public comments on the Draft EIR. City staff then identified the Preferred Project that would be recommended to the City Council for approval. The Preferred Project is the proposed project because it maximizes the City’s ability to meet the project objectives.

Alternative 1 incorporates the various common elements that the Preferred Project and the build alternatives have but would not involve re-contouring portions of the Riparian Woodland or the Freshwater Marsh with the creation of a secondary high-flow channel, containment berms, vegetated berms, vegetated swales, or drainage channels to significantly change the flow regime of runoff. Further, this alternative would not include bioengineered vegetated drainage swales at Project 77 or ML Project 510 – Line C, improvements to the emergent wetlands in the Freshwater Marsh, or the treatment wetland adjacent to Machado Lake, nor as many BMPs. Although Alternative 1 appears to be ranked much better than the Preferred Project and is deemed to be the Environmentally Superior Alternative in terms of environmental impacts under CEQA, the difference in impacts between Alternative 1 and the Preferred Project is relatively minor because the core elements are the same. The rankings primarily reflect minor differences in the temporary construction impacts of the alternatives relative to the Preferred Project and each other. Although Alternative 1 would result in the fewest environmental impacts, it is not being recommended for implementation due to its lower level of water quality, habitat and park improvements, and fewer community betterment benefits.

Similarly, Alternative 2 would implement the common elements of the Preferred Project and all the build alternative, but like Alternative 1, Alternative 2 would not involve re-contouring portions of the Riparian Woodland or the Freshwater Marsh with the creation of a secondary high-flow channel or containment berms, nor would it include the construction of bioengineered vegetative swales at Project 77 or ML Project 510 – Line C, a pump station and lake aeration system, or alum injection system, nor as many BMPs. Of the build alternatives, Alternative 2 would result in the next fewest (than Alternative 1) environmental impacts, but is not being recommended for implementation due to its lower level of water quality, habitat and park improvements, and fewer community betterment benefits.

Alternative 3 would implement the common elements of the Preferred Project and all the build alternative, all the components of Alternative 2, as well as a lake aeration



system with the capability of alum intrusion and a Riparian Woodlands runoff capture area. Of the build alternatives, Alternative 3 would result in the least fewer environmental impacts than the Preferred Project, but is not being recommended for implementation due to its lower level of water quality, habitat and park improvements, and fewer community betterment benefits.

Although the No Project Alternative would result in the fewest environmental impacts, it has not been recommended for implementation because it would not help the City meet TMDL requirements and because it would not provide open green space, public-use facilities, or recreational opportunities, which are community betterments that are needed in this area.

4.0 Statement of Overriding Considerations The Preferred Project (the proposed project) would result in the following unavoidable significant adverse impact after mitigation:

1. Significant impacts may occur from NOx emissions during construction of the proposed project.

2. Temporary significant noise impact associated with the proposed Wilmington

Drain and Machado Lake component during construction.

3. Potential cumulative impacts associated with construction, including NOx emissions and noise impacts.

The Preferred Project would maximize the primary project objectives of meeting the surface water runoff TMDL requirements mandated by the LARWQCB, improving the flood control capacity of Wilmington Drain, and improving the biological diversity of the Machado Lake ecosystem. Thus, the Preferred Project provides long-term benefits by safely managing surface water runoff and reducing the flooding risk which would protect public health and safety. Another benefit of the Preferred Project is that it enhances the biological value of the ecosystem and provides increased recreational and educational amenities in a community where these are needed.

The City of Los Angeles hereby concludes that the Preferred Project's benefits outweigh and override its unavoidable significant impacts for the reasons stated above. The City reached this decision after having done all of the following: (1) adopted all feasible mitigation measures, (2) rejected other project alternatives, (3) recognized all significant, unavoidable impacts associated with the Preferred Project, and (4) balanced the benefits of the project against the impacts that would be significant and unavoidable.

The Preferred Project also maximizes the requirements of available funding sources (Proposition O and Proposition 50 – Chapter 8, of the State of California’s Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Implementation Grant Program), which are instrumental in bringing the project to fruition.



The location and custodian of the environmental documents and/or other material which constitute the record of the proceedings upon which its decision is based is:

Department of Public Works, Bureau of Engineering, Environmental Management Group 1149 South Broadway, 6th Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90015

Documents

Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerationsclkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2010/10-2281_misc_06-2010d.pdf · Machado Lake Ecosystem Rehabilitation Project SCH#2009081093 CITY