8/12/2019 1993 City Report

1/46

8/12/2019 1993 City Report

2/46

TABLE OF CONTENTSPage No.

CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION ............................... 1 - 1Background ......... ............................... 1 - 1

University of California at Riverside Study .............. 1 - 1Concept Report ... ............................... 1 - 2Pilot Study Plan .. ............................... 1 - 2Pilot Project Report and Grant Application ............... 1 - 2

Scope of The Report .... ............................... 1 - 3Hidden Valley Wildlife Area ............................. 1 - 4

CHAPTER 2 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ......................... 2 -1Denitrification Requirements .............................. 2 -1

Biological Process Upgrade Alternative ................. 2 -1Wetlands Enhancement Alternative .................... 2 -2Wetlands and Denitrification Process_

Reliability ..... ............................... 2 -2Existing Wetland s ..... 2 -3Project Benefits and Objectives ........................... 2 -3Project Development .... ............................... 2 -5Water Source and Conveyance ............................ 2 -6

Wetlands Area ... ............................... 2 -7Phase I Project ........ ............................... 2 -8

Improvements to Existing Wetlands ................... 2 -8Restoration of Wetlands ........................... 2 -9Research and Development Work ..................... 2 -9Irrigation Channel Improvements ..................... 210

Phase II Project ....... ............................... 21 1Improvement/ Restoration of Existing Wetlands ..... .. . .. . . 2 -1Permanent Conveyance Channel Restoration .............. 2 -1Public Use Facilities .............................. 2 -1

CHAPTER 3 - SITE DEVELOPMENT ........................... 3 -1Phase I Project Development ............................ 3 -2Phase II Project Development ............................ 3 -3

CHAPTER 4 - INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES ........................ 4 -1

I

8/12/2019 1993 City Report

3/46

Table of Contents

CHAPTER S - ENVIRONMENTAL AND REGULATORY ISSUES ..... 5- 1CHAPTER 6 - OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE ............... 6 -1

Water Quality Opera tions ............................... 6 -1Wetlands Cell MaintenanceRoutine Site Maintenance 6 -1Mosquito Control 6 -2PublicUse 6 -2Security 6 -2

CHAPTER 7 - IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ....................... 7 -1

Ell

8/12/2019 1993 City Report

4/46

Table of Contents

LIST OF FIGURESFigure

No.FollowingPage No.

1 - 1 HVWA (Aerial Photo) ............................. 1 - 42 -1 HVWA and WEP Site ............................. 2 -32 -2 W EP Site Map ... ............................... 2 -57 -1 Implementation Plan ............................. 7 -2

iii

8/12/2019 1993 City Report

5/46

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Th e Santa Ana River Wetlands Enhancement Project ( WEP) is a n innovative project tocombine polishing of the nitrified and tertiary treated effluent from th e Riverside RegionalWater Quality Contro l Plant ( RWQCP) with environmental enhancement and public u s e .Recent revisions to the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) permit forth e R W Q C P implementing th e California Inland Surface Waters Plan ( ISWP), require thep lant to meet increasingly more stringent nitrogen discharge limits over th e next tw o years.

Modifications can be made to th e plant treatment processes to meet the new nitrogen limitsfor final effluent. However, in l i e u of m a k in g c a p it a l i m p r o v e m e n t s a t t h e p l a n t , th e City h a sa unique opportunity of using th e existing wetlands in th e Hidden Valley Wldlife AreaHVWA) to provide th e additional treatment for nitrogen removal. With over 1 , 500 acres,

o v e r 2 0 0 of which a r e w e t l a n d s , t h e HVWA p r o v i d e s t h e City a f e a s i b l e l o c a t i o n t o d e v e l o pa wetlands treatment system. Incidently, th e final effluent from th e R W Q C P h as b een th eonly source of water for the existing wetlands in the H V W A for a long time.T h e c o s t of developing th e WEP s i t e for w a s t e w a t e r t r e a tm e n t c o u l d b e significantly l e s s t h a nth e cost to modify th e plant, and th e WEP provides greater benefits to th e environment aswell as to the public. Th e public will benefit directly f rom public u s e and th e improvedwildlife habitat in the H VW A a n d indirectly from improved water quality in t h e S a n t a AnaRiver.

BACKGROUND

The City was planning to develop the wetlands in the H V W A for polishing of t h e finaleffluent from th e RWQCP over th e past three or four years. Th e following are th e majormilestones towards the development of the WEP.

University of California a t R iversid e S tu d yIn 1990, the City awarded a project to the University of California at Riverside to conduct

1 - 1

8/12/2019 1993 City Report

6/46

Introduction

a study on th e nitrogen removal in four existing wetlands ponds. Dr. La nn y L un d headed upthis study. These four ponds, an d several other ponds in th e HVWA, have been suppliedwith water from th e RWQCP for many years. Water is diverted to the wetlands in theHVWA from the plant outfall channel before it discharges to the Santa Ana River. Theresults of the scientific study provided some evidence that the wetlands were capable ofremoving nitrogen to th e levels required by th e revised NPDES permit.Concept Report

In Au gu st 1991, John Carollo Engineers prepared a draft concept plan to develop thewetlands in th e HVWA to provide effluent polishing for th e plant. The concept focused onth e development of nearly 50 0 acres of wetlands to provide effluent polishing fo r totalinorganic nitrogen removal for 48 mgd nitrified and tertiary treated effluent. The reportrecommended construction of approximately 20 wetlands pond s and a 56 -inch diameterpipeline to convey th e water from th e plant to th e HVWA. The estimated cost for th e projectto treat flows up to 40 mgd was $ 23,300,000. Because of the estimated cost and of thepermitting required for construction of th e wetlands in th e S anta Ana River flood plain, th efeasibility of th e wetlands project was, at that point, questionable.Pilot Study Plan

To further investigate and refine th e idea of using wetlands for denitri fication, the Cityretained Montgomery Watson to prepare a pilot test plan so that better design data could beobtained and the estimated size of the wetlands refined. As th e pilot test report was beingcompleted, th e opportunity for th e City to include th e pilot study a s part of a larger wetlandsenhancement project arose, and Montgomery Watson assisted th e City to prepare a grantappication package. A $250,000 grant was awarded to th e City b y th e Sta te ResourceAgency for th e development of th e S anta Ana Wetlands Enhancement Project ( WEP), whchin this report is referred to a s Phase I. Phase I includes restoration of approximately 60 acresof wetlands in th e HVWA and a wetlands pilot study. Approximately 10 acres of th e 60 acresite will be used for pilot study.Pilot Project Report & Grant Application

In November, 1992, Montgomery Watson completed a pilot project ( Phase I) report and grantapplication package for th e State of California, Transportation Commission, Resource Agency.

1 - 2

8/12/2019 1993 City Report

7/46

Introduction

Th e purpose of this effort was to draft a good size initial phase project for a meaningfuldemonstration of the wetlands application. Restoration of an about 55 -70 acres of wetlands

around th e existing four duck pond s w as considered. T h is re po rt was oriented to meet th eResource Agency grant application and U: S . Army Corps of Engineers (COE) 40 4 permittingrequrements.

This project obtained wide political as well as institutional support. Almost all the relevantagencies supported this project. As a result of this overall effort, th e WEP Phase I wasqualified fo r a 250,0 0 0 grant by th e Resource Agency. The Regional Water Quality ControlBoard, Santa Ana Region, Riverside issued a 40 1 waiver for this project because of nopotential adverse impact on the Waters of the United States. The COE is currentlyconsidering issuing a 40 4 permit for the project if it is required. The COE requested for aleast Bell' s vireo survey, which h as just been completed.Several investigations were made of the HVWA while the grant application package wasbeing prepared. It was found that t h e r e a r e over 20 0 a c r e s of existing wetlands in t h e HVWA.If t h e s e existing wetlands can b e u s e d instead of constructing wetlands, there will b e asubstantial cost saving to developing the WEP and the permitting issues will be much l e s scompicated Furthermore, if the area requirements for the wetlands can b e refined based onth e pilot testing data, it may be found that fewer or no additional wetlands are needed. Thiswill even further reduce th e cost to d eve lo p th e WEP.Reliable conveyance of th e plant effluent to th e HVWA is an important consideration in th edevelopment of th e WEP. Th e plant effluent is currently conveyed by a open channel ditchthat runs from the plant parallel to the river. The channel is constructed of river sediments.A portion of the channel near th e confluence of th e Hole Lake outfall and th e S anta AnaRiver is frequently washed out a n d must b e repaired to keep water flowing t o t h e HVWA.The John Carollo wetlands report recommended construction of a 54 -inch outfall pipeline toreplace the open channel. The cost of th e pipeline is estimated to be over $ 1 , 600,000.Because the pipeline is in th e flood plain, it is still subject to flood damage, although muchless so than the existing open channel. One emphasis of the WEP is to reduce the cost ofth e project by identifying ways of improving th e reliability of th e effluent outfall openchanne.

SCOPE OF THE REPORT

Th e purpose of th i s report is to describe in general th e scope of th e overall WEP to b e1 - 3

8/12/2019 1993 City Report

8/46

Introduction

developed in t h e H V W A by restoring existing wetlands with t h e primary purpose of providingdenitrification t o t h e nitrified and tertiary treated 40 mgd annual average dry weather flowfrom th e RWQCP and its environmental enhancement and public image aspects. Th e ultimategoal is to achieve th e total inorganic nitrogen ( TIN) limits in th e final effluent prior to itsdischarge into Santa Ana River.

Considering th e little information available on th e HVWA and th e design of wetlands for th edenitrification, the City i s planning to restore existing wetlands in two phases. This reportdefines th e concept for development of Phase I and Phase II of th e WEP and outlines th ebenefits, limitations, environmental concerns, permitting i s s u e s , financial, a n d other a s p e c t saffecting th e development of th e project.HIDDEN VALLEY WILDLIFE AREA

Th e HVWA has been operated by th e County of Riverside Parks and Open Space DepartmentCounty) since 1974. The land belongs to the State of California Fish and Game

Commission, and is operated by th e County under a 50 -year cooperative managementagreement wth the State. Th e HVWA encompasses approximately 1 , 50 0 acres, about 20 0acres of which are wetlands ranging in depth from 6 inches to over 5 feet deep. Because offlooding of the San ta Ana River, some area th a t w ere once wetlands have been filled in withsedments. Dikes around some of th e wetlands have also been damaged leaving the a r e a sdry. A map of th e HVWA is shown in Figure 1 - 1 . As indicated earlier, these wetlands havebeen using t h e final effluent from the RWQCP a s the only source of water for along time.Prior to becoming t h e HVWA, the site was known a s the Hidden Valley Gun Club. The gunclub was founded in 1957 and remained active until 1974 when the property was purchasedby th e State and converted to a public use area. The gun club promoted pheasant and duckhunting in th e area and is responsible for th e development of much of wetlands in th e HVWAthat sill exist.

Th e HVWA i s u s e d fo r many purposes both privately and publicly. There are many milesof trails and paths that are used for hiking and horseback riding. Approximately 150 acresof land is privately farmed under a lease with the County. The farmer produces two cropsa year, one c orn c ro p and one fodder crop. In exchange for the use of the land, in lieu ofcash payments, the farmer provides the county labor, equipment, and fu el fo r up keep andmaintenance of the HVWA. In addition to agriculture, th e area is grazed by sheep several

1 - 4

8/12/2019 1993 City Report

9/46

u

t

w Alf `. . . d ' . (

i q

r_

c 7 4 1 1

AirY W

s ; w t m r a t^ 7

ir PA, jc a

w o '; p

daAf

t moT'

A

B

Y

y Y ^ , x 1, i +' r A. ,. dry h .''

w s

8/12/2019 1993 City Report

10/46

Introduction

months out ofthe year.

Until last year, when t h e le a s e expired, t h e r e w a s t h e Wild Life Training Center whichh o u s e d exotic a n d native animals u s e d of television a n d motion picture filming. The Centeralso served as a way station for sick and injured animals.Existing facilities include the park rangers office, a staging area fo r the farmer, a publicparking lot, and building associated with the W ild L ife Training Center. Access to portionsof th e site is controlled by gates and fencing.Much of the HVWA is overgrown with Arundo Donax, a hearty bamboo type plant. Arundois not a native plant species and out competes other plants in th e area. Because it grows sothick, it provides only limited habitat for birds and small animals. Also, in the summermonths, th e arundo becomes a fire ha zard . The re ha v e been several outbreaks of fires in pastyears.

There a r e feral h o g s living in t h e a r e a . They h a v e c a u s e d s o m e problems including attackingpeopeand othernusances.

The City a n d County a r e currently negotiating a n agreement (memorandum of understanding)for supervision and general maintenance of the WEP project.

1 - 5

8/12/2019 1993 City Report

11/46

CHAPTER 2

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The WEP, a multi -purpose project, is designed to provide denitrification to the nitrified a n dtertiary treated effluent of th e RWQCP, significant environmental enhancement of th eHVWA, a base for research and development on natura l treatment processes, andenhancement of public uses of th e HVWA. Th e Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) a n dregulatory agencies are thoughtful ly encouraging use of natural treatment processes beingsimple, cost effective, and having multiple environmental enhancement functions.DENITRIFICATION REQUIREMENTS

Revisions to the NPDES permit for the RWQCP require that by May 1 , 19 9 5 th e plant m e e ta TIN limit of 1 3 mg/ 1 for flows up to 38 mgd and 1 0 mg/ l for flows over 38 mgd on a nannual basis and chronic toxicity limit of 1 . 0 TUc. Thus, th e R W Q C P currently rated to 40m gd capacity has to m ee t 12. 1 mg/l of TIN limits. To meet these limits both nitrification anddenitrification of the final effluent is required. Apparently, the following two alternatives a r eviable under current situations for the RWQCP to meet these requirements.

Biological Process Upgrade Alternative

Th e upgrade of existing biological treatment at th e RWQCP is a viable alternative to meett h e nitrogen limits. Th e plant consisting of Plant 1 a n d Plant 2 systems, is currently d e s i g n e dto provide complete nitrification for 40 mgd annual average dry weather flow. The Plant 2biological treatment process originally des igned to provide carbonaceous biological oxygendemand ( BOD) removal a n d nitrification to a n about 20 mgd annual average dry weatherflow, is currently under upgrade for denitrification p r o c e s s without any tankage addition. Theupgrade of Plant 2 is planned for complet ion during 1993. Similar modifications to Plant 1biological treatment process were planned. A previous concept report prepared by John

2 -1

8/12/2019 1993 City Report

12/46

Project Description

Carollo Engineers indicated a shortfall of 8 mgd capacity and a need of a n additional20,000,000 capital investment.

Wetlands Enhancement Alternative

The restoration of th e existing wetlands for denitri fication in th e HVWA is an another viablealternative to m eet th e nitrogen limits. Both natural an d constructed wetlands are u sed forsecondary an d tertiary treatment of municipal an d industrial wastewater throughout th e UnitedStates and in other parts of the world. Wetlands are reliable treatment process for th enutrient removal although sufficient data on denitrification is not available. This report wlldiscuss in details th e genera l concept of wetlands development in th e HVWA.

Wetlands and Denitriiication Process Reliability

The nitrogen control concept of the WEP is to use th e denitrification capabilities of wetlandsand of the plant to provide reliable and cost effective treatment. The RWQCP wll serve asstand -by capacity to th e WEP. Th e RWQCP effluent is conveyed to th e WEP site b y a nopen channel flowing through th e Santa Ana River plain ( see Figure 1 - 1 ) . Both the effluentchannel and th e W EP are subject to f looding of th e Santa Ana River. There are two casesw he n th e WEP may not provide full denitrification to th e final effluent.

Case 1. In th e event th e wetlands are not providing full denitrification, the Plant 2 could b eoperated in denitrification mode which could provide nitrogen removal for an about 16 mgdflow. By blending th e denitrified effluent from Plant 2 with nitrified effluent from Plant 1 ,th e total nitrogen load to th e WEP can be significantly reduced.

Case 2. If the effluent channel is washed out and flow can not reach the wetlands or if th eWEP is damaged by flooding. In a worst conditions, a permanent repair to channel andwetlands may take up to 2 to 3 months. As in Case 1 , the Plant 2 could be operated in

2 -2

8/12/2019 1993 City Report

13/46

Project Description

denitrification mode an d its denitrified effluent wll be blended with th e nitrified effluent fromPlant 1 . Th e total plant effluent will be partially denitrified. The current TIN limit is anannual average limit, so the permitted limit can be exceeded for a short period of timewithout having a permit violation. By using th e denitrification capacity of th e RWQCP toreduce TIN concentrations, and making repairs to the WEP a s quickly as possible, a permitviolation can be avoided even though th e actual TINconcentration in th e effluent may exceedthe permit limits for a short period of time.

EXISTING WETLANDS

There are approximately 20 0 acres of existing wetlands in the HVWA surviving on theRWQCP effluent. Most of th e wetlands are man-made ponds that have existed at th e site for20 or more years. Originally used for duck hunting, when th e property belonged to theHidden- Valley Gun Club, the ponds are now mainta ined by th e County a s wildlife habitat andas irrigation reservoirs. There is a system of unlined irrigation channels flowing through thesite which convey RWQCP final effluent to an d from th e wetlands ponds. The focus of theWEP is primarily th e 20 0 acres of existing wetlands and th e system of irrigation channels.Th e existing wetlands and irrigation channels within th e HVWA are shown in Figure 2 - 1 .PROJECT BENEFITS AND OBJECTIVES

Th e WEP is a major environmental enhancement project in Riverside County. The projecthas multiple benefits of water quality improvement, restoration of high - uality riparian habitatfor native and transient migratory wildlife species, groundwater recharge, and other wildlifeand public benefits. Many resident and migratory waterfowl use th e existing wetlands areain th e HVWA for wintering and nesting including th e endangered Ieast Bell' s vireo. TheWEP will improve and restore wetlands making it a major site on th e waterfowl migratorycorridor wth site diversification. Th e Santa Ana Bikeway adjacent to th e Van BurenBoulevard will also be enhanced by th e WEP.

2 -3

8/12/2019 1993 City Report

14/46

14

0m.

C0L

C LE 3L

0

80

co

CL

C LE3Lco

co

0N

m

E

crU

0O

8/12/2019 1993 City Report

15/46

Project Description

Th e natural capabilities of wetlands to simultaneously purify and upgrade the quality oftreated wastewater discharged to th e Santa Ana River by th e R W Q C P is another major benefitto the project. Th e wetlands will help th e City to red uce nit rogen concentrations in th etreated RWQCP effluent before it is discharged to th e S anta Ana River. Integratingwastewater treatment for nutrients removal with environmental enhancement will mean loweroperational and maintenance costs than conventional treatment facilities and offer aestheticbenefits for the public.

Th e groundwater recharged provided by wetlands will benefit the growing population in theRiverside area b y helping to replenish groundwater aquifers.

Th e project is planned to ultimately include the following benefits to th e community:An access road off th e planned Jurupa Avenue extension, with a publicparking area an d observation point located at th e top of th e southern bluff,providing a scenic overview of the project

Site access and rest room facilities at the observation point. Th e existingclubhouse may be renovated as a visitor an d environmental education center

Hiking an d equestrian trails

Pedestrian trails along th e flood control and we tlands d ik es

001

8/12/2019 1993 City Report

16/46

Project Description

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

The project will b e completed in two b a s ic s te p s . The first s t e p , P h a s e I, is a 5 5 -70 a c r e pilotproject funded, in part, by a grant from Caltrans. Phase I is primarily an environmentalenhancement and mitigation project associated with th e widening of a four mile section ofState Route 60. Pilot testing of wetlands for denitrification is, however, an integral part ofthe project.

Th e second step, Phase II, is expansion of th e pilot project to full -s ca le s ys te m d e sig ne d totreat 40 mgd of tertiary treated effluent. Phase IIwill encompass all of th e existing wetlandsareas within th e HVWA and will include restoration of former wetlands an d th e developmentof new wetlands, if necessary.

Th e implementation of P h a s e II will d e p e n d o n t h e results of t h e pilot testing in P h a s e I.The nitrogen removal data will be used to determine if wetlands are a suitable and reliablemeans of the nitrogen removal and to determine th e total wetlands area needed to treat all th eflow from the RWQCP. Regardless of whether th e WEP is expanded into th e full -scaleproject, the pilot project area wll remain as an environmental enhancement area.

Figure 1 - 1 shows an aerial photo of the HVWA. Figure 2 - 1 shows a map of th e HVWA andth e boundaries of th e WEP site including th e pilot project area and th e area for th e full scalesite.

Th e W EP has three major components: conveyance of water, restoration of ponds, and sitedevelopment works.

W

8/12/2019 1993 City Report

17/46

C0ac

41 Wca J30

cvc o

o v mL L S' c c i

4 0ca

O 0 C0; m scm Z UW

cr)

NCO

x

v ff ifQ

m r0Z

r

Nr c

W

0carnE

M N0t co

N mO

U dm

CXc in ac n m m

I m z m41 Wca J30

cvc o

o v mL L S' c c i

4 0ca

O 0 C0; m scm Z UW

cr)

NCO

x

v ff ifQ

mr0Z

r

Nr c

W

8/12/2019 1993 City Report

18/46

Project Description

Water Source and Conveyance

All water fo r the WEP will b e provided by the RWQCP.. The plant is located upstream ofthe WEP site and discharges nitrified tertiary treated effluent to the Santa An a River. Asignificant part of th e final effluent has been diverted to the HVWA fo r several years toprovide water for agricultural irrigation a n d t o k e e p w a te r in t h e existing w e t l a n d s .Additional flow, up to a s much a s 1 5 mgd, will be diverted fo r th e Phase I project. Asdiscussed above, the entire flow will ultimately be diverted to the site, if the full scale projectis implemented.

Th e existing open channel that conveys effluent from the RWQCP to th e WEP, is constructedfrom sediments. in the river bed and meanders in the flood plain from th e plant outfall to thediversion structure for the WEP. A portion of the channel just west of th e Van Buren Bridgea l o n g t h e s o u t h e r n bluff of t h e flood plain is frequently w a s h e d a w a y b y t h e river a n d b y atributary stream from Hole Lake. Hole Lake receives flow from an irrigation canal system.During rainy weather and when the lake is being drained, flow is discharge from t h e lake t othe Santa Ana River. Th e outfall from th e lake crosses the effluent outfall channel from theplant wash i ng away part of th e effluent channel dikes. During normal weather when th e flowfrom the lake is low, Hole Lake effluent mixes with the plant effluent and flows to the WEPste

Phase I of th e WEP includes short-term, low cost improvements to th e effluent outfallchannel to keep it from wash ing away during minor rainfall events. Phase II includespermanent solutions which may include construction of concrete spillways, siphons, or otherstructures to protect the effluent outfall channel. There may be ways to divert flow fromHole Lake upstream of the lake. These will be investigated during Phase I and H .

There is a system of irrigation c hanne ls tha t flow through th e HVWA. Th e channels carrywater into t h e a r e a for agriculture irrigation a n d wetlands water supply a n d ultimately b a c kto th e S an ta Ana River. Improvements and modifications of th e channels are an integral part

2 -6

8/12/2019 1993 City Report

19/46

P r o je c t D e s c rip onof the WEP. Obstructions a n d v e g e t a t i o n i n t h e c h a n n e l s w i l l b e c l e a r eidened, if required. Floe, diversion and measurement stations ,, i d a n d th e c h a n nrouting of the channels will be modified an II b e installedd new channels constructed as eeded' andWetlands Area

To provide a reliable denitrification p r o c e s s t h r o u g h w e t l a n d s , ar e d u n d a n c y for m a i n t e n a n c e is essentia l. P r o p e r s i z i n g w i t h a d e q u atechnolo Wetlands are, however, still and emerging y a n d s i z i n g c r i t e r i a i s s t i l l t h e s u b j e c t o f m u c h r e s e a r c h a n d d e b a t e .f d e s i g n information available is for BOD and TSS removal and t T h e majoritavailable on design of th e systems for nitrogen removal. Th e nitrogen is little i n f o r m a t i o na v a i l a b l e is for ammonia nitrogen and total nitrogen removal and removal d a t a that isremoval. specifically for nitrateT h e W E P w i l l r e c e i v e a f u l l n i t r i f i e d e f f l u e n t ; t h e r e f o r e , t h e d a t aotal nitrogen removal are not necessarily f o r a m m o n ia n it ro g e n a n dkinetics of nitrification for ammonia removal and da p p l i c a b l e t o th e W E P d e s i g n . The biologicald i f f e r e n t . Nitrification is a n aerobic process that occurs l f a i r l yrapidly s l o w l y w h i l e d e m t r i f i c a t i o n isP y. I n g e n e r a l , t h e s i z e o f a s y s t e m d e s i g n e d o fn i t r i f i c a t i o n w i l l b e m u c h l a r g e r t h a n f o r a s y s t e m d e s i g n e d f o r o n l yhe design of w e t l a n d s w i l l a l s o b e d i f f e r e n t for nitrification denitriication. Also,nitrification, aerobic conditions would be optimized, a n d for denitri and denitrification_ Forwould b e optimized. The fication anoxic conditionsP r i m a r y o b j e c t i v e o f t h e p i l o t t e s t i n g p r o g r a m i s t o d e t e r m i n ee s i g n criteria s p e c i f i c a l l y f o r d e n i t r i i i c a t i o n .

I n o r d e r t o e s t i m a t e t h e p o t e n t i a l s i z e o f t h e W E p t h e d a t a f r o m t h e w e t l a n d s p i l o t s t u d yo n d u c t e d b y th e U n i v e r s i t y of California at Riverside on existin wwas referenced. The study showed approximate) 30 g w e t l a n d s in th e HuWAnitrogen through th e s u r f a c e flow of p o n d s . B a s e d nh e averager e d u c t io n in t o t a l in o r g a n icconcentrations, th e a v e r a g e l o a d i n g rate was 1 4 Ibs TIN Influent flows a n d n i t r o g e nAssuming that all of the TIN in the effluent is in the ) per a c r e of w e t l a n d s .e f o r m o f n i t r a t e n i t r o g e n , o n 4 0 m g d2 -7

8/12/2019 1993 City Report

20/46

Project Description

a v e r a g e daily flow, a n d a n effluent nitrate concentration of 1 5 m g / l, t h e daily nitrogen loadingfor th e Ph ase II WEP will be 5, 0 0 0 lb s per day. The total wetlands required would,therefore, be approximately 360 acres. This d o e s not consider any nitrogen removal by t h esubsurface flow.

It is believed that th e pilot study will show that 25 to 35 percent less wetlands area will berequred Th e University of California at Riverside study was conducted on open waterwetlands wth little emergent vegetation. Th e W EP pilot study will include both open waterand shallow marsh wetlands. The shallow marsh ponds will have cattails, bulrush, an d otheremergent vegeation. Th e vegetation provides substrate for denitr ify ing organisms to grow.This will provide a higher removal efficiency than in the open water wetlands.Furthermore, a significant amount of denitrification can be achieved through percolation intoth e soil. The WEP pilot study will evaluate denitrification through percolation, an d b ase d onth e results, develop a nitrogen control concept that inc ludes bo th flow through th e free watersurface and percolation for treatment.

PHASE IPROJECT

Th e Phase I project, also called th e pilot project, includes th e restoration and improvementsto approximately 55 -7 0 acres of wetlands and to approximately 8 , 0 0 0 lin ea r feet of irrigationchannels. Between 7 and 10 mgd of th e RWQCP effluent will be diverted to th e WEP forthe Phase Iproject. A layout of the WEP site is shown in Figure 2 -2.

Improvements of Existing WetlandsThere are approximately 30 acres of existing wetlands in th e WEP. There are four pondsranging from 3 to 9 feet d eep and 7 . 5 acres in size. The dikes and perimeter of these pondswll be cleared and improvements made to the flow control and measurement facilities. Theponds are currently operated in series, but modifications will be made so that they can beoperated in either parallel or series.

FA R

8/12/2019 1993 City Report

21/46

Project Description

T h e p o n d s w e r e u s e d previously in a n i t r o g e n r e m o v a l s t u d y s p o n s o r e d b y th e City ofRiverside and conducted by th e University of California at Riverside. The lysimeters andgroundwater monitoring wells were installed a s part of that study will be located, rehabilitatedif possible, and used to monitor groundwater water quality beneath and around the perimeterof the ponds.

In addition t o t h e s e four p o n d s , t h e r e a r e five w e t l a n d s p o n d s in approximately 7 a c r e slocated along th e southern edge of th e WEP pilot project site. The perimeter of these fiveponds will b e cleared and the irrigation channels feeding these ponds improved to providebetter flow control and measurement.

Restoration of Wetlands

Approximately 20 a c r e s of t h e WEP pilot project a r e a is currently u s e d for agriculture. Thisarea was formerly a wetlands, but it has been filled in over th e years and is now used to growcorn a n d fodder c r o p s . This a r e a will b e divided into eight shallow m a r s h type p o n d s r a n g i n gfrom 6 t o 3 6 i n c h e s d e e p , a n d into two t o four o p e n water w e t l a n d s a r e a s ranging f r o m 3 t o6 feet deep. Th e shallow marsh ponds will be planted with emergent wetlands vegetation likecattails and bulrush. Th e vegetation will be transplanted from other areas in th e HVWA, andfrom outside sources if necessary. Th e open water ponds will be deep enough to preventemergent vegetation from growing. Flow control and measurement structures will be installedso that the ponds can be operated in either series or parallel.

Five to ten acres of th e 20 acre site will be developed as a pilot test area.

Research and Development Work

Th e P h a s e I project incudes pilot testing of wetlands for denitrification. Pilot testing includesboth open water wetlands 3 to 6 feet deep with little emergent vegetation and shallow marshwetlands 6 to 24 inch es deep planted with emergent wetlands vegetation. Denitrification in

2-9

8/12/2019 1993 City Report

22/46

Project Description

th e free water surface of t h e wetlands and in t h e bottom sediments throu h ercolat'b e evaluated. Lysimeters will b e installed throughout pilot testing wetlands atyariousdewll

S a m p l e s w i l l b e c o l l e c t e d a n d a n a l y z e d t o d e t e r m i n e t h e d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n r a t e s t h r o u g h t h eottom sediments. G r o u n d w a t e r m o n i t o r i n g w e l l s w i l l b e i n s t a l l e d a r o u n d t h e p e r i m e t e r o fth e pilot test area to monitor t h e d e p t h a n d quality of the surrounding groundwater.Influent and effluent water quality and flow from the wetlands will be measured. Waterquality will also be measured at various location and depths within the wetlands. Th e waterquality data will b e used to model denitrification in th e wetlands, and the effects oftemperature, pH, an d other parameters on th e system performance. Influent and effluent

f l o w s w i l l b e u s e d t o d e t e r m i n e l o a d i n g r a t e s a n d t o d e t e r m i n e p e r c o l a t i o n r a t e s .A d e t a i l e d p i l o t t e s t i n g p l a n w a s p r e p a r e d i n N o v e m b e r , 1 9 9 2 a n d p r e s e n t e d i n a s e p a r a t eeport. T h i s p l a n w h i c h c o n s i d e r e d u s e o f t w o s o u t h e r l y s m a l l p o n d s l o c a t e d a l o n g t h esouthern edge of the WEP Phase I project site. F u r th e r in v e s tig a t io n s i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e u s eo f p o n d s t o b e c r e a t e d i n t h e 2 0 a c r e s o f l a n d w i l l p r o v i d e m o r e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e i n f o r m a t i o n .T h u s , t h e p i l o t s t u d y r e p o r t w i l l b e m o d i f i e d a c c o r d i n g l y .Irrigation C h a n n e l I m p r o v e m e n t sThe existing irrigation channels will b e cleaned, graded, and widened. Vegetation and othero b s t r u c t i o n s w i l l b e r e m o v e d f r o m t h e c h a n n e l s a n d t h e b o t t o m s a n d s i d e s l o p e s o f t h ec h a n n e l s r e s h a p e d a n d g r a d e d . N e w c h a n n e l s w i l l b e c o n s t r u c t e d t o c o n v e y f l o w t o a n d f r o mth e restored wetlands areas, a n d n e w f l o w c o n t r o l a n d m e a s u r e m e n t s s t a t i o n s w i l l b econstructed at various locations.

2 -10

8/12/2019 1993 City Report

23/46

Project Description

PHASE II PROJECT

T h e P h a s e II p r o j e c t w i l l e x p a n d t h e p i l o t p r o j e c t t o a f u l l s c a l e w e t l a n d s t r e a t m e n t s y s t e m .p r o v i d i n g c o m p l e t e d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n of a l l f l o w f r o m th e R W Q C P . O n c o m p l e t i o n o f P h a s e II,th e W E P will p r o v i d e c a p a c i t y of denitrifying 4 0 m g d of flow.Improvement/ Restoration of Existing WetlandsT h e w e t l a n d s a r e a r e q u i r e d f o r t h e f u l l -s c a l e p r o j e c t w i l l b e d e t e r m i n e d b a s e d o n t h e f i n d i n g sof the pilot project. I t i s a n t i c i p a t e d t h a t b e t w e e n 2 0 0 a n d 2 5 0 a c r e s o f s h a l l o w m a r s hw e t l a n d s will b e r e q u i r e d to t r e a t 4 0 m g d a v e r a g e d a i l y flow. T h e r e a r e approximately 2 0 0a c r e s of existing wetlands a n d a r e a s of former wetlands in the HVWA. These areas will beimproved, restored, a n d i n c o r p o r a t e a s p a r t of th e t r e a t m e n t p r o c e s s f o r th e R W Q C P .Additional wetlands will b e constructed if required.Permanent Conveyance Channel Restoration

A s d i s c u s s e d e a r l i e r , t h e e f f l u e n t c h a n n e l i s d a m a g e d e v e r y y e a r d u r i n g s t o r m e v e n t s .P e r m a n e n t r e s t o r a t i o n i s n e e d e d f o r t h e r e l i a b l e o p e r a t i o n o f t h e W E P P e r m a n e n t r e s t o r a t i o nm a y i n c l u d e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f c o n c r e t e s p i l l w a y s , s ip h o n , o r o th e r s t r u c t u r e s t o p r o t e c t t h eeffluent outfall channel. Initial i n v e s t i g a t i o n a n d c o n c e p t u a l d e s i g n of th e p e r m a n e n trestoration will b e completed during first p h a s e of the WEP.Public Use Facilities

P h a s e II will include the development of the public use facilities. Pedestrian and equestriantrails will b e d e v e l o p e d a t t h e s i t e along t h e d i k e s surrounding the wetlands areas. Andp e r m a n e n t f a c i l i t i e s f o r a p u b l i c e d u c a t i o n c e n t e r w i l l b e d e v e l o p e d o n t h e s o u t h e r n b l u f foverlooking the site.

2 -11

8/12/2019 1993 City Report

24/46

Project Description

P u b l i c a c c e s s t o t h e s i t e w i l l b e e n h a n c e d b y c o n s t r u c t i o n o f a n a c c e s s r o a d a n d s c e n i coverlook along th e southern bluff of the wetlands site. T h e a c c e s s r o a d will c o n n e c t t o th ep r o p o s e d e x t e n s i o n o f J u r u p a A v e n u e a n d w i l l h a v e p a r k i n g a n d r e s t r o o m f a c i l i t i e s f o risitors. T h e r e w i l l b e a c c e s s t o t h e p e d e s t r i a n t r a i l s f r o m t h e o v e r l o o k a r e a .O t h e r p u b l i c u s e f a c i l i t i e s w i l l i n c l u d e p a r k i n g f o r c a r s a n d h o r s e t r a i l e r s , d a y u s e a r e a s , a n dr e s t r o o m s b e l o w t h e b l u f f i n t h e H i d d e n V a l l e y W i l d l i f e A r e a .

2 -12

8/12/2019 1993 City Report

25/46

CHAPTER 3

SITE DEVELOPMENT

Site development will consist of primarily clearing a n d grubbing, cut a n d fill, a n d grading t oimprove and restore existing and former wetlands areas. Emergent wetlands plants, takenfrom local wetlands sites, will be transplanted into some wetlands ponds, and improvementswill be made to th e existing irrigation channels tha t car ry water to and from th e project site.Bulldozers, dump trucks, a n d scrapers will b e u s e d for clearing, grubbing, a n d grading t h este Grade -all equipment and backhoes will be used for irrigation channel improvements.

Dikes for the restored and new wetlands a r e a s will be constructed of non -engineering fillmaterial, similar to th e existing dikes. Engineered fill would require the mining and gradationof select fill material and th e installation of the dike to stringent requirements for compactionand mosurecontent. While engineered fill offers some advantages in durability and lowerpermeability of th e dikes, th e cost fo r this type of construction is significantly higher than fo rnon -engineered fill. For a non -engineered fill, th e dikes are constructed using available fillcompacted from 80 to 85 percent of maximum compaction. This compaction is much easierto achieve than the 95 to 98 percent required for an engineered dike fill. Th e onlyrequirement for the fill is that it contain a minimum amount of organic material.

Th e dikes around th e existing wetlands have been in -place for over 20 years and work wellat the site. They have been subject to flooding and have experienced only minor damage.Since any dike constructed at the site will be subject to flooding of the Santa Ana River,there is no guarantee that a dike, no matter how well it is constructed, wll survive a largeflood event. Therefore, to save on the capital cost, the dikes wll be constructed of nonengineered fill recognizing that there will be a slightly higher maintenance and slightlygreater permeability of th e dikes.

3 -1

8/12/2019 1993 City Report

26/46

Site Development

PHASE I PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

P h a s e I of t h e WEP includes clearing a n d grubbing of approximately 1 4 a c r e s of l a n d a n dmoving approximately 45, 0 0 0 cubic yards of earth for dike construction. Clearing andgrubbing includes removal of th e Arundo and other plants within th e project ste All trees6 i n c h e s in d i a m e t e r a n d g r e a t e r will b e p r e s e r v e d , u n l e s s t h e r e i s n o p r a c t i c a l w a y tocomplete the project and preserve the trees.

It is anticipated that the cu t and fill required fo r the restoration and improvements of thewetlands will be balanced so th at no material will be hauled into or out of th e project site.T h i s is important s in c e s p e c ia l r e q u i r e m e n t s a n d a p p r o v a l s from th e United S t a t e s ArmyCorps of Engineers is required to remove or haul material into or ou t of the river flood plane.Th e depth of cut in the wetlands restoration a r e a will be adjusted s o that cut a n d fill isbalanced.

Th ere is 6 to 1 2 inches of top soil material in *he agricultural area that will not be suitablefo r dike construction. This material will b e stripped and stock piled whi le the wetlands pondsare being constructed. Th e material will then be spread in th e bottom of th e ponds to supportthe growth of the wetlands vegetation. Any excess topsoil material and other earth materialnot su itab le for d ike construct ion will be spread around th e perimeter of th e site.

Provisions will be made in the restoration of the wetlands ponds so that the MosquitoAbatement District has th e access they need to treat the wetlands ponds.

There are areas within th e Phase I site that are overgrown with Arundo. These areas wll becleared to the limits of the Phase I site. Th e County of Riverside Parks and Open SpaceDepartment and th e State Department of Fish and G am e h ave a project to clea r Arundothroughout the HVWA. Th e Arundo clearing will be coordinated with th e County and Stateas much as possible.

3 -2

8/12/2019 1993 City Report

27/46

Site Development

Th e irrigation channels that flow through t h e site will b e cleaned to remove vegetation a n dother flow obstructions. Additional channels will be constructed and th e channels wideneda s needed to carry flow to and from th e wetlands areas, and flow control and measurementstation will also be constructed so th e flow into and ou t of each portion of th e wetlands areacan be monitored and controlled.

Other miscellaneous improvements will b e m a d e a s part of t h e P h a s e I project. The s e r v i c eroads around the site will be graded, and fencing and gates installed to control access to theste A project trailer will be setup in th e farm equipment area and utilities ran to th e trailer.Temporary facilities for a public education program will also be set up at the site. D ay usea n d public r e s t rooms will b e constructed a n d a project sign will b e put u p .PHASE H PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

T h e d ev elo pm en t of Phase II will be similar in scope to Phase I. The area around theexisting wetlands will be cleared, th e irrigation channels cleared and graded, improvementsm ad e to th e service roads, and if necessary, ne w wetlands will be constructed. The goal willbe to balance the cut and fill to minimize the permit requirements to implement P h a s e II.P h a s e II will, however, include improvements for flood control, water conveyance, r o a d s , e t c .that will require concrete, gravel, rip rap, and other materials be imported in th e river floodpan. A permit to construct from the Corps of Engineers will therefore b e required forPhase II.

Of particular importance a r e improvements to t h e effluent outfall channel from the plant. Aspreviously d i s c u s s e d , t h e c h a n n e l is c o n s t r u c t e d of river s e d im e n t s a n d is typically w a s h e daway by th e Santa Ana River and th e outfall from Hole Lake. Phase II wll implementimprovements t o t h e c h a n n e l t o provide g r e a t e r reliability a n d survivability from flood e v e n t s .This will require t h e import of concrete, rip r a p , a n d other construction materials.

3 -3

8/12/2019 1993 City Report

28/46

Site Development

The public use facilities will be expanded in Phase H . More trails, rest rooms, and day u s efacilities wll be constructed.

3 -4

8/12/2019 1993 City Report

29/46

CHAPTER 4

INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES

There are several agencies involved in th e development of th e WEP. The City is th e leadagency. Th e City is working closely with the Riverside County Parks and Open SpaceDepartment. Th e County has operated th e HVWA as a public use area since 1974 under anagreement with th e State of California Fish and Game Commission. Due to budget cutbacks,however, th e County had planned to turn the property back over to the State . Th e City isworking on a cooperative agreement with th e County. Under th e agreement, th e City willfund the County to continue to operate th e H V W A and in tu rn the City will use a portion ofth e HVWA to d ev elo p th e WEP-

Caltrans has awarded a $ 2 50 ,0 0 0 grant to th e City for th e development of Phase I of th eWEP. Th e project was funded a s environmental mitigation project connected with a Caltransproject to widen a four mile portion of State Route 60 north of the project site.

Th e United States Fish and Wldlife Service also have a related role in th e development ofthe project. They a r e proponents of th e project, and they support a related environmentalenhancement to clear Arundo from the HVWA.

Since t h e primary goal of the WEP is to provide effluent polishing fo r nitrate removal, p l a n sfor t h e project must b e reviewed with the Regional Water Quality Control Board. They mustapprove th e concept of using a natural system included as part of th e treatment processes.It is important to understand th e WEP will be within th e S anta Ana River flood plain andtherefore subject to flooding during major storm events. Depending on th e magnitude of th eflood and the damage to the system, the ability of the RWQCP to meet effluent water qualityrequirements could be affected.

4 -1

8/12/2019 1993 City Report

30/46

CHAPTER 5

ENVIRONMENTAL AND REGULATORY ISSUES

A C a t e g o r i c a l Exemption h a s b e e n o b ta in e d u n d e r th e California Environmental Quality ActCEQA) for th e Phase I WEP. Th e Phase II W EP will also require environmental compliance

under CEQA, and perhaps also under t h e National Environmental Policy Act ( NEPA) if afederal agency is involved by resource jurisdiction or permit authority. Potential federal l e a dagencies fo r NEPA compliance for this project a r e the U. S . Army Corps of Engineers if a 40 4or nationwide permit is required and th e U. S . Fish and Wldlife Service if th e project impactslisted endangered species.

Under CEQA, th e Phase II project requires either a categorical exemption, a negativedeclaration, or an environmental impact report. At th is tim e, it appears unlikely that anexemption would be appropriate. Whether a negative declaration or EIR is needed wll bedecided after an initial study is completed to identify potential significant impacts andmitigation which ca n be incorporated into th e project itself. Ifall potential impacts ca n thusbe mitigated to a level of less than significant, then a negative declaration can be prepared.An EIR is needed if significant impacts are anticipated. With respect to NEPA compliance,the documents parallel CEQA: an exempton, Environmental Assessment ( EA), orEnvironmental Impact Statement ( EIS).

It is recommended that t h e n e e d for a n d th e type of NEPA compliance b e d e t e r m i n e d a s earlyas possible in th e project, so a joint CEQA/NEPA document ca n be prepared. This will saveconsiderable time and cost.

Th e potential environmental i s s u e s we s e e a t th is time include the following:Listed species. A preliminary report from Mr. Frank Hovore, biologicalconsultant, indicates the presence or potential presence of such species. Of

5 -1

8/12/2019 1993 City Report

31/46

Environmental and Regulatory Issucs

primary concern is th e least Bell' s vireo. If th e species is present, an d itsh a b i t a t i s not directly affected by a n y e a r t h moving, mitigation may c o n s i s t oflimiting construction and maintenance activities to th e m onth s w h en the birdis not present, October through February.River flow. Th e project will divert approximately 20 mgd from a napproximately three mile reach the S a n t a Ana River, reducing the flow by20 mgd in that a reach of th e river. The flow wll re - enter th e riverdownstream of the WEP. The impacts on water quality, river hydrology a n dbiology, beneficial or adverse, of altering river flow in that reach, will n e e dto be addressed in th e environmental document.

The temporary impacts o n local r e c r e a t i o n a l u s e - -h o r s e a n d hiking trails, e t c .not expected to be significant.

Permits n e e d e d for t h e project will likely include th e following. This is a preliminary l ist ,there may be other permits not listed below:

Agency:Jurisdiction:Permit/Agreement:Documentation:

U.S . Army Corps of EngineersDredging or filling in a water of th e U. S .Section 4 0 4 or Nationwide permit, wetlands delineation.Permit Application and supporting informationNEPA document: EA or EIS or categorical exemption.Note: Corps consults with USFWS ( see below).

May be exempted for this project because of its nature.

5 -2

8/12/2019 1993 City Report

32/46

Environmental and Regulatory Issues

Agency: U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceJurisdiction: Federally Listed and Threatened or Endangered Species/ Habitats.Permit Agreement:

S e c t i o n 7 C o n s u l t a t i o n for p r o je c t s r e c e iv in g f e d e r a l f u n d i n g o rapproval which may affect T or E species; Section 10Consultation for non - ederal projects. If impacts are expected,preparation of a Habitat Conservation Plan. ( Per federalEndangered Species Act)

Documentation: NEPA document.

Only category 2 candidates found in t h e a r e a to date, but t h e habitat is suitable forlisted species.

Agency: California Department of Fish and GameJurisdiction: Flora and Fauna of California, biological habitatPermit/Agreement: Stream Alteration Agreement Section 1601 / 1603 )Documentation: CEQA document a n d / or project report identifying activities that

may affect stream flow, stream bed, biologic habitat.

Agency: California Department of Fish an d GameJurisdiction: State Listed Threatened or Endangered SpeciesPermit/Agreement: Consultation on Potentia l Impacts of a project on a listed

species or its habitat. (per California Endangered Species Act).Documentation: CEQA document and/ or project report.

Agency: California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa AnaRegion

Jurisdiction: Discharges to Waters of the U.S.

5 -3i

8/12/2019 1993 City Report

33/46

Environmental and Regulatory Issues

Permit Agreement: NPDES permit modification. Project will change th e locationand quality of discharge via implementation of a wetlandstreatment process. Note: th e Regional Board will consult withthe Department of Fish and Game.

Documentation: CEQA document an d permit application.

5 -4

8/12/2019 1993 City Report

34/46

CHAPTER 6

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

Th e system of wetlands ponds for both th e pilot and full -scale project are designed to beoperated in e ither paralle l, series, or a combination of both. Th e irrigation channels and th eplanned system of flow control and diversion structures provide t h e flexibility for many flowcontro scenarios.

WATER QUALITY OPERATIONS

T h e wetlands will b e o p e r a t e d t o e n s u r e t h e m o s t reliable nitrogen removal efficiency. Waterwill flow through the wetland ponds in combined pattern of parallel and series operation.T h e a c t u a l p a t t e rn of which will b e b a s e d o n o p e r a t i o n a l e x p e r i e n c e g a i n e d d u r i n g pilottesting and full scale operation of th e s ys te m. Nitrogen loading rates, hydraulic retentiontime, flow through velocity, wetlands depth, and other parameters wll be factors indetermining th e flow arrangement for th e system.

WETLANDS CELL MAINTENANCE

The system is designed s o that small portions c a n b e periodically taken out of service formaintenance. It is antic ipated that every three to five years, th e ponds will have to be drainedto thin the wetlands vegetation of the shallow marsh ponds an d to till the bottoms of pondsdesigned to percolate. It may be required on a less frequent basis, every seven to ten years, -to drain ponds and remove nutrient latent bottom sediments.

6 -1

i

8/12/2019 1993 City Report

35/46

Operation and Maintenance

ROUTINE SITE MAINTENANCE

Th e pond dikes and th e other areas around the W EP site will be mowed routinely to maintainclear access to ponds. Th e pond dikes will be check at least quarterly and after periods ofsgnficant ranfal. Any flood damaged found will be repaired.

MOSQUITO CONTROL

Mosquito control is a very important aspect of th e operation of th e WEP. Wetlands are anatural breed ing ground for mosquitos. Th e Northwest Mosquito Abatement District will becontacted to discuss their requirements for mosquito control. Their normal methods wll beused provided they don' t adversely affect th e operation of th e wetlands from a water qualitysandpont. If they do, alternative control measured will be worked out.

Regardless of the requirements of the mosquito abatement district, mosquito fish (Gambusia)wll be stocked in the ponds. These fish are present in th e existing wetlands and provideeffective mosquito control particularly= during th e summer months when th e watertemperatures are high.

PUBLIC USE

Public use is on e of th e primary benefits of th e WEP. Wth a continuous supply of tertiarytreated effluent, the wetlands in the HVWAwll provide excellent habitat for fish, water fow,and otherwldife. The area around the ponds wll be kept mowed and a system of trailsdeveloped and maintained around and through the site. The public wll be able to fish, hike,an d horseback ride around th e s ite an d enjoy a quiet, natural surrounding. Day use facilitiesand rest rooms wll be constructed and maintained at the site.

6 -2

8/12/2019 1993 City Report

36/46

Operation and Maintenance

SECURITY

With th e public having access to th e site, security of th e site will be an important concern.Certain portions of th e site may be determined off limits to th e public. Fencing and gate swll be installed to control access into these areas. Flow control and measurement facilitieswill also be protected from tampering and vandalism.

6 -30

8/12/2019 1993 City Report

37/46

CHAPTER 7IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

The project wll be implemented in two phases. Phase I is the development of a 55 to 70acre the project which wll treat 5 to 10 mgd. Phase I is part of a wetlands enhancementproject f u n d e d by C a l t r a n s a n d c o m b i n e s th e restoration a n d e n h a n c e m e n t of existingwetlands with a pilot testing program to evaluate total inorganic nitrogen removal in theweands. Phase II is expansion of th e Phase I project into th e full -cale project which willtreat up to 40 mgd. Th e data collected from the pilot testing in Phase I will be used todetermine th e area required to treat 40 mgd in Phase H. For both Phase I and II, theemphasis is on restoration of existing wetlands in the Hidden Valley Wildlife Area and notthe creation of new wetlands.

Th e overall project schedule is driven in part by th e compliance deadline of th e NPDESpermit. Th e P h a s e I project should b e on -line, ready to treat flow by May 1 , 1 9 9 5 . Wth thecombined in -plant and wetlands denitrification capabilities, th e plant should be ab le to meetthe permit requirements. Phase II will, however, follow closely behind Phase I to provideoptimum nitrogen control reliability.

Given the permit deadline of May 1 , 1 9 9 5 , t h e r e a r e only 22 months available to constructth e Phase I project and have it ready for operation. Plans ar e to start construction of thewetlands improvements for P h a s e I by th e winter of 1 9 9 4 and to h a v e start- u p t h e s y s t e m bylate summer of the same year. Pilot testing will begin a s soon a s start- up is completed andwill continue on after th e May 1 , 1995 permit compliance deadline.

Design of Phase II will begin after sufficient data has been collected from pilot studies todetermine the wetlands requirements to treat 40 mgd. It is anticipated that design of the full -scale system will b egin b y late su mmer 1995, construction will begin by the winter of 1996,and start -up of th e full-scale system will be completed by late fall 1996.

7 -1

8/12/2019 1993 City Report

38/46

Implementation Plan

The major tasks of the project schedule are presented in Table 7 - 1 . A more detailed time lineschedule will be developed a s the scope of th e project is refined and based on input from th eagencies involved wth the project. Input from t h e Regional Water Quality Control Boardfrom a permit compliance standpoint a n d from t h e United S t a t e s Army Corps of E n g i n e e r sfrom a construct ion permits standpoint can have a significant effect on th e schedule.

It is important to realize th e factors that will affect the actual project schedule. Because theproject site lies within a wildlife a r e a , t h e migration and breeding of wi ld l ife a r e a will affectconstruction activities at th e site. The State Fish an d Game Commission will not allowconstruction during certain times of th e year. Being in th e flood plain of th e Santa AnaRiver, w e a t h e r c a n affect completion of c o n s t r u c t i o n . Construction activities during t h e r a i n yseason ( November through April) will likely b e affected by rainy weather and possiblyflooding of th e river.

T h e R e g i o n a l W a t e r Quality Control B o a r d m u s t r e v i e w a n d a p p r o v e p l a n s for th e City todevelop the wetlands in the Hidden Valley Area a s a wastewater treatment process.Timeliness of their review an d approval will affect th e d esig n of th e project. Constructionand environmental permits required fo r th e pro je ct b y th e Corps of Engineers and otheragencies can affect the construction schedule for both Phase I and II.

7 -2

8/12/2019 1993 City Report

39/46

Gcaactm3CmaE

8/12/2019 1993 City Report

40/46

m

L

8/12/2019 1993 City Report

41/46

EXHIBIT E

8/12/2019 1993 City Report

42/46

EXHBTEHidden Valley Wetlands and Educational Project

1. Staffing Costs:1 Full -Time Ranger II, Benefits Included $ 45,0271 Full -Time Naturalist, Benefits Included * ( Optional at 3 years) 38,590

TOTAL $ 83,617

II. Goods and ServicesVehicle $ 5,000Uniforms 250Printing 1, 500Special Dept. expenses ( misc) 4,500House Keeping 1, 200Maintenance of Grounds 1 , 000Professional Services 4,000

TOTAL $ 17,450

III. Utilities for One Year (utilities after overhead) 10,900IV. Overhead at 20 % 20,213

GRAND TOTAL $ 132, 180

Option can be reviewed in three years from the executed date of the Agreement. Ifthe program is deemed successful, the one full -ime naturalist position wll continueto be maintained

1

8/12/2019 1993 City Report

43/46

Payment OptionsExhibit E Continued

I. Five ( 5) Year (or Term) Declining Fund@ $ 132, 180

701,7593% inflation factor

II. Endowment3.4 million

III. Straight Annual Budget ( Pay as you go)132, 180Current CPI)

N

8/12/2019 1993 City Report

44/46

8/12/2019 1993 City Report

45/46

RIVERSIDE COUNTYRegionalParkAnd Open Space District4600 Crestmore Road P.O. Box 3507 Riverside. CA 92519 -3 5 0 7 ( 714) 27

Fax (71 qPAUL D. ROMERO

General Manager

July 7 , 1 9 9 4Gail McPhearson, ManagerRivers ide Water Quality Contro l Plant5950 Acorn StreetRiverside, CA 92503Dear Gail:

Ridden Valley Arundo Removal Project Aft and BT h e following is o u r p r o p o s a l t o r e m o v e A r u n d o f r o m u p to 5 0 a c r e s a t H i d d e n V a l le y a spart of your wetlands enhancement project.Th e areas are broken into site A and B. S i t e A is a 1 5 -a c r e a re a a l o n g t h e northernboundary of th e project and site B is a 35 -acre area within th e remainder of the site. Wewill use both hand labor and machinery to remove th e cane.Th e cost per acre for site A is $ 4, 0 0 0 and site B is $ 5,500. The total cost of the project is252, 500. The project includes: cutting th e cane, removing biomass ( burning and

shredding), spraying EP A approved herbicide ( Rodeo) fo r two years to combat the regrowth,monitoring th e regrowth and removing new cane.T h e d i f f e r e n c e in p r i c e p e r a c r e is b e c a u s e P r o j e c t A is e a s i e r t o r e m o v e a n d m a c h i n e r y willbe used. Project B will be done with more hand labor.We will also assist you to find trees ( pole cuttings) to paint a s part of th e revegetationproject, provide native t r e e s from t h e area, paint them and help protect the new trees andreplant, where necessary. Assistance refers to our joint efforts and that th e Park District willn o t b e s o l e l y r e s p o n s i b l e for all a s p e c t s of t h e r e v e g e ta t io n e l e m e n t of t h e project or l o n g -term maintenance. Revegetation is time consuming and will require a coordinated effort.Please unders tand that th is proposa l is not part of Team Arundo and th e cost pe r acre isnormally $15, 000 for a five -year commitment. The planning and experience for removal ofcane is a direct offshoot of the Team effort. We may also call on members to assist us withthe project.

T o a c q u i r e . p r o t e c t , d e v elo p , m a n a ge a n d i n t e r p r e t for th e i n s p i r a t i o n , u s e a n d e n j o y m e n t o f a m p e o p l e ,a well - alanced system of areas of outstanding scenic, recreation and historic importance,

8/12/2019 1993 City Report

46/46

Gail McPherson July 7 , 1994 Page 2

Please verify when yo u can so we can mobilize for next month' s starting date. We wll needan agreement tha t must go to ou r County Counsel and then accepted by the Board ofSupervisors. Also, time is of the e s s e n c e in order to g e t our staff lined up.If you have questions, please call me at 9 0 9 / 275 -4312. I am looking forward to workingwith you on this important project.Sincerely,

Paul FrandsenAssistant General ManagerOperations & Natural ResourcesPF /mgc : \alpdocs \ arundo\mcphersnl .tr