Sie sind auf Seite 1von 1640

Appendices

CALAM MONTEREY PENINSULA


WATER SUPPLY PROJECT
Draft Environmental Impact Report/
Environmental Impact Statement

Prepared for
California Public Utilities Commission and
Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary
January 2017

Appendices

CALAM MONTEREY PENINSULA


WATER SUPPLY PROJECT
Draft Environmental Impact Report/
Environmental Impact Statement

Prepared for
California Public Utilities Commission and
Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary
January 2017

550 Kearny Street


Suite 800
San Francisco, CA 94108
415.896.5900
www.esassoc.com
Los Angeles
Oakland
Orlando
Pasadena
Petaluma
Portland
Sacramento
San Diego
Santa Monica
Seattle
Tampa
Woodland Hills
205335

photo: Copyright 2015 Kenneth & Gabrielle Adelman, California Coastal Records Project,
www.californiacoastline.org

APPENDICES

A. NOP and NOI Scoping Report


A1. Draft EIR/EIS Distribution List
B1. MPWSP Plant Sizing Data: Various Five- and Ten-Year Normal, Dry, and
Maximum Month Demand Scenarios
B2. State Water Board Final Analysis of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply
Project
C1. Coastal Water Elevations and Sea Level Rise Scenarios
C2. Analysis of Historic and Future Coastal Erosion with Sea Level Rise
C3. Exploratory Borehole Results
D1. Modeling Brine Disposal into Monterey Bay
D2. Brine Discharge Diffuser Analysis
D3. Ocean Plan Compliance Assessment
E1. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories Peer Review
E2. Draft North Marina Groundwater Model Review, Revision, and Implementation
for Future Slant Well Pumping Scenarios
F. Special-status Plant and Wildlife Species Considered
G1. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Estimates
G2. Trussel Technologies Inc. Technical Memorandum, Response to Comment on
CalAm MPWSP DEIR
H. Pure Water Monterey GWR Project Consolidated Final EIR Chapter 2 Project
Description
I1. Open-Water and Subsurface Intakes
I2. Component Screening Results Component Options Not Carried Forward
J1. Coastal Water Project EIR Analysis: MPWMD 2006 Estimate of Long-Term Water
Needs Compared with Growth Anticipated in Jurisdictions General Plans
J2. Secondary Effects of Growth
K.

Existing Water Conservation and Water Recycling

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

A-1
A1-1
B1-1
B2-1
C1-1
C2-1
C3-1
D1-1
D2-1
D3-1
E1-1
E2-1
F-1
G1-1
G2-1
H-1
I1-1
I2-1
J1-1
J2-1
K-1

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

APPENDIX A

NOP and NOI Scoping Report

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

This page intentionally left blank

APPENDIX A
Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Notice of
Intent (NOI) Scoping Report
1. Introduction to Scoping Report
The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary
(MBNMS) are preparing a Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
(EIR/EIS) for the California American Water Company (CalAm) Monterey Peninsula Water
Supply Project (MPWSP or proposed project) in accordance with California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements. The Draft EIR/EIS will
assess the potential impacts of the proposed action on the environment. The CPUC formally began
the process of determining the scope of issues and alternatives to be evaluated in the Draft EIR (a
process called scoping) when it issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an EIR for the proposed
action on October 10, 2012. In accordance with Section 102(2)(C) of NEPA, the NOAA Office of
National Marine Sanctuaries published a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS for the proposed
project on August 26, 2015 (80 Fed. Reg. 51787).
This joint NOP/NOI Scoping Report outlines the scoping processes undertaken by the CPUC and
MBNMS and provides summaries of comments received. A copy of the NOP is included as
Attachment A, and the NOI is included as Attachment B.

2. Purpose of Scoping Process


This report summarizes and documents the comments received during the scoping period for the
NOP and NOI. It includes verbal and written comments received during the scoping periods
(CEQA scoping closed on November 9, 2012; NEPA Scoping closed on October 2, 2015).
Scoping is the process of early consultation with the affected agencies and public prior to
completion of a Draft EIR/EIS. The comments provided by the public and agencies during the
scoping process help the CPUC and MBNMS identify pertinent issues, methods of analyses, and
level of detail that should be addressed in the EIR/EIS. The scoping comments also assist the
CPUC and MBNMS in developing a reasonable range of feasible alternatives to be evaluated in
the EIR/EIS. The scoping comments augment the information developed by the project
proponents, the CPUC and MBNMS, and the EIR/EIS preparers, which includes specialists in
each of the environmental subject areas covered in the EIR/EIS. This combined input results in an
EIR/EIS that is both comprehensive and responsive to issues raised by the public and regulatory
agencies, and that satisfies all CEQA/NEPA requirements.

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

A-1

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix A
NOP and NOI Scoping Report

Scoping is not conducted to resolve differences concerning the merits of a project or to anticipate
the ultimate decision on a proposal. Rather, the purpose of scoping is to help ensure that a
comprehensive EIR/EIS will be prepared that provides an informative basis for the decisionmaking process.

3. Overview of Scoping Process for MPWSP EIR/EIS


3.1 NOP Notification and Scoping Meetings
Hardcopies of the NOP were mailed to all federal, state, responsible, and trustee agencies
involved in approving or funding the project, as well as relevant local agencies and special
districts with jurisdiction in the project area. The mailing list also included organizations,
members of the public, and local, regional, and state agencies who commented on, or were
involved in, the CalAm Coastal Water Project Draft EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2006101004,
concerning the predecessor proposed project to the MPWSP), or who have expressed interest in
participating in the CEQA process for the MPWSP. In addition, although not required by CEQA,
Property owners and occupants of parcels located within 300 feet of proposed project components
were identified and sent NOP postcards with information about the project, scoping period, and
opportunities for submitting comments. The NOP was also made available at 13 local libraries
and was published in local newspapers and legal advertisements.
The CPUC held a total of three scoping meetings, each of which was open to the general public:

Wednesday, October 24, 2012


6:30 p.m. 8:30 p.m.
Rancho Canada Golf Club, 860 Carmel Valley Road, Carmel, CA 93923

Thursday, October 25, 2012 1:30 p.m. 3:30 p.m.


Oldemeyer Center, Blackhorse Room, 986 Hilby Avenue, Seaside, CA 93955

Thursday, October 25, 2012 6:30 p.m. 8:30 p.m.


Oldemeyer Center, Laguna Grande Hall, 986 Hilby Avenue, Seaside, CA 93955

Information regarding the CPUC scoping process can be viewed here:


http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/environment/info/esa/mpwsp/index.html.

3.2 NOI Notification and Scoping Meeting


In addition to publishing the NOI in the Federal Register, the NOI was posted on the MBNMS
home page, advertised in two local newspapers, and a community announcement of the NOI was
sent to the following MBNMS listserves, which include federal, state, regional, and local
agencies and interested organizations:

Public Relations
Sanctuary Advisory Council
Research Activity Panel

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

A-2

Conservation Working Group


Sanctuary Education Panel

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix A
NOP and NOI Scoping Report

The community announcement included a summary of the project, noticed the comment deadline
and public meeting date, provided submission and scoping meeting information, and MBNMS
personnel contact information.
The MBNMS held one scoping meeting open to the general public:

Thursday, September 10, 2015 2:00 p.m.


Sally Griffin Active Living Center, 700 Jewell Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA 93950

Information regarding the MBNMS scoping process can be viewed here:


https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=NOAA-NOS-2015-0105.

4. Summary of NOP/NOI Scoping Comments


4.1 NOP Scoping Comments
During the scoping meetings held on October 24 and 25, 2012, participants commented on the
proposed project. Written comments were also collected throughout the public comment period.
Forty-one written letters were received during the scoping period. Commenting parties and
summaries of the comments received are provided below.
Comment letters received during the scoping period were reviewed, bracketed, and coded. Each
comment letter was given a unique letter code that corresponds to the type of commenter (i.e.,
Federal Agency [F], State Agency [S], Local Agency [L], Group [G], Individual [I], or Scoping
Meeting [ScopingMTG]); an acronym for the agency or organization (or, in the case of
individuals, their last name); and the sequentially numbered, bracketed comment from that
commenter. These comment identifiers are used as a cross-reference to the topical codes. The
individual comments were then summarized by topical areas. The following individuals and
parties in Table 1 submitted comments on the scope of the EIR. These comments are organized
by affiliation.

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

A-3

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix A
NOP and NOI Scoping Report

TABLE 1
PARTIES SUBMITTING COMMENTS DURING
THE MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT EIR SCOPING PROCESS

Affiliation

Comment
Letter Code

Name

Date/Received Date

NOAA Monterey Bay National Marine


Sanctuary

Paul Michel

November 9, 2012

F_MBNMS

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Diane K. Noda

November 9, 2012

F_USFWS

Division of Ratepayer Advocates


California Public Utilities Commission

Diana S. Brooks

November 9, 2012

S_CPUC_DRA

California State Lands Commission

Cy R. Oggins

November 13, 2012

S_CSLC

Raul Martinez

November 14, 2012

L_CoMontereyPW

Amy Clymo

November 6, 2012

L_MBUPCD

Jacqueline R. Onciano

November 9, 2012

L_MCRMA

Robert Johnson

November 9, 2012

L_MCWRA

City of Monterey

Fred Meurer

October 25, 2012

L_Monterey

Monterey Peninsula Water Management


District

David Stoldt

November 8, 2012

L_MPWMD

City of Pacific Grove

Thomas Frutchey

November 8, 2012

L_PacGrove

Federal Agencies

State Agencies

Local and Regional Agencies


County of Monterey Department of Public
Works
Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control
District
Monterey County Resource Management
Agency
Monterey County Water Resources
Agency

Group
Ag Land Trust

Molly Erickson

November 9, 2012

G_AgLandTrust

California American Water Company

Tim Miller

November 9, 2012

G_CalAm

November 9, 2012

G_CPB

November 8, 2012

G_CPW

Coalition of Peninsula Businesses


Citizens for Public Water

Bob McKenzie and John


Narigi
George Riley and Ed
Mitchell

LandWatch Monterey County

John H. Farrow

October 1, 2012

G_LandWatch

Monterey Peninsula Taxpayer Association

Tom Rowley

October 25, 2012

G_MPTA

Planning and Conservation League

Jonas Minton

October 24, 2012

G_PCL

Sustainable Pacific Grove

Karin Locke
Gabriel Ross and Edward
Schexnayder

October 24, 2012

G_SPG

November 9, 2012

G_Surfrider

Surfrider Foundation
Salinas Valley Water Coalition

Nancy Isakson

October 2, 2012

G_SVWC1

Salinas Valley Water Coalition

Nancy Isakson

November 11, 2012

G_SVWC2

WaterPlus and LandWatch Monterey


County

Ron Weitzman

October 4, 2012

G_WaterPlus1

WaterPlus

Dick Rotter

October 25, 2012

G_WaterPlus2

WaterPlus

Ron Weitzman

October 31, 2012

G_WaterPlus3

WaterPlus

Ron Weitzman

November 9, 2012

G_WaterPlus4

WaterPlus

Dick Rotter

November 6, 2012

G_WaterPlus5

Individual

John and Marion Bottomley

November 2, 2012

I_Bottomley

Individual

George Brehmer

November 9, 2012

I_Brehmer

Individual

Bill Carrothers

October 29, 2012

I_Carrothers

Individual

Roger J. Dolan

November 6, 2012

I_Dolan

Individuals

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

A-4

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix A
NOP and NOI Scoping Report

TABLE 1 (Continued)
PARTIES SUBMITTING COMMENTS DURING
THE MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT EIR SCOPING PROCESS

Affiliation

Comment
Letter Code

Name

Date/Received Date

Individual

Ken Ekelund

November 2, 2012

I_Ekelund

Individual

Manuel and Janine Fierro

November 8, 2012

I_Fierro

Individual

Mike Fillmon

October 24, 2012

I_Fillmon

Individual

Ray M. Harrod Jr.

November 8, 2012

I_Harrod

Individual

Chris Herron

October 24, 2012

I_Herron

Individual

Christina W. Holston

October 24, 2012

I_Holston

Individual

Hebard and Peggy Olsen

October 19, 2012

I_Olsen

Individual

Robert Siegfried

October 24, 2012

I_Siegfried1

Individual

Robert Siegfried

October 27, 2012

I_Siegfried2

Individual

Robert Siegfried

October 27, 2012

I_Siegfried3

Individual

Roy L. Thomas

November 15, 2012

I_Thomas

Not Given

Unknown verbal commenter

October 24, 2012

ScopingMTG1

Not Given

Unknown verbal commenter

October 25, 2012

ScopingMTG2

Not Given

Unknown verbal commenter

October 25, 2012

ScopingMTG3

Individuals (cont.)

Scoping Meeting Comments

Summary of NOP Scoping Comments


EIR/EIS staff reviewed all of the scoping comments, and prepared a summary of each comment
to provide an overview of the range of comments provided, and to facilitate consideration of the
comments by analysts during preparation of the EIR/EIS. The comment summaries seek to
capture the essence of every comment in a way that is meaningful for EIR/EIS preparers such that
the comment can be addressed in the EIR/EIS.
Issues to Be Considered
Water Demand

Water demand estimates for the Monterey District should consider non-residential water
use (associated with hospitality and tourism) following economic recovery. [L_MPWMD08]

Future demand estimates should consider proposed development projects in the City of
Seaside. [G_SPG-02]

The demand estimates should consider conservation and demand offset. [G_SPG-09]

The EIR should consider rainwater harvesting and greywater systems for demand
management and supplemental sources of supply. [I_Brehmer-01]

The EIR should address whether the proposed project would supply Clark Colony or
whether Clark Colony would need to purchase other supplies. [ScopingMTG1-06]

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

A-5

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix A
NOP and NOI Scoping Report

Further consideration should be given to the size of conveyance facilities given the
potential reduction in CalAm Carmel River diversions below their existing entitlements
(i.e., if Los Padres Dam were removed). The EIR should evaluate whether the conveyance
pipelines would need to be increased in capacity. [ScopingMTG1-08]

The EIR should evaluate whether there is enough capacity to pump from Carmel River to
aquifer storage and recovery. Additionally, the EIR should evaluate the capacity of the
pipeline system. [ScopingMTG1-10]

The EIR should properly identify the demand the project is intended to serve. The EIR
should evaluate the impacts of downsizing and upsizing the capacity. [ScopingMTG2-19]

The EIR should consider that the per capita demand is declining and that tiered rates have
had a significant effect on the elasticity of water. If the proposed project assumes todays
demand, it will be off. [ScopingMTG2-21]

The EIR should evaluate the implementation of larger pipelines and additional water
treatment capacity for the growing needs on the Peninsula. [ScopingMTG2-42]

The EIR should address the maintenance of the facilities and the examination of water
leaks in the system. [ScopingMTG2-45]

Project Description

The MPWSP will need to receive approvals from CSLC for all project components within
CSLC jurisdiction. [S_CSLC-01]

The Project Description in the EIR should be as precise, thorough, and complete as possible
to facilitate meaningful environmental review. [S_CSLC-02]

The EIR should clearly explain the relationship between the Coastal Water Project and the
MPWSP, and the relationship between the MPWSP and the Deepwater Desal Alternative
and the People's Moss Landing Desal Alternative. [S_CSLC-03]

The EIR should provide a detailed evaluation of the pre-treatment and post-treatment
systems of desalination so that the impact analyses can evaluate any associated
environmental effects. [S_CSLC-07]

Production capacity should be based on the replacement water supplies associated with the
legal restrictions on CalAms Carmel River and Seaside Groundwater Basin supplies, while
providing sufficient capacity and flexibility for replenishment of the Seaside Groundwater
Basin, economic recovery, and water system reliability. [L_MPWMD-06]

The proposed desalination plant should be designed with sufficient redundancy to meet
outages and required maintenance activities, and to satisfy peak day and peak month
demand. [L_MPWMD-09]

Although the production capacity for the MPWSP should be based on replacement supply
needs, conveyance facilities should be sized to accommodate future growth, general plan
build out, and unforeseen changes in the availability of CalAms existing water supplies.
[L_MPWMD-10]

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

A-6

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix A
NOP and NOI Scoping Report

The EIR should clearly describe the location and composition of the proposed project
facilities. [L_PacGrove-02]

The MPWSP should provide CalAm with the flexibility to deliver MPWSP water supplies
to the Ryan Ranch, Bishop, and Hidden Hills distribution systems (located outside of the
Monterey District service area). [G_CalAm-05]

It is likely that CalAm will be required to cease pumping in the Laguna Seca subarea under
the Courts adjudication of the Seaside Groundwater Basin. As a result, the MPWSP should
include the provision of water supplies to these areas. [G_CalAm-06]

The EIR should evaluate pipeline alignments that would facilitate the delivery of water to
the Ryan Ranch, Bishop, and Hidden Hills distribution systems. [G_CalAm-07]

The availability of Carmel River supplies for injection into the ASR system is unreliable
given that these supplies rely exclusively on excess winter flows in the Carmel River.
Therefore, the CPUC should not depend on ASR product water for meeting customer
demand. [G_CPB-02]

The proposed desalination plant should be sized such that it can meet customer water needs
when operated at 80 percent of capacity. [G_CPB-04]

The EIR should describe how brine from the desalination plant would be discharged. The
EIR should also evaluate available capacity in the MRWPCA ocean outfall for brine
discharges. [G_CPW-09]

The EIR should describe the project purpose and need as it relates to the region. [G_CPW-11]

The EIR should state the maximum volume of water that would be drawn via the proposed
slant wells, and evaluate the environmental impacts of these withdrawals on marine
resources. [G_CPW-23]

The MOU between MRWPCA and the MCWD states that MCWD has the right to use a
portion of the MRWPCA outfall capacity. [G_CPW-39]

The EIR should describe the sustainability and annual reliability of the proposed
improvements to the ASR system. [G_MPTA-01]

The EIR should clarify the advantages of slant wells over other intake technologies.
[G_SPG-03]

The project objectives should be tailored to facilitate the evaluation of a broad range of
alternatives capable of meeting the Peninsulas water supply needs. [G_Surfrider-07]

The EIR should be clear about the project purpose and need, and specify whether the
project would be limited to replacement supplies or if the project would also provide
additional water supplies. In addition, the EIR should include a map of the Monterey
District service area. [G_SVWC2-01]

The EIR should specify the nature and frequencies of maintenance activities associated
with the proposed facilities, and as a condition of project approval, require that CalAm
conduct these maintenance activities to avoid excessive costs to ratepayers associated with
failing infrastructure. [G_WaterPlus5-02]

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

A-7

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix A
NOP and NOI Scoping Report

The EIR should consider a variety of energy sources and configurations to reduce the cost
of operating the proposed desalination plant. [I_Dolan-04]

The MPWSP should include additional water supplies to serve lots of record. [I_Harrod-01]

The desalination plant should be designed to facilitate future increases in production


capacity. [I_Siegfried3-04]

The MPWSP project area should be expanded to encompass the entire CalAm service area.
[I_Siegfried3-05]

Further consideration should be given to the size of conveyance facilities given the
potential reduction in CalAm Carmel River diversions below their existing entitlements
(i.e., if Los Padres Dam were removed). The EIR should evaluate whether the conveyance
pipelines would need to be increased in capacity. [ScopingMTG1-08]

The EIR should evaluate whether there is enough capacity to pump from Carmel River to
aquifer storage and recovery. Additionally, the EIR should evaluate the capacity of the
pipeline system. [ScopingMTG1-10]

The project area should include the entire existing CalAm service area as it relates to the
degradation of soils, water quality, and salt balance/salinity. [ScopingMTG1-11]

The EIR should include a discussion of the electric power (PG&E) transmission lines and
associated construction impacts. [ScopingMTG2-01]

The EIR should address all of the required federal permitting.[ScopingMTG2-04]

In terms of project, governance; keep the County in control. [ScopingMTG2-08]

The slant wells would require coordination with the City of Marina as to its Local Coastal
Program. [ScopingMTG2-15]

Would the test wells be transitioned into production? [ScopingMTG2-17]

The footprint of the slant wells on the beach should be included in the EIR. The EIR should
address open space, beach access, and a reduced footprint to minimize intrusion in beach
areas. The EIR should examine future zoning conflicts. [ScopingMTG2-22]

The EIR should evaluate discharge in anticipation of future/expected regulations.


[ScopingMTG2-27]

The EIR should examine the potential to expand facilities and increase water availability
without increasing the project footprint. [ScopingMTG2-29]

The appearance of injection wells and buildings need City Planning approval.
[ScopingMTG2-40]

The EIR and proposed project should include the use of sustainable design elements.
[ScopingMTG2-47]

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

A-8

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix A
NOP and NOI Scoping Report

Surface Water Hydrology and Water Quality

The EIR should evaluate the effects of mixing brine with wastewater effluent and ensure
that effluent concentrations are consistent with the SWRCB Ocean Plan requirements.
[F_MBNMS-04]

The EIR should address the potential for the MPWSP to change the interfaces and mixing
zones for saltwater, brackish water, and freshwater. [S_CPUC_DRA-03]

The EIR should address impacts to water quality. [G_AgLandTrust-06]

The EIR should evaluate project consistency with water quality regulations.
[G_AgLandTrust-12]

The alternatives analysis should consider direct and cumulative impacts to marine resources
associated with brine discharge from alternative desalination projects. [G_CPW-26]

The EIR should identify the waste discharge requirements for brine disposal. [G_SPG-07]

The EIR should evaluate impacts associated with brine discharge, including impacts within
the zone of initial dilution as well as long-term impacts from brine accumulation in the farfield benthic environment. [G_Surfrider-03]

The EIR should evaluate the effects of irrigating with desalinated product water on soil
infiltration rates in the CalAm service area. [I_Siegfried1-01]

The project area should include the entire existing CalAm service area as it relates to the
degradation of soils, water quality, and salt balance/salinity. [ScopingMTG1-11]

The EIR should evaluate the effects of irrigating with desalinated product water on
terrestrial biological resources and soil infiltration rates in the CalAm service area.
[I_Siegfried3-06]

Groundwater Resources

The EIR should evaluate the potential for the proposed slant wells to exacerbate seawater
intrusion. [S_CPUC_DRA-01]

The EIR should specify the methodology used to evaluate seawater intrusion impacts.
[S_CPUC_DRA-02]

The EIR should address the potential for the proposed slant well configuration to affect
freshwater and seawater gradients in the aquifer. [S_CPUC_DRA-04]

The EIR should evaluate how the injection of desalination product supplies into the Seaside
Groundwater Basin would affect groundwater quality. [S_CSLC-08]

The EIR should require the development and implementation of a monitoring well network
to evaluate project effects on seawater intrusion and the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin.
[L_MCWRA-01]

The EIR should address Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin groundwater rights as they
relate to operation of the proposed MPWSP slant wells. [L_MCWRA-02; G_CPW-06;
G_CPW-16; G_CPW-18; G_CPW-19; G_CPW-21; G_MPTA-03]

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

A-9

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix A
NOP and NOI Scoping Report

The MCWRA requests that any modeling data and supporting information that is
developed for the groundwater analysis be provided to MCWRA. [L_MCWRA-05]

The EIR should evaluate how the injection of desalination product supplies into the Seaside
Groundwater Basin would affect groundwater quality. [L_MPWMD-12]

The EIR should evaluate the seawater intrusion and groundwater quality effects associated
with extracting banked ASR water supplies via the ASR injection/extraction wells versus
from CalAm production wells at different locations. [L_MPWMD-13]

The EIR should address Salinas Valley Groundwater rights as they relate to the West
Armstrong Ranch (owned by Ag Land Trust). [G_AgLandTrust-01]

The EIR should acknowledge that groundwater cannot be pumped from the Salinas Valley
Groundwater Basin without prescription. [G_AgLandTrust-02]

The EIR should provide a detailed analysis of Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin water
rights issues, including an analysis of existing water rights and impacts to agricultural land
associated with the transfer of water rights to CalAm. [G_AgLandTrust-03]

The EIR should evaluate potential impacts related to seawater intrusion. [G_AgLandTrust09]

The EIR should evaluate impacts associated with screening the proposed slant wells in the
Sand Dunes aquifer, as proposed in CalAms contingency plan. [G_AgLandTrust-10]

The EIR should clearly state the volume of water that would be drawn from the slant wells
under various scenarios, and the anticipated percentage of freshwater versus saltwater
under each scenario. [G_AgLandTrust-19]

It is likely that CalAm will be required to cease pumping in the Laguna Seca subarea under
the Courts adjudication of the Seaside Groundwater Basin. As a result, the MPWSP should
include the provision of water supplies to these areas. [G_CalAm-06]

The MPWSP EIR should consider the Monterey County Superior Courts ruling on the
CWP EIR, which determined that water rights were not adequately addressed in the CWP
EIR. [G_CPW-01]

The EIR should specify the volume of water that would need to be returned to the Salinas
Valley Groundwater Basin. [G_CPW-07]

The EIR should evaluate the potential for operation of the proposed slant wells to
exacerbate seawater intrusion in the Seaside Groundwater Basin and adversely affect upgradient wells. [G_CPW-20]

The EIR should quantify the amount of groundwater that must be returned to the Salinas
Valley Groundwater Basin and evaluate the potential adverse effects of
borrowing/returning such water. [G_CPW-22]

The EIR should evaluate the potential for operation of the proposed slant wells to
exacerbate seawater intrusion in the Seaside Groundwater Basin. [G_CPW-24]

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

A-10

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix A
NOP and NOI Scoping Report

The EIR should evaluate the potential for operation of the proposed slant wells to adversely
affect up-gradient wells. [G_CPW-25]

The EIR should provide a clear explanation of the updated groundwater modeling efforts
used to evaluate project impacts. [G_SPG-06]

As part of EIR preparation, the CPUC should develop an updated groundwater model that
accurately represents the hydrogeologic setting and baseline conditions, and simulates
future conditions with project implementation. [G_SVWC2-02]

The EIR should address the direct impacts to Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin associated
with operation of the proposed slant wells, and the utilization of desalinated product water
that is returned to the CSIP storage pond. [G_SVWC2-03]

The EIR should evaluate impacts to agricultural lands associated with any adverse effects
on water rights held by agricultural water users. [G_SVWC2-04]

The EIR should consider potential reliability and sustainability issues associated with
groundwater replenishment and aquifer storage and recovery. Such issues include the
potential to exacerbate seawater intrusion, the reliability of Carmel River diversions for
injection into ASR, and the availability of reclaimed wastewater for groundwater
replenishment. [G_WaterPlus3-01]

The EIR should evaluate project consistency with the Agency Act, which prohibits the
exportation of groundwater from the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin, as well as the
potential for the project to exacerbate seawater intrusion. [G_WaterPlus4-01]

The EIR should include an assessment of the percent saltwater versus freshwater that
would be drawn from slant wells at the CEMEX property. [I_Dolan-01]

The EIR should evaluate project impacts related to seawater intrusion, groundwater levels,
and effects on non-CalAm groundwater production wells. [I_Herron-01]

The EIR should evaluate the potential for the injection of desalinated product water into the
Seaside Groundwater Basin to degrade water quality in the aquifer. [I_Siegfried3-01]

The EIR should evaluate the effects of injecting desalinated product water into the ASR
system on boron concentrations in the CalAm water supply. [I_Siegfried3-03]

The EIR should consider Salinas Valley groundwater issues. [ScopingMTG1-01]

The EIR should clearly identify the difference between fresh versus brackish groundwater.
[ScopingMTG2-12]

The EIR should consider the amount of water that will be taken out of the Seaside aquifer,
because the aquifer leaks. The EIR should evaluate the use of the aquifer by multiple
projects. Examination of the rate at which water is being lost from the aquifer and how long
water will be stored should be included in the EIR. [ScopingMTG2-31]

The Ghyben-Herzbergt theory should be considered. [ScopingMTG3-01]

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

A-11

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix A
NOP and NOI Scoping Report

Marine Resources

The MBNMS has developed guidelines (Desalination Action Plan) for the siting, design,
and operation of desalination plants along the sanctuary. In addition, the sanctuary has
three regulations relevant to desalination projects: (1) it is prohibited to discharge or
deposit any material within sanctuary boundaries, (2) it is prohibited to discharge material
outside of sanctuary boundaries that will subsequently enter the sanctuary and negatively
impact marine resources, and (3) it is prohibited to alter submerged lands of the sanctuary.
[F_MBNMS-01]

The EIR should evaluate the effects of mixing brine with wastewater effluent and ensure
that effluent concentrations are consistent with the SWRCB Ocean Plan requirements.
[F_MBNMS-04]

The EIR should evaluate potential impacts to the sanctuary associated with installation of
the proposed slant wells. [F_MBNMS-05]

The EIR should address the potential for the MPWSP to change the interfaces and mixing
zones for saltwater, brackish water, and freshwater. [S_CPUC_DRA-03]

The EIR should evaluate the potential for project construction and operations to generate
underwater noise or vibration that has the potential to impact marine biological resources.
[S_CSLC-06]

The EIR (and the NEPA document for the MPWSP) should evaluate impacts to the
Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. [G_AgLandTrust-18]

The EIR should state the maximum volume of water that would be drawn via the proposed
slant wells, and evaluate the environmental impacts of these withdrawals on marine
resources. [G_CPW-23]

The alternatives analysis should consider direct and cumulative impacts to marine resources
associated with brine discharge from alternative desalination projects. [G_CPW-26]

The EIR should evaluate the long-term effects of brine discharge on marine resources and
habitats. [G_SPG-01]

The EIR should evaluate potential effects on marine resources and coastal ecosystems
related to brine discharge, the proposed seawater intake system, and greenhouse gas
emissions associated with powering the desalination plant. [G_Surfrider-01]

The EIR should evaluate impacts associated with brine discharge, including impacts within
the zone of initial dilution as well as long-term impacts from brine accumulation in the farfield benthic environment. [G_Surfrider-03]

The EIR should include well-defined mitigation measures to prevent erosion and preserve
sensitive coastal habitat. [G_Surfrider-05]

The EIR should consider the effects of salt removal associated with desalination on marine
organisms. [I_Olsen-05]

The EIR should evaluate the cumulative impacts of brine from many desalination plants in
the Monterey Bay region. [ScopingMTG1-17]

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

A-12

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix A
NOP and NOI Scoping Report

The EIR should evaluate whether higher salinity would produce more red tide and algal
blooms. [ScopingMTG1-18]

The commenter states that the diffusion of brine would be complicated by addition of
Marina Coast outflow. [ScopingMTG2-10]

The EIR should address the impacts slant wells could have on marine biological species,
including birds and seals and their migratory habitat and variable habitat by season and
year. [ScopingMTG2-23]

The EIR should examine the impacts of the concentration of brine discharge. Questioned if
the EIR would have a comparative study of brine discharges at existing plants?
[ScopingMTG2-24]

Commenter questioned whether there are relevant studies to be able to evaluate the effects
of discharge. [ScopingMTG2-30]

Terrestrial Biological Resources

The EIR should evaluate impacts to Smiths blue butterfly, Menzies wallflower, Monterey
gilia, Western snowy plover, and Monterey spineflower associated with installation and
maintenance of the proposed slant wells. [F_USFWS-01]

The EIR should evaluate cumulative impacts to Western snowy plover associated with the
proposed seawater intake system and CEMEX mining activities. [F_USFWS-02]

The EIR should address impacts to California red-legged frog associated with construction,
operation, and maintenance of the proposed desalination plant. [F_USFWS-03]

The EIR should evaluate impacts to federally listed species resulting from construction of
proposed conveyance pipelines. [F_USFWS-04]

The EIR should present responses from CDFG, CNDDB, and USFWS that identify any
special-status plant and wildlife species that may occur in the project area. [S_CSLC-05]

The EIR should evaluate the effects of irrigating with desalinated product water on
terrestrial biological resources and soil infiltration rates in the CalAm service area.
[I_Siegfried3-06]

The EIR should evaluate impacts on snowy plover. [ScopingMTG1-12; ScopingMTG2-13;


ScopingMTG2-14]

Geology, Soils, Seismicity

The EIR should evaluate potential impacts related to sea level rise. [S_CSLC-13]

The project area should include the entire existing CalAm service area as it relates to the
degradation of soils, water quality, and salt balance/salinity. [ScopingMTG1-11]

The EIR should address the longevity of wells relative to corrosion and whether the wells
must be moved often. [ScopingMTG1-13]

The EIR should evaluate whether well intake would erode or move soil. [ScopingMTG1-14]

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

A-13

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix A
NOP and NOI Scoping Report

Hazards and Public Health and Safety

The EIR should evaluate the public health and safety risk of private ownership of the
MPWSP. [ScopingMTG2-25]

The EIR should evaluate the safety of the Fort Ord area and its use for park and residential
uses. Commenter recommends developing Terminal Reservoir area as park space. The EIR
should coordinate with FORA on the status, schedule, and extent of cleanup efforts.
[ScopingMTG2-39]

The EIR should address the timeframe of cleanup of Fort Ord relative to construction of the
Terminal Reservoir (area is currently not planned for cleanup for some time).
[ScopingMTG2-41]

Land Use and Recreation

The EIR should discuss the potential for project implementation to affect land use and
recreational resources. The EIR should also describe how the CPUC and CalAm will notify
the public about activities happening in the project area that could affect land use and
recreational resources. [S_CSLC-09]

The EIR should evaluate the needs and benefits to pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
[L_CoMontereyPW-08]

The EIR should evaluate land use impacts associated with facility siting and the annexation
of land. [G_AgLandTrust-08]

The footprint of the slant wells on the beach should be included in the EIR. The EIR should
address open space, beach access, and a reduced footprint to minimize intrusion in beach
areas. The EIR should examination future zoning conflicts. [ScopingMTG2-22]

The EIR should consider the road construction in Seaside (La Salle Avenue, Hilby
Avenue). Including road repaving, not just patching. [ScopingMTG2-32]

The EIR should address staging and parking areas for construction workers as parking is an
issue for the neighborhoods south of La Salle Avenue. There is the potential to use local
school parking lots during summer (first week in June to first week in August; no summer
school sessions). [ScopingMTG2-33]

The EIR should address access for residents during construction. [ScopingMTG2-35]

The EIR should address the aesthetics impacts of the Terminal Reservoir. The Terminal
Reservoir should be set back off of General Jim Moore Boulevard and be partially
submerged underground. [ScopingMTG2-36]

The EIR should incorporate a detention basin in the design for the overflow capacity for the
Terminal Reservoir. The City of Seaside worked with CalAm on a park conceptual design
for area around Terminal Reservoir to integrate park space and address aesthetic impacts.
Bureau of Land Management owns land behind the Terminal Reservoir site.
[ScopingMTG2-37]

The EIR should evaluate the City of Seaside General Plan for conflicts with zoning and
land use designation. [ScopingMTG2-38]

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

A-14

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix A
NOP and NOI Scoping Report

CalAm would need a right of entry permit from Fort Ord Reuse Authority (FORA) for
access. The EIR should evaluate the safety of the Fort Ord area and its use for park and
residential uses. Commenter recommends developing Terminal Reservoir area as park
space. The EIR should coordinate with FORA on the status, schedule, and extent of
cleanup efforts. [ScopingMTG2-39]

The EIR should address the timeframe of cleanup of Fort Ord relative to construction of the
Terminal Reservoir (area is currently not planned for cleanup for some time).
[ScopingMTG2-41]

Traffic

The EIRs mitigation measures should conform to regional planning documents.


[L_CoMontereyPW-01]

The EIR methods by which the Level of Service is calculated should be consistent with the
methods in the latest editions of the Highway Capacity Manual. [L_CoMontereyPW-02]

The EIRs Traffic Studies should identify mitigation measure for all traffic circulation
impacts on County roads. [L_CoMontereyPW-03]

The EIR should address all impacts on county, regional, and city roadways.
[L_CoMontereyPW-04]

The EIR cumulative scenarios should be consistent with regional traffic model projections.
[L_CoMontereyPW-05]

The EIR should evaluate existing conditions, background and cumulative project scenarios.
[L_CoMontereyPW-06]

The EIR should include a pavement condition analysis. The EIR should evaluate impacts
from the amount of heavy truck traffic. [L_CoMontereyPW-07]

The EIR should evaluate the needs and benefits to pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
[L_CoMontereyPW-08]

The traffic reports should include access points and analyze the impacts on county, cities,
and regional roadways. [L_CoMontereyPW-09]

The EIR should consider the road construction in Seaside (La Salle Avenue, Hilby
Avenue). Including road repaving, not just patching. [ScopingMTG2-32]

The EIR should address staging and parking areas for construction workers as parking is an
issue for the neighborhoods south of La Salle Avenue. There is the potential to use local
school parking lots during summer (first week in June to first week in August; no summer
school sessions). [ScopingMTG2-33]

The EIR should evaluate emergency response times for the Seaside Fire Department
(station at Yosemite and Broadway, Seaside). [ScopingMTG2-34]

The EIR should address access for residents during construction. [ScopingMTG2-35]

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

A-15

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix A
NOP and NOI Scoping Report

Air Quality

The EIR should use the MBUAPCDs 2008 CEQA Guidelines to evaluate air quality
impacts. [L_MBUAPCD-01]

Greenhouse Gases

The EIR should evaluate impacts to GHG levels. The evaluation should identify a threshold
of significance, provide an estimate of GHGs that would be emitted as a result of project
construction and operations, and determine the significance of those GHG emissions.
[S_CSLC-12]

The EIR should address the energy needs related to increased pipeline conveyance and the
associated effects on carbon footprint. [L_MPWMD-11]

Noise and Vibration

The EIR should evaluate the potential for project construction and operation to generate
underwater noise or vibration that could potentially impact marine biological resources.
[S_CSLC-06]

Public Services and Utilities

The EIR should describe how brine from the desalination plant would be discharged. The
EIR should also evaluate available capacity in the MRWPCA ocean outfall for brine
discharges. [G_CPW-09]

MOU between MRWPCA and the MCWD states that MCWD has the right to use of a
portion of the MRWPCA outfall capacity. [G_CPW-39]

The EIR should evaluate emergency response times for the Seaside Fire Department
(station at Yosemite and Broadway, Seaside). [ScopingMTG2-34]

The EIR should evaluate the reduction in wastewater volume going to the recycling facility.
[ScopingMTG2-43]

Aesthetics

The EIR should address the aesthetics impacts of the Terminal Reservoir. The Terminal
Reservoir should be set back off of General Jim Moore and be partially submerged
underground. [ScopingMTG2-36]

The EIR should incorporate detention basin in the design for the overflow capacity for the
Terminal Reservoir. The City of Seaside worked with CalAm on a park conceptual design
for area around Terminal Reservoir to integrate park space and address aesthetic impacts.
The Bureau of Land Management owns land behind the Terminal Reservoir site.
[ScopingMTG2-37]

Cultural Resources

The EIR should evaluate impacts to cultural resources, including shipwrecks and any
submersed archaeological sites or historic resources that have remained in State waters for
more than 50 years. [S_CSLC-11]

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

A-16

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix A
NOP and NOI Scoping Report

Agriculture and Forestry

The EIR should provide a detailed analysis of Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin water
rights issues, including an analysis of existing water rights and impacts to agricultural land
associated with the transfer of water rights to CalAm. [G_AgLandTrust-03]

The EIR should evaluate impacts to agricultural lands resulting from facility siting.
[G_AgLandTrust-04]

The EIR should evaluate impacts to preserved agricultural lands. [G_AgLandTrust-15]

The EIR should evaluate impacts to agricultural lands associated with any adverse effects
on water rights held by agricultural water users. [G_SVWC2-04]

Energy

The EIR should address the energy needs related to increased pipeline conveyance and the
associated effects on carbon footprint. [L_MPWMD-11]

The EIR should evaluate the beneficial/negative effects of reclaimed methane gas as an
energy source. [G_CPW-10]

The EIR should consider the use of green or sustainable energy sources for operation of
desalination facilities. [G_SPG-08]

The EIR should include a discussion on the electric power (PG&E) transmission lines and
associated construction impacts. [ScopingMTG2-01]

Cumulative Impacts

The EIR should evaluate cumulative impacts to Western Snowy Plover associated with the
proposed seawater intake system and CEMEX mining activities. [F_USFWS-02]

The EIR should consider public participation proposals for small water projects that have
been submitted to the CPUC, both with respect to potential cumulative impacts and as
project alternatives. [L_PacGrove-05]

The EIR should describe all proposed desalination projects in the area, including the status
of environmental review, associated impacts, and the status of mitigations adopted.
[G_AgLandTrust-05]

The EIR should evaluate cumulative impacts. [G_AgLandTrust-14]

The cumulative analysis should consider the effects of the proposed MPWSP desalination
plant in combination with other future desalination projects in the Monterey Bay area.
[G_SPG-05]

The EIR cumulative analysis should address the impacts of both the MPWSP and the
Peoples Project being approved (cumulative, growth inducing). [ScopingMTG1-05]

The EIR should address cumulative projects and actions impacts. [ScopingMTG1-09]

The EIR should evaluate the cumulative impacts of brine from many desalination plants in
the Monterey Bay area. [ScopingMTG1-17]

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

A-17

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix A
NOP and NOI Scoping Report

The EIR should address cumulative effects of incremental projects like Groundwater
Replenishment, ASR, and others. [ScopingMTG2-20]

Alternatives

Project alternatives should be evaluated at a sufficient level of detail to accurately


determine the relative environmental impacts associated with each alternative. [F_USFWS03]

The alternatives analysis should provide a full comparative analysis of the effects of each
alternative on federally listed species. [F_USFWS-05]

The EIR should consider locational alternatives that would place all facilities outside of
Western Snowy Plover habitat. [F_USFWS-06]

The EIR should clearly explain the relationship between the Coastal Water Project and the
MPWSP, and the relationship between the MPWSP and the Deepwater Desal Alternative
and the People's Moss Landing Desal Alternative. [S_CSLC-03]

The EIR should evaluate a full range of project alternatives. [L_Monterey-01]

The EIR should evaluate project alternatives at the same level of detail as the proposed
project. [L_Monterey-03; L_MPWMD-02; L_PacGrove-06; G_CPW-02]

The descriptions of project alternatives in the EIR should be based on the most current
information available. [L_MPWMD-03]

The alternatives analysis should identify and consider the environmental impacts and
benefits associated with groundwater replenishment. [L_MPWMD-05]

If it is determined that CalAms current allocation of Seaside Groundwater Basin supplies


still exceeds the safe yield of the groundwater basin, these supplies could be further
reduced to prevent seawater intrusion. The EIR should consider project alternatives that
would provide sufficient supplies to serve customers and allow for aquifer recovery in the
event CalAm is required to cease all pumping from the Seaside Groundwater Basin.
[L_MPWMD-07]

The EIR should evaluate the seawater intrusion and groundwater quality effects associated
with extracting banked ASR water supplies via the ASR injection/extraction wells vs. from
CalAm production wells at different locations. [L_MPWMD-13]

The EIR should consider public participation proposals for small water projects that have
been submitted to the CPUC, both with respect to potential cumulative impacts and as
project alternatives. [L_PacGrove-05]

The EIR should evaluate a locational alternative that would site the desalination plant at the
former National Refractories site in Moss Landing. [G_AgLandTrust-17]

The alternatives analysis should evaluate the commercial project alternatives (i.e., Peoples
Moss Landing Desal, DeepWater Desal) but without mention of the commercial ventures.
In addition, the EIR should evaluate a variety of design alternatives (i.e., facility locations,
brine discharge facilities, pipeline alignments) that could be mixed and matched to address
environmental impacts, project costs, and schedule considerations. [G_CalAm-03]

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

A-18

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix A
NOP and NOI Scoping Report

The alternatives analysis should consider the modified design options and locational
alternatives presented in CalAms Contingency Plan dated November 1, 2012. [G_CalAm04]

To expedite permitting and project construction, the EIR should evaluate alternative
alignments for the Monterey Pipeline and transfer pipeline that would move these pipelines
outside of the Coastal Zone. [G_CalAm-08]

The EIR should evaluate a project alternative sized with sufficient production capacity to
meet future water demand under general plan build-out conditions. Future demand under
the general plan build-out alternative should account for: (a) existing legal lots of record;
(b) increased demand resulting from general plan build-out; and (c) non-residential
(associated with hospitality and tourism) water use under recovered economic conditions.
[G_CPB-01]

Alternatives involving groundwater replenishment may not be feasible given lack of


funding and concerns related to water rights. [G_CPB-03]

As part of the MPWSP EIR efforts, the CPUC should conduct the environmental studies
necessary for implementation of a general plan build-out alternative. [G_CPB-05]

The descriptions of project alternatives in the EIR should be based on the most current
information available. The CPUC should give the proponents of project alternatives a
deadline for providing up to date alternatives information for incorporation into the EIR.
[G_CPW-03]

The description of the Peoples Moss Landing Desalination project presented in the NOP
should be updated to reflect the most recent project information. Commenter is in favor of
Peoples Moss Landing Desalination project. [G_CPW-04]

Project alternatives involving groundwater replenishment may not have a reliable source of
reclaimed water during all water year types. [G_CPW-08]

The EIR should evaluate project alternatives with respect to required approvals and overall
feasibility. [G_CPW-12]

The alternatives analysis should describe the desalination technologies proposed by each
alternative. [G_CPW-13]

The alternatives analysis should consider the impacts of the various intake
structures/technologies proposed by each alternative. [G_CPW-14]

The alternatives analysis should consider drought reliability. [G_CPW-15]

The alternatives analysis should consider direct and cumulative impacts to marine
resources associated with brine discharge from alternative desalination projects. [G_CPW26]

The alternatives analysis should consider the technical feasibility, implementation


schedule, and overall risk associated with alternative projects. [G_CPW-27]

The alternatives analysis should consider the likelihood for the desalination alternatives to
be legally challenged in court. [G_CPW-28]

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

A-19

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix A
NOP and NOI Scoping Report

The EIR should compare the cost of implementing the alternative desalination projects, as
well as the degree of regional economic benefit associated with each. [G_CPW-29]

The Moss Landing alternatives would result in different significant environmental impacts,
avoid significant legal challenges, and result in cost savings for ratepayers when compared
to the MPWSP. [G_CPW-32]

The EIR should assess the near- and long-term regional economic benefits associated with
each project alternative. [G_CPW-35]

The alternatives analysis should provide a comparison of the MPWSP and the desalination
alternatives based on: infrastructure feasibility, environmental impacts associated with the
seawater intake/brine discharge, feasibility/risk comparison, rough order of magnitude cost
comparison, and overall project comparison. [G_CPW-36]

The EIR should consider locational alternatives for the proposed seawater intake system
that are outside of the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin. [G_LandWatch-01; G_SVWC101; G_SVWC2-06; G_WaterPlus1-01]

The feasibility of the Groundwater Replenishment alternative is speculative due to


uncertainties regarding reclaimed water availability. [G_MPTA-02]

The evaluation of the No Project Alternative should address compliance with the
SWRCBs Cease and Desist Order. [G_PCL-01]

Commenter expressed support for alternatives that involve Groundwater Replenishment.


[G_SPG-03]

Commenter expressed support for project alternatives that include publicly owned and
operated water supply infrastructure. [G_SPG-10; I_Fierro-01]

The alternatives analysis should evaluate entrainment and impingement impacts associated
with open water intakes, and evaluate the level of mortality of marine resources associated
with each desalination alternative. [G_Surfrider-02]

The EIR should evaluate the environmental impacts of CalAms contingency options so
that these options can move forward in the event that the MPWSP and other desalination
alternatives are determined to be infeasible. [G_Surfrider-06]

Commenter expressed support for alternatives that would reduce the capacity of the
desalination plant and/or that would meet water needs without desalination. [G_Surfrider08]

The alternatives analysis should evaluate a stand-alone conservation alternative that would
meet water needs by implementing strategies such as grey water systems, rainwater
collection, landscape modifications, and water audits that reduce demand for potable water
supplies. [G_Surfrider-09]

Commenter expressed support for alternatives that involve reclaimed wastewater and
groundwater replenishment. [G_Surfrider-10]

The EIR should consider a reduced-capacity desalination alternative that incorporates


maximum achievable conservation measures. [G_Surfrider-11]

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

A-20

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix A
NOP and NOI Scoping Report

The EIR should evaluate the potential impacts to groundwater associated with the
installation of shallower seawater intake wells that are screened in the sand-dune aquifer, as
described in CalAms contingency plan. [G_SVWC2-05]

The EIR should consider potential reliability and sustainability issues associated with
groundwater replenishment and aquifer storage and recovery. Such issues include the
potential to exacerbate seawater intrusion, the reliability of Carmel River diversions for
injection into ASR, and the availability of reclaimed wastewater for groundwater
replenishment. [G_WaterPlus3-01]

Commenter expressed support for project alternatives that include facilities that are
publicly owned and operated. [G_WaterPlus3-03]

The EIR should consider rainwater harvesting and greywater systems for demand
management and supplemental sources of supply. [I_Brehmer-01]

The alternatives analysis should consider open water intakes and shallow horizontal
collectors (i.e., Ranney collectors) as design alternatives to the proposed seawater intake
system. [I_Dolan-02]

The EIR should consider a variety of energy sources and configurations to reduce the cost
of operating the proposed desalination plant. [I_Dolan-04]

The EIR should confirm the applicability/feasibility of the lower cost energy sources
associated with the Deepwater Desalination project. [I_Dolan-05]

The EIR should include a thorough evaluation of the project alternatives proposed by other
entities, including hybrid alternatives that incorporate some of the design aspects of the
competing alternatives. [I_Ekelund-01]

The EIR should clearly describe how the CPUC intends to address the various permitting
obstacles and regulatory hurdles, and consider project alternatives that circumvent these
issues so that the project can move forward. [I_Ekelund-02]

Commenter expresses support for the Peoples Moss Landing Desalination project.
[I_Olsen-04]

EIR should consider an alternative involving desalination by the Carmel Area Wastewater
District (CAWD). If an alternative project involving desalination by CAWD appears
feasible, CalAm should be obligated to purchase water from CAWD or make the CalAm
distribution system available to CAWD for delivery of potable water to Carmel and the
Carmel Valley. [I_Siegfried2-01]

The EIR should examine of the No Project Alternative and identify potential impacts of
implementing the No Project Alternative, including vegetation loss, housing, agriculture,
water supply, employment/hospitality, vehicle miles traveled. [ScopingMTG1-02]

Coordination with other CEQA Lead agencies, i.e. Pacific Grove and DeepWater
Desalination should be conducted. [ScopingMTG1-03]

The EIR cumulative analysis should address the impacts of both the proposed project and
the Peoples Moss Landing Project being approved (cumulative, growth inducing).
[ScopingMTG1-05]

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

A-21

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix A
NOP and NOI Scoping Report

The EIR analysis should compare alternative projects. [ScopingMTG1-07]

Further consideration should be given to recycled water so desalinated water does not have
to be used. [ScopingMTG1-16]

The EIR should include an accurate description of Peoples Moss Landing Project.
Commenter is concerned about the available water to North County. [ScopingMTG2-02]

The EIR should include an accurate description of the DeepWater Desalination Project.
[ScopingMTG2-03]

The EIR should evaluate all alternatives at the highest level of detail so those projects do
not have to go through the CEQA process again. [ScopingMTG2-06]

The EIR should include the Marina Coast Water District 1.5 3.0 MGD desalination plant.
[ScopingMTG2-09]

The EIR should rename Peoples Project to Pacific Grove Project. [ScopingMTG2-11]

Further consideration should be given to well and treatment plant relocations in Seaside to
reduce pipeline length. [ScopingMTG2-44]

The EIR should evaluate better/more effective use of CalAms existing systems.
[ScopingMTG2-46]

The EIR should evaluate a solution to reduce water consumption to 4,500 acre-feet.
[ScopingMTG3-02]

The EIR should address the pros and cons of each alternative, using parameters like
technical feasibility, cost, and location. [ScopingMTG3-03]

The EIR should evaluate an alternative that involves a water transfer from the Central
Valley. [I_Thomas-01]

Growth Inducing Effects

Although the production capacity for the MPWSP should be based on replacement supply
needs, conveyance facilities should be sized to accommodate future growth, general plan
build out, and unforeseen changes in the availability of CalAms existing water supplies.
[L_MPWMD-10]

Further consideration should be given to the size of conveyance facilities given the
potential reduction in CalAm Carmel River diversions below their existing entitlements
(i.e. if Los Padres Dam were removed). The EIR should evaluate if the conveyance
pipelines would need to be increased in capacity. [ScopingMTG1-08]

The EIR should identify the demand the project is intended to serve. The EIR should
evaluate the impacts of downsizing and upsizing the capacity. [ScopingMTG2-19]

The EIR should evaluate the implementation of larger pipelines and additional water
treatment capacity for the growing needs on the Peninsula. [ScopingMTG2-42]

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

A-22

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix A
NOP and NOI Scoping Report

The EIR should address the maintenance of the facilities and the examination of water
leaks in the system. [ScopingMTG2-45]

CEQA/NEPA Process

The MBNMS would like to meet with CPUC and all pertinent regulatory agencies to
identify roles and responsibilities related to oversight and permitting, including NEPA
requirements. [F_USFWS-02]

Mitigation measures should be feasible, specific, and enforceable, or should be presented


with specific performance standards that can be accomplished in more than one specified
way. [S_CSLC-04]

The MPWMD will rely on the certified MPWSP Final EIR when considering the
amendment to CalAms water distribution permit for the MPWSP. [L_MPWMD-01]

The CPUC should determine NEPA requirements early in the environmental review
process. [L_MPWMD-04]

The CPUC should confirm the appropriate level of CEQA environmental review (i.e.,
project-level EIR versus Programmatic EIR). [L_Monterey-02]

The EIR should be clear about the NEPA requirements relevant to the MPWSP. If NEPA
environmental review is required, the CPUC should prepare a joint CEQA/NEPA
document to minimize schedule delays. [L_Monterey-04; L_PacGrove-03]

The NOP should have been more explicit about the environmental effects of the MPWSP;
this would allow responsible and trustee agencies to provide more meaningful comments.
[L_PacGrove-04]

It is imperative that the CEQA environmental review process stay on schedule in order to
meet the SWRCBs Cease and Desist Order. [G_CalAm-01]

MPWSP EIR should consider the Monterey County Superior Courts ruling on the CWP
EIR, which determined that water rights were not adequately addressed in the CWP EIR.
[G_CPW-01]

The descriptions of project alternatives in the EIR should be based on the most current
information available. The CPUC should give the proponents of project alternatives a
deadline for providing up to date alternatives information for incorporation into the EIR.
[G_CPW-03]

CEQA requires the evaluation of feasible project alternatives and the consideration of
economic benefits and costs associated with a project and its alternatives. [G_CPW-37]

The EIR should coordinate with the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary during the
NEPA process. [ScopingMTG1-04]

The commenter questioned if the environmental review is a program and project level.
[ScopingMTG2-05]

The EIR should address impacts related to NEPA. The National Marine Sanctuaries
representative is Brad Damitz and was part of State Desal Task Force. [ScopingMTG2-16]

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

A-23

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix A
NOP and NOI Scoping Report

The EIR should include a NEPA evaluation since the slant wells are within National
Marine Sanctuaries jurisdiction. The appropriate NEPA lead agency should be identified
early in the EIR process to avoid project delay. [ScopingMTG2-18]

Timing of the NEPA lead agency determination is relevant to the timing of EIR
preparation. [ScopingMTG2-26]

Consistency with Plans and Polices

The EIR should evaluate conflicts with plans and policies related to the MBNMS and
Marine Protected Areas. [S_CSLC-10]

The EIR should evaluate project consistency with the Monterey County General Plan and
the Monterey County Local Coastal Program. [L_MCRMA-01]

The EIR should evaluate project consistency with the Agency Act. [L_MCRMA-03]

The EIR should evaluate the MPWSPs consistency with the Coastal Act, North County
Land Use Plan, Coastal Implementation Plan, Monterey County General Plan, and plans
and policies related to farmland preservation, water quality, and contamination of potable
water supplies. [G_AgLandTrust-07]

The EIR should evaluate project consistency with land use zoning. [G_AgLandTrust-13]

The EIR should address the legal feasibility of the proposed project in light of the
Monterey County ordinance prohibiting the private ownership of desalination facilities.
[G_CPW-05]

The EIR should evaluate project consistency with North County Local Coastal Plan.
[G_CPW-17]

General Comments

The CPUC should require the development of a contingency plan in the event the slant
wells are not viable. [L_MCWRA-04]

Commenter requests that the CPUC provide a list of the specific non-environmental issues
that will be addressed in the CPCN process. [L_PacGrove-01]

The EIR should map all areas that would be potentially affected by the proposed project.
[G_AgLandTrust-11]

The CPUC should require that CalAm conduct a water supply assessment for the MPWSP.
[G_AgLandTrust-20]

Mitigation measures should be clearly described, measurable, and achievable.


[G_AgLandTrust-21]

Commenter requests that measurements of water be provided in acre feet.


[G_AgLandTrust-22]

Commenter requests that EIR tables be formatted with numbers vertically aligned.
[G_AgLandTrust-23]

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

A-24

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix A
NOP and NOI Scoping Report

The EIR should evaluate project impacts as early as possible. [G_AgLandTrust-24]

The EIR should address the environmental issues identified by the Ag Land Trust in its
briefing to the Monterey Superior Court with regard to the Coastal Water Project Final
EIR. [G_AgLandTrust-25]

The CPUC should consider that diluting brine with wastewater effluent affects the ability to
reuse the effluent as an alternative water source. [G_Surfrider-04]

A substantial amount of water is lost through leaks in the CalAm water system. These
losses could be avoided if CalAm maintained the system properly. [G_WaterPlus2-01]

Comment unclear - please refer to comment letter. [I_Olsen-06]

The EIR should include numeric values of water in acre-feet per year, in addition to
description of million gallons, so there are comparable units of measurement.
[ScopingMTG2-07]

Issues Not Analyzed under CEQA

The EIR/EIS will be used to guide decision-making by the CPUC by providing an assessment of
the potential environmental impacts that may result from the proposed project. The weighing of
project benefits (environmental, economic, or otherwise) against adverse environmental effects is
outside the scope of the CEQA process (Public Resources Code Section 21100; CEQA
Guidelines Section 15002(a)). Furthermore, scoping comments regarding support or opposition to
the proposed project are noted, but are not addressed in the EIR/EIS. When the CPUC meets to
decide on CalAms application for the proposed project, the CPUC will consider the EIR/EIS
(which will disclose potential environmental effects of the proposed project and the Project
Alternatives) along with other, non-environmental considerations. Then it will decide whether or
not to approve or deny the proposed project.
Pursuant to CEQA, comments regarding water rates or potential economic impacts are not
required to be considered. However, NEPA requires analysis of socioeconomic issues and
therefore the EIR/EIS contains an evaluation of both socioeconomic and environmental justice
issues. Further, economic considerations will be taken into account by the CPUC as part of its
decision-making process for the application.
Water Rates

The EIR should evaluate impacts on water prices. [ScopingMTG1-15]

The commenter questioned how the capital cost (and subsequent rates) will be affected by
not having a power source near the desalination plant site. [ScopingMTG2-28]

Drinking Water Quality

The EIR should evaluate any potential health risks associated with drinking desalinated
product water. [I_Siegfried3-02]

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

A-25

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix A
NOP and NOI Scoping Report

Economics 1

The EIR should evaluate secondary economic impacts associated with loss of agricultural
land. [G_AgLandTrust-16]

The EIR should provide cost information for each project component, including the costs
associated with mitigation measures. [G_ CPW-30]

CalAm should establish cost controls and performance incentives and disincentives
advantageous to the ratepayer. The MPWSP EIR should avoid costly legal challenges. [G_
CPW-31]

The Moss Landing alternatives would result in different significant environmental impacts,
avoid significant legal challenges, and result in cost savings for ratepayers when compared
to the MPWSP. [G_CPW-32]

The EIR should assess the regional economic benefits of the MPWSP, not only for Marina,
the Monterey Peninsula, and Carmel, but also for coastal communities in northern
Monterey County located east of the Salinas River. [G_ CPW-34]

The EIR should assess the near- and long-term regional economic benefits associated with
each project alternative. [G_CPW-35]

The Division of Ratepayer Advocates provided comments on the Settlement Agreement


suggesting that the agreement failed to address costs and risks to ratepayers. [G_ CPW-38]

The EIR should describe project cost and financing. [G_WaterPlus3-02]

CalAm should improve maintenance of its water supply infrastructure to better manage
ratepayer costs. [G_WaterPlus5-01; I_Olsen-02]

CalAm unfairly requires that ratepayers pay for costly improvements to CalAm
infrastructure that benefits only a small portion of the service area. [I_Holston-01]

CalAm should conduct public surveys to identify the types of water supply projects that
have public support and better manage ratepayer costs. [I_Olsen-01]

Opinions on the Proposed Project

The information developed for the Coastal Water Project Final EIR, when updated to
reflect current conditions and legal requirements, serves as a good basis for preparation of
the MPWSP EIR. [G_CalAm-02]

Neither the Regional Water Project nor the MPWSP consider regional solutions that
include a diverse group of beneficiaries, not just CalAm ratepayers. [G_CPW-33]

Commenter is opposed to the MPWSP project. [G_MPTA-04]

CalAm should improve maintenance of its water supply infrastructure to better manage
ratepayer costs. [G_WaterPlus5-01; I_Olsen-02]

To the extent that these topics are considered socioeconomic issues under NEPA, they are addressed in the EIR/EIS
Section 4.20, Socioeconomics and Environmental Jusice.

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

A-26

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix A
NOP and NOI Scoping Report

Commenter expressed concern regarding the MPWSP implementation schedule and CalAms
ability to meet the SWRCBs Cease and Desist Order. [I_Bottomley-01; I_Olsen-03]

Commenter expressed doubts about the efficiency of the project review process, project
implementation schedule, the potential for legal challenges to the MPWSP, and increased
costs for ratepayers. [I_Bottomley-02]

Commenter encourages responsible and trustee agencies, local government agencies,


agricultural interests, and decision makers to assist in developing supplemental supply
solution and streamlining the project review process. [I_Bottomley-03]

Commenter expressed support for MPWSP. [I_Carrothers-01; I_Fillmon-01]

Commenter encourages CalAm to consider expanding the MPWSP to include water


supplies for CalAm customers in the Toro basin, a tributary basin to the Salinas Valley
Groundwater Basin, and that these customers pay the full production cost of the water.
[I_Dolan-03]

CalAm unfairly requires that ratepayers pay for costly improvements to CalAm
infrastructure that benefit only a small portion of the service area. [I_Holston-01]

CalAm should conduct public surveys to identify the types of water supply projects that
have public support and better manage ratepayer costs. [I_Olsen-01]

4.2 NOI Scoping Comments


During the EIS scoping meeting held on September 10, 2015, five participants commented
publically on the proposed project. Twelve written comments were received throughout the
public comment period. Commenting parties, summaries of the oral and written comments
received, and responses, or where the issues are addressed in the EIR/EIS, are provided below in
Table 2. The complete written comments are available for review at:
https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=NOAA-NOS-2015-0105.
TABLE 2
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER SUPPLY
PROJECT EIS SCOPING PROCESS
Affiliation/Name
Monterey Bay
Aquarium,
Margaret Spring

Date
10/01/15

Summary of Comment
Supportive of desalination because
of need for water from hospitality
perspective

Ensure appropriate mitigations to


protect the ocean and minimize
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
Water Plus,
Ron Weitzman

09/28/15

Comments on alleged data


tampering with regard to
groundwater modeling.
This comment was also submitted
on the April 2015 DEIR and is noted

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

A-27

Response & EIR/EIS Section


Where Comment is Addressed
Comment noted; the purpose and
need for the proposed project is
addressed in Chapter 1; a portion of
the proposed project water supply
would be provided for the hospitality
industry, as noted in Chapter 2, Water
Demand, Supplies, and Water Rights.
Mitigation measures are identified
throughout EIR/EIS Chapter 4 to
protect ocean resources; see EIR/EIS
Section 4.11 regarding GHG.
The groundwater model has been
revised by a new independent
hydrogeologist; see Appendix E2. The
information from the revised modeling
is incorporated into the analysis in
Section 4.4.

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix A
NOP and NOI Scoping Report

Affiliation/Name

Water Plus,
Ron Weitzman

Date

09/08/15

Summary of Comment
in the introduction to Section 4.4,
Groundwater Resources.
10 attachments commenting on the
April 2015 DEIR and other topics,
ranging from the viability of slant
well technology, water rights,
Monterey pipeline alternatives,
alternative sites for the desalination
plant, GWR only alternative, conflict
of interest, water demand
determination, test well
purpose/results, groundwater
modelling and consideration of the
Peoples project as an alternative.
Many of these comments were
submitted during the public review of
the April 2015 DEIR and as such,
are summarized at the beginning of
each relevant topical section of
Chapter 4.

Jane Haines

09/29/15

Kai Forlie

09/04/15

Marina Coast
Water District
(MCWD),
Keith Van Der
Maaten

10/02/15

Concerned with the efficiency of slant


wells versus open ocean intakes with
regards to GHG emissions.
California is overpopulated and has
not done enough to conserve water.
No desalination project.
Clearly state source water
origination

Need to consider groundwater rights


and replenishment
Address impacts on MCWD
pipelines

Snowy plover habitat; need for


alternatives that are not within
habitat area.

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

A-28

Response & EIR/EIS Section


Where Comment is Addressed

The viability of the test well and


data collection is addressed in
Section 4.4, Groundwater, and
Appendix E2.

See Section 2.6 regarding


Salinas Valley water rights.

The Monterey Pipeline is no


longer part of the proposed
project, as it has been reviewed
and approved under a separate
process.

Alternatives, including alternative


desalination sites, were
assessed in the screening
analysis in Section 5.3.

The GWR project has been


approved after undergoing a
separate environmental review
process.

Slant well conflict of interest is


not a NEPA issue, comment
noted.

Existing water demand


determination - see Chapter 2.

Peoples and DeepWater Desal see Chapter 5 where both of


these alternatives are analyzed.

Test well purpose and results see Section 4.4 Groundwater,


and Appendix E2.

Model evaluation - the


groundwater model has been
revised. See Section 4.4,
Groundwater, and Appendix E2.

Peoples Project this


alternative is fully evaluated in
the EIR/EIS; see Chapter 5.
The potential off-gassing of GHG
associated with slant wells is
addressed in section 4.11.
Comment noted regarding opposition
to the project. Water conservation
efforts are addressed in Chapter 2,
Water Demand.
See Chapter 3, Project Description
and Section 4.4, Groundwater for
details on the length of the slant wells
and the aquifers from which water
would be extracted.
See Section 2.6, Water Rights
See Section 4.13, Public Services
and Utilities, for analysis of impacts
on existing utilities, including MCWD
pipelines.
See Section 4.6, Terrestrial Biology
for a full description of habitat in the
study area and potential impacts on
snowy plover habitat. See Chapter 5
for analysis of alternative locations for
the slant wells, particularly Alternative
1, which is fully evaluated.

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix A
NOP and NOI Scoping Report

Affiliation/Name

Date

Summary of Comment
Slant wells are unproven
technology, longevity of wells

Concerned about Monterey


Regional Water Pollution Control
Agency (MRWPCA) outfall capacity
Provide accurate groundwater
resources description, model,
volumes extracted, mitigation,
monitoring well network, water
quality degradation

Concerned about impacts on


MCWD service area, supplies, and
wells
Need to address cumulative: water
conservation, other desalination
plants, groundwater supply,
Groundwater Replenishment Project
(GWR), Regional Urban Water
Augmentation Project (RUWAP)

Water Plus,
Ron Weitzman

10/01/15

Michael Baer

09/08/15

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

Need for comprehensive


alternatives analysis

Consider list of study resources


in preparing the EIR/EIS

Motion to dismiss proceeding


because of alleged data tampering
with regard to groundwater.
Provided 2 documents that were
submitted during the public review of
the April 2015 DEIR; comments
received on the DEIR are
summarized at the beginning of
each relevant topical section of
Chapter 4.

Slant wells are not a proven


technology

The location of the slant wells


is flawed because they will
exacerbate sea water intrusion
in the Salinas Valley
Groundwater Basin
The DEIR is inadequate and/or
inaccurate in the following areas:

Brine discharge volume

Outfall pipe length

Diffuser length

Diffusion calculations

Detailed bathymetric mapping


at outfall pipe

A-29

Response & EIR/EIS Section


Where Comment is Addressed
See Appendix C3 regarding the bore
hole technical memo; operation of the
test well demonstrates technical
feasibility, particularly at the proposed
project site (CEMEX), and is also
discussed in Section 4.4,
Groundwater.
See section 4.13, Public Service and
Utilities; the outfall has sufficient
capacity to accommodate the
proposed project brine discharge.
See Section 4.4 Groundwater, for
details on existing groundwater
resources and aquifer characteristics,
groundwater modeling and impact
assessment results, monitoring and
mitigation measures; see Appendix
E2 for details on the revised
groundwater model.
See Section 4.4, Groundwater

These projects and issues are


considered in the cumulative impacts
assessment. See Section 4.1.7, Table
4.1-2 and Figure 4-1 for a description
of the cumulative impacts scenario
and assumptions about these
projects. Cumulative impacts of the
proposed project are analyzed in
each issue area in Chapter 4.
See Chapter 5, which provides a
detailed alternatives screening
analysis and full evaluation of 5
project alternatives.
The listed studies have been
reviewed and considered in the
EIR/EIS analysis.
The groundwater analysis has been
revised. See Section 4.4,
Groundwater.

See Section 4.4, Groundwater,


and Appendix E2

See Section 4.3, Surface Water


Hydrology and Water Quality, and
Appendix D1 for details on brine
discharge volume, outfall and diffuser
dimensions, diffusion calculations,
impact assessment and monitoring;
see Section 4.5, Marine Biological
Resources, regarding baseline

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix A
NOP and NOI Scoping Report

Affiliation/Name

Date

Summary of Comment

Robert Evans

09/29/15

Biological baseline of benthic


and planktonic life in brine
mixing zone (squid egg sack)

Salinity monitoring
Water supply should not degrade
environment; recycling would be
best

Required NEPA components of


environmental review
Address ocean/marine resource
impacts

See Section 4.5, Marine Biological


Resources.

Address sea level rise impacts

See Section 4.2 for analysis of sea


level rise impacts.

Need to consider feasible


alternatives

Alternatives and the alternatives


screening process are addressed in
Chapter 5. A reduced-size project is
fully evaluated in Alternative 5.
Each section of Chapter 4 identifies
impacts and their significance, as well
as mitigation measures to the extent
that they are feasible.
Brine discharge and Ocean Plan
compliance is addressed in Section
4.3, Surface Water Hydrology and
Water Quality; Section 4.5, Marine
Biological Impacts, addresses brine
impacts on marine resources;
Chapter 5 addresses discharge
alternatives.
Cumulative impacts are fully
assessed in each issue area in
Chapter 4.
The details of the intake pipelines are
in Chapter 3. Marine life impacts are
assessed in Section 4.5. Erosion
impacts, including coastal erosion,
are addressed in Section 4.2,
Geology, Soils and Seismicity.
See Sections 4.18 and 4.11, which
address energy use impacts and
GHG emission impacts.

Supports Project Variant

10/02/15

Identify significant impacts and


mitigation measures

Explain, clarify, and substantiate the


method for brine discharge and
dilution, the anticipated discharge
volumes, and where the brine will be
discharged; estimate potential
volume of discharge and impacts
from project and alternatives;
assess compliance with Ocean Plan
Evaluate cumulative projects,
including other desalination projects
Evaluate slant wells impacts on
marine life and on erosion; provide
details on intake pipeline

Quantify and evaluate energy use


and GHG emissions; develop
mitigation measures for energy use
and GHG emissions.
Address compliance with Marine
Life Protection Act (MLPA), National
Marine Sanctuaries Act of 1972
(NMSA), Monterey Bay National
Marine Sanctuary regulations,
Elkhorn Slough National Estuarine
Research Reserve, California
Ocean Plan

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

information and discussion of impacts


in brine mixing zone.

See Chapter 4 for analysis of impacts


of the proposed project on the
environment, and Chapter 5,
Alternatives, for discussion of water
recycling options.
See Section 4.8, Land Use and
Recreation for analysis of impacts on
the recreational trail.
Comment noted; the Project Variant is
now addressed as Alternative 5a in
Section 5.4, 5.5 and 5.6
An EIR/EIS has been prepared in full
compliance with CEQA and NEPA.

Concerned with pipeline along


Recreation Trail and Del Monte Blvd

Surfrider Monterey
Chapter,
Staley Prom

Response & EIR/EIS Section


Where Comment is Addressed

A-30

See Section 4.5 for discussion of


Elkhorn Slough Reserve and
assessment of compliance with the
MLPA, NMSA and MBNMS
regulations; Ocean Plan compliance
is assessed in Section 4.3, Surface
Water Hydrology and Water Quality;
Section 6.4 provides analysis of
compliance with MBNMS Desalination
Guidelines.

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix A
NOP and NOI Scoping Report

Affiliation/Name

Date

Summary of Comment

United States
Environmental
Protection Agency,
Carter Jessop

10/01/15

All reasonable alternatives that fulfill


the project need and purpose should
be evaluated

Regulatory framework, permits

Need to prepare Waters of the


United States delineation for project
and alternatives
Consider air quality impacts:
existing, construction, operation,
quantify, emission sources,
mitigation measures
Address climate change: GHG
emissions, affected environment
section, environmental
consequences section
Cumulative should involve other
potential desalination projects

Evaluate fate and transport model of


saltwater brine plume, biological
significance

Users of water, supply, pipelines

Jeff Alford

09/04/15

Sustainable Pacific
Grove, Karin Locke
Circular Sea
Initiative, Francis
Jeffrey
Broadcaster,
Hebard Olsen

09/10/15

09/10/15

Speaker: concerned with brine

Ohlone/Costanoan
Esselen Nation,
Louise Miranda
Ramirez
Planet Earth,
Michael Baer

09/10/15

Speaker: concerned with brine and


the cumulative impacts of 2
desalination plants

09/10/15

Speaker: concerned about pipeline


routes and traffic

09/10/15

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

The Project will create a water


monopoly and it should be a public
project.
Speaker: concerned with brine
discharge
Speaker: concerned with ocean
health

A-31

Response & EIR/EIS Section


Where Comment is Addressed
See Chapter 5, Alternatives, for
details on the alternatives screening
analysis and assessment of
alternatives ability to satisfy project
purpose and need.
See Section 3.5 for a summary of all
required permits for the proposed
project; also, each issue area in
Chapter 4 includes a regulatory
framework subsection.
See Section 4.6, Terrestrial Biology

See Section 10, Air Quality, for a


discussion of existing air quality
conditions and proposed project
construction and operation emissions
and associated impacts.
See Section 4.11, GHG, for details on
the existing conditions and proposed
project GHG emissions and
associated impacts.
Other desalination projects are
considered in the cumulative impacts
scenario; see Section 4.1.7 and Table
4.1-2. Cumulative impacts are
assessed in each issue area in
Chapter 4.
See Section 4.3 and Appendix D1
regarding brine dispersion modeling
and results; see Section 4.5 for
impacts on marine biological
resources.
See Chapter 2 regarding water supply
and demand; see Chapter 3 regarding
proposed pipelines.
Comment noted.

See Sections 4.3, Surface Water


Hydrology and Water Quality, and
Appendix D1 for a detailed analysis of
brine discharge and modeling of brine
concentrations; see Section 4.5,
Marine Biological Resources for
impacts of brine discharges on marine
resources.
See Section 4.1.7 for summary of
cumulative impact scenario and
Sections 4.3 and 4.5 for analysis of
cumulative brine impacts
Alternative pipeline routes were
considered as a result of comments
on the DEIR; note that the Monterey
Pipeline is no longer part of the
proposed project and has been
approved through a separate process.

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix A
NOP and NOI Scoping Report

4.3 Consideration of Issues Raised in Scoping Process


A primary purpose of this Scoping Report is to document the process of soliciting and identifying
comments from interested agencies and the public. The scoping process provides the means to
determine those issues that interested participants consider to be the principal areas for study and
analysis for purposes of preparation of the MPWSP EIR/EIS. Every issue that has been raised
during the scoping process that falls within the scope of CEQA/NEPA is addressed in the
EIR/EIS.

4.4 Scope of Alternatives Analysis


One of the most important aspects of the scoping process and subsequent environmental review is
the identification and assessment of the environmental impacts of reasonable alternatives. In
addition to mandating consideration of the No Project/No Action Alternative, both the CEQA
Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. 15126.6(d)) and the NEPA Regulations (40 CFR 1502.14)
emphasize the selection of a reasonable range of alternatives that meet the purpose and need of
the proposed action, and the comparative assessment of the impacts of the alternatives to allow
for public disclosure and informed decisionmaking. The EIR/EIS describes the development and
screening of potential project alternatives, presents the selected project alternatives, evaluates the
alternatives for consistency with stated project objectives, and fully analyzes and compares the
environmental impacts and trade-offs of the alternatives, in order to identify the environmentally
superior alternative for purposes of CEQA and the environmentally preferred alternative for
purposes of NEPA.

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

A-32

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix A
NOP and NOI Scoping Report

Attachment A
Notice of Preparation

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

A-33

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

This page intentionally left blank

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

JERRY BROWN, Governor

PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION


505 VAN NESS AVENUE
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3298

NOTICE OF PREPARATION

Environmental Impact Report for the CalAm


Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project
Introduction
In accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the
CEQA Guidelines, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), as CEQA Lead Agency,
is preparing an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the California American Water
Companys (CalAm) proposed Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP or proposed
project). The MPWSP is comprised of various facilities and improvements, including: a seawater
intake system; a 9-million-gallons-per-day (mgd) desalination plant; desalinated water storage
and conveyance facilities; and expanded Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) facilities. If the
Groundwater Replenishment Project proposed by the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control
Agency (MRWPCA) is timely approved and implemented, CalAms proposed desalination plant
would be sized at 5.4 mgd. This document serves as the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the EIR
and solicits relevant comments on the scope of environmental issues as well as alternatives and
mitigation measures that should be explored in the Draft EIR. The 30-day public scoping period
begins on October 10, 2012 and closes at 5pm on November 9, 2012. This NOP provides
background information on prior CalAm planning efforts to meet the water supply needs of the
Monterey Peninsula, and describes the proposed project, its location, and anticipated
environmental effects.

Background
In 2004, CalAm filed Application A.04-09-019 seeking a Certificate of Public Convenience and
Necessity from the CPUC for the Coastal Water Project. The Coastal Water Project (CWP) was
intended to replace existing Carmel River water supplies for the CalAm Monterey District service
area that are constrained by legal decisions (see discussion under the heading, Project Purpose, for
more information regarding the legal decisions). In general, the previously proposed CWP involved
the production of desalinated water supplies, increased yield from the Seaside Groundwater Basin
ASR system, and additional storage and conveyance systems to move the replacement supplies to
the existing CalAm distribution system. The CWP proposed project (also referred to as the Moss
Landing Project) was sized to meet existing water demand and did not include supplemental
supplies to accommodate growth. The CWP was previously proposed to use the existing intakes at
the Moss Landing Power Plant to draw source water for a new 10-mgd desalination plant at Moss
Landing, construct conveyance and storage facilities, and facility improvements to the existing

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Notice of Preparation

ESA / 205335.01
October 2012

Notice of Preparation

Seaside Groundwater Basin ASR system.1 On January 30, 2009, the CPUC published a Draft EIR
analyzing the environmental impacts of the previous CWP, as well as the environmental impacts of
two project alternativesthe North Marina Project2 and the Regional Project.3 The CPUC
published the Coastal Water Project Final EIR (SCH No. 2006101004) in October 2009 and
certified the EIR in December 2009 (Decision D.09-12-017). A year later, in Decision D.10-12-016,
the CPUC approved implementation of the Regional Project alternative.
Subsequent to approval of the Regional Project, CalAm withdrew its support for the Regional
Project in January 2012.4 As a result, in April 2012, CalAm submitted Application A.12-04-019
to the CPUC for the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP). The MPWSP is
intended to secure replacement water supplies for the Monterey District associated with legal
decisions affecting existing supplies from both the Carmel River and the Seaside Groundwater
Basin (see discussion under the heading, Project Purpose, for more information). The MPWSP
includes many of the same elements previously analyzed in the CWP EIR; however, key
components, including the seawater intake system and desalination plant, have been relocated
and/or modified under the current proposal.
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, the CPUC has determined that preparation of a
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report is the appropriate level of CEQA review for the
MPWSP.5 Although the MPWSP EIR will qualify as a Subsequent EIR under CEQA, there are
1
2

4
5

The existing Seaside Groundwater Basin ASR system includes several injection/extraction wells, and storage and
conveyance facilities to store Carmel River water supplies during the wet season in the groundwater basin, and
recover the banked water during the dry season for consumptive use.
The North Marina Project alternative included most of the same facilities as the previously proposed CWP and, like
the previously proposed CWP, would only provide replacement supplies to meet existing demand. The key
differences between this alternative and the previously proposed CWP were that the slant wells and desalination
plant would be constructed at different locations (Marina State Beach and North Marina, respectively), and the
desalination plant would have a slightly greater production capacity (11 mgd versus 10 mgd).
The Regional Project alterative was intended to integrate several water supply sources to meet both existing and
future water demand in the CalAm service area. The Regional Project would have been implemented jointly by
CalAm and Marina Coast Water District (MCWD).The Regional Project was to be implemented in phases and
included vertical seawater intake wells on coastal dunes located south of the Salinas River and north of Reservation
Road; a 10-mgd desalination plant in North Marina (Armstrong Ranch); product water storage and conveyance
facilities; and expansions to the existing Seaside Groundwater Basin ASR system. This alternative would also
develop supplemental supplies from the Salinas River by expanding an existing diversion facility and treatment
plant in North Marina; expand the Castroville Seawater Intrusion Project (CSIP) by constructing additional storage
and conveyance facilities; and expand the Seaside Groundwater Basin Replenishment Project by providing
advanced water treatment for recycled water supplies generated at the MRWPCA Regional Wastewater Treatment
Plant for injection into the groundwater basin.
The CPUC subsequently closed the CWP proceeding in Decision D.12-07-008 (July 12, 2012).
Per CEQA Section 21166 a Subsequent EIR would be required if: (1) Substantial changes are proposed in the
project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2)
Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will
require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial
importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the
time the previous EIR, was certified as complete was adopted, shows any of the following: (a) The project will have
one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration; (b) Significant effects
previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; (c) Mitigation measures or
alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or
more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or
alternative; or (d) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the
previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project
proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Notice of Preparation

ESA / 205335.01
October 2012

Notice of Preparation

no special procedural requirements that apply to a Subsequent EIR; therefore, for simplicity we
will simply call this new document an EIR. The MPWSP EIR will provide a comprehensive
description and evaluation of all proposed components (including the new proposed elements and
previously analyzed components) as the whole of the action. The MPWSP EIR may evaluate
alternatives not previously considered in the CWP EIR. The CWP EIR will not in itself be
incorporated by reference into the MPWSP EIR. However, the MPWSP EIR will utilize relevant
data that was developed for the CWP EIR, and update the data and prior analyses as appropriate
to address the effects of the current proposal. Environmental review of the MPWSP will have no
effect on the certified CWP EIR or related approvals.
While it is not yet known whether the MPWSP would have additional or more severe impacts
than the alternatives analyzed in the previous CWP EIR or whether new feasible alternatives or
mitigation measures are available, the changes to the CWP EIR would not be so minor as to
qualify for a supplemental EIR under CEQA Guidelines 15163. Therefore, the CPUC has
determined that a Subsequent EIR is the most appropriate CEQA documents to evaluate the
MPWSP. To assist in funding the MPWSP, CalAm is applying for a loan under the Clean Water
State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) administered by the State Water Resources Control Board
(SWRCB). For this reason, the MPWSP EIR will be prepared in compliance with the SWRCBs
CWSRF Guidelines and CEQA-Plus requirements. If it is determined through the scoping
process that additional federal review is required, CPUC will coordinate with the appropriate
agency to comply with the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA).
Documents or files related to the MPWSP are available for review at the CPUC administrative
offices in San Francisco, by appointment, during normal business hours. This information
can also be obtained by visiting the CPUC website (http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/energy/
Environment/Current+Projects/esa/mpwsp/index.html).

CPUC Process
The CPUC is a constitutionally created state agency charged with the regulation of investor-owned
public utilities within California. Consistent with its broad scope of authority, the CPUC regulates
the construction and expansion of water lines, plants, and systems by private water service
providers pursuant to Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) (Public Utilities
Code Section 1001) and authorizes water service providers to charge their customers just and
reasonable rates for the provision of water services (Public Utilities Code Sections 451 and 454).
The project proponent, CalAm, is a public utility under the CPUCs jurisdiction and has applied to
the CPUC for a CPCN under Public Utilities Code Section 1001 to build, own, and operate all
elements of the MPWSP, and also for permission to recover present and future costs for the project
through short-term rate increases. The CPUC administrative law judge will review the Final EIR
and prepare a proposed decision for consideration by the CPUC regarding certification of the
MPWSP EIR and approval of the MPWSP. In addition to the environmental impacts addressed
during the CEQA process, the CPCN process will consider any other issues that have been
established in the formal record, including but not limited to economic issues, social impacts, and
the need for the project. During this process, the CPUC will also take into account testimony and

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Notice of Preparation

ESA / 205335.01
October 2012

Notice of Preparation

briefs from parties who have formally intervened in Proceeding A.12-04-019,6 as well as formal
records of all project-related hearings held by the administrative law judge.

Project Purpose
The primary purpose of the MPWSP is to replace existing water supplies that have been
constrained by legal decisions affecting the Carmel River and Seaside Groundwater Basin water
resources. SWRCB Order 95-10 requires CalAm to reduce surface water diversions from the
Carmel River in excess of its legal entitlement of 3,376 acre-feet per year (afy), and SWRCB
Order 2009-0060 (Cease and Desist Order) requires CalAm to develop replacement supplies for
the Monterey District service area by December 2016. In 2006, the Monterey County Superior
Court adjudicated the Seaside Groundwater Basin, effectively reducing CalAms yield from the
Seaside Groundwater Basin from approximately 4,000 afy to 1,474 afy. A secondary purpose of
the MPWSP is to provide adequate supplies for CalAm to meet its duty to serve customers in its
Monterey District, as required by Public Utilities Code Section 451.

Proposed Project
The proposed MPWSP would be comprised of the following facilities:7

Seawater intake system consisting of eight 750-foot-long subsurface slant wells extending
offshore into the Monterey Bay, and source water conveyance pipelines

Desalination plant and appurtenant facilities, including source water receiving tanks;
pretreatment, reverse osmosis, and post-treatment systems; chemical feed and storage
facilities; brine storage and discharge facilities; and associated non-process facilities

Desalinated water conveyance facilities, including pipelines, pump stations, clearwells, and
a terminal reservoir

Improvements to the existing Seaside Groundwater Basin ASR system, including two
additional injection/extraction wells, a pump station, a product water pipeline, a pump-towaste pipeline, and pump-to-waste treatment

The proposed MPWSP would include a 9-mgd desalination plant and facility improvements to
the existing Seaside Groundwater Basin ASR system to provide replacement water supplies to
meet existing demand for the approximately 40,000 customers in CalAms Monterey District

6
7

Proceeding No. A.12-04-019, Application of California-American Water Company (U210W) for Approval of the
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and Authorization to Recover All Present and Future Costs in Rates
(Filed April 23, 2012).
Several facility components of the proposed MPWSP are similar or identical to facilities evaluated in the CWP
EIR, including the product water storage and conveyance facilities and improvements to the existing ASR system.
The primary difference between the desalination facilities proposed under the MPWSP and those described under
the previously proposed CWP and CWP project alternatives are the site locations for the seawater intake system
and desalination plant. The Regional Project alternative that was approved by the CPUC was envisioned as a joint
project between CalAm, Monterey County Water Resources Agency and Marina Coast Water District (MCWD); at
this time it is anticipated that the facilities and improvements proposed under the current MPWSP proposal would
be owned and operated entirely by CalAm.

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Notice of Preparation

ESA / 205335.01
October 2012

Notice of Preparation

service area.8 See Figure 1 for an overview of MPWSP area. As an alternative to the 9-mgd
desalination plant, CalAms application also includes a 5.4-mgd desalination plant coupled with a
water purchase agreement for 3,500 afy of product water from the MRWPCAs proposed
Groundwater Replenishment Project. For purposes of the environmental analysis, this alternative
is discussed below under the heading Alternatives to the Project.
The subsurface slant wells would extend offshore into the Monterey Bay and draw seawater from
beneath the ocean floor for use as source water for the proposed desalination plant. Approximately
20 to 22 mgd of source water would be needed to produce 9 mgd of desalinated product water. The
preferred site for the subsurface slant wells is a 376-acre coastal property located north of the city of
Marina and immediately west of the CEMEX active mining area. New pipelines would convey the
seawater (or source water) from the slant wells to the MPWSP desalination plant.
The MPWSP desalination plant and appurtenant facilities would be located on a 46-acre vacant
parcel near Charles Benson Road, northwest of the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control
Agencys (MRWPCA) Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant and the Monterey Regional
Environmental Park. Facilities proposed at the MPWSP desalination plant include pretreatment,
reverse osmosis, and post-treatment systems; chemical feed and storage facilities; a brine storage
basin; and an administrative building. Brine produced during the desalination process would be
conveyed to an existing MRWPCA ocean outfall and discharged to the Monterey Bay.
Approximately 9,006 afy of potable water supplies would be produced by the proposed
desalination facilities.
Desalinated product water would be conveyed south via a series of proposed pipelines to existing
CalAm water infrastructure and customers in the Monterey Peninsula. Up to 28 miles of
conveyance pipelines and water mains would be constructed under the MPWSP. In addition, if it
is determined that the MPWSP needs to return water to the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin,
water could be conveyed southeast via a new pipeline to the existing Castroville Seawater
Intrusion Project (CSIP) pond at the MRWPCA Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant for
subsequent distribution to agricultural users in the Salinas Valley.
The primary function of the two additional ASR wells and the proposed improvements to the
conveyance system is to allow desalinated water to be injected into the Seaside Groundwater
Basin for subsequent distribution to customers. These improvements would also.provide
redundant injection capacity and improve the long-term reliability and efficiency of the ASR
system for injecting Carmel River water into the Seaside Groundwater Basin. Improving the
efficiency of the ASR system to inject Carmel River water into the Seaside Groundwater Basin
when there is significant rainfall (wet and extremely wet years) increases the long-term annual
yield from the ASR system to 1,920 afy.
A preliminary project facilities map is provided in Figure 2. Construction of the MPWSP is
anticipated to occur over approximately three years.
8

CalAms Monterey District service area encompasses most of the Monterey Peninsula, including the cities of
Carmel-by-the-Sea, Del Rey Oaks, Monterey, Pacific Grove, Sand City, and Seaside, and the unincorporated areas
of Carmel Highlands, Carmel Valley, Pebble Beach, and the Del Monte Forest.

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Notice of Preparation

ESA / 205335.01
October 2012

ruz

Watsonville
152

CO
CO

Slou

gh

San
Juan
Bautista

Ba
y

Elkho

rn

CO
O
NIT CO
BE REY
N
SA NTE
MO

SA
N
MO TA C
R
NT
ER U
EY

129

M onter ey

Moss Landing

156

Castroville
101

183

MPWSP Project Area


Salinas
Sa
lin
a

Marina

ive
r

Sand
City
Seaside

Pacific
Grove

Monterey
Pebble
Beach

218

Del Rey Oaks


68

CalAm Service Area

Carmel
By The Sea
Car m
el Va
lley R
1

Carmel
Highlands

Ca
rm
el R
ive

Carmel
Valley Village

2
Miles

Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project . 205335.01

SOURCE: ESA, 2012

Figure 1
Project Location Map
6

S
al

Seawater Intake n a
s R
System Option A
iver

0
Miles

MPWSP Desalination
Plant (Proposed)

Source Water Pipeline (Proposed)


Pump-to-Waste Pipeline (Proposed)
Brine Discharge Pipeline (Proposed)
MRWPCA Ocean
Outfall (Existing)

MRWPCA Ocean Outfall Pipeline (Existing)


Desalinated Water Pipeline (Proposed)
Transmission Main (Proposed)

Bo
ule
va
rd

Transfer Pipeline (Proposed)

B a y

MRWPCA Regional
Wastewater Treatment
Plant (Existing)

l Mon

Potential Subsurface
Slant Well Locations
(Proposed)

ASR Conveyance Pipeline (Proposed)

De

Salinas Valley Return Pipeline (Proposed)

CSIP Pond
(Existing)

te

Seawater Intake
System Option B

Monterey Pipeline (Proposed)

rva

tio
n

Ro
a

te

r e
y

Re
se

ASR Injection/Extraction
Wells (Proposed)

lM
De

Connection to
Existing CalAm
Water System

te

ule

va

rd

im M

Gen
e

on

Bo

ral J

La Salle Avenue

oore

Bou
le

vard

!
(
!
(

Hilby Avenue

!
(!
(

Terminal Reservoir
& ASR Pump
Station (Proposed)

Valley Greens Pump Staion


(Proposed) 2 miles south at
Carmel Valley Road/Valley
Greens Drive

SOURCE: ESA, 2012

Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project . 205335.01

Figure 2
Preliminary Project Facilities Map

Notice of Preparation

Issues to be Addressed in the EIR


This NOP is not accompanied by an Initial Study that screens out environmental topics; the
MPWSP EIR will include an analysis for all topics identified in Appendix G of the CEQA
Guidelines. The MPWSP EIR will address potential impacts associated with project construction,
operation, and maintenance activities. The analysis will include, but will not be limited to, the
following issues of potential environmental impact:

Surface Water Hydrology and Water Quality Construction and operation of the
MPWSP could increase soil erosion and adversely affect water quality in receiving
waterbodies. Project operations would generate brine, maintenance and cleaning solutions,
and other effluents that would be discharged to the Monterey Bay, stormwater system, and
sanitary sewer. The MPWSP EIR will evaluate impacts to surface water quality as a result of
project construction and operations; changes to existing drainage patterns resulting in
increased erosion or runoff; potential impacts related to the capacity of the existing
MRWPCA ocean outfall; and potential adverse effects of brine discharges on offshore water
quality.

Groundwater Resources Updated groundwater modeling will be used to evaluate


potential impacts to groundwater levels and groundwater quality associated with slant well
operations, including any effects on the seawater/freshwater interface. Water rights issues
will be addressed as needed to evaluate project feasibility and project effects on groundwater.

Marine and Terrestrial Biological Resources The EIR will evaluate project impacts on
terrestrial special-status animal and plant species, sensitive habitats, mature native trees,
and migratory birds associated with facility siting and project-related construction
activities. Particular attention will be given to the coastal dune habitat in the vicinity of the
proposed subsurface slant wells. Potential impacts on marine resources to be evaluated
include salinity changes at the MRWPCA ocean outfall from brine discharges and any
related effects on benthic and pelagic organisms and environments. The EIR will also
evaluate any potential conflicts with applicable plans, policies, and plans related to the
protection of marine and terrestrial biological resources.

Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases The EIR will analyze construction-related and
operational emissions of criteria air pollutants. Emissions estimates will be evaluated in
accordance with all applicable federal, state, and regional ambient air quality standards.
Potential human health risks at nearby sensitive receptors from emissions of diesel
particulate matter and toxic air contaminants during project construction and operations
will be addressed. The EIR will also estimate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated
with project construction and operations, and compare these to applicable plans and
policies related to reducing GHGs.

Mineral and Energy Resources The EIR will evaluate potential impacts to mineral
resources associated with facility siting. The MPWSPs energy requirements, particularly
the energy needs for desalination, will be evaluated to reflect the proposed plant capacity,
specifications, and operations.

Geology and Soils The EIR will review site-specific seismic, geologic, and soil
conditions and evaluate project-related impacts. The analysis will address the potential for
project construction activities to result in increased soil erosion or loss of topsoil, as well as
potential slope instability issues associated with facility siting and construction. Particular
attention will be given to potential increases in coastal erosion rates resulting from project

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Notice of Preparation

ESA / 205335.01
October 2012

Notice of Preparation

implementation, as well as damage to the slant wells and other facilities in the coastal zone
resulting from natural erosion.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials The EIR will summarize documented soil and
groundwater contamination cases within and around the project area, and evaluate the
potential for hazardous materials to be encountered during construction. Inadvertent
releases of hazardous construction chemicals, and contaminated soil or groundwater into
the environment during construction will be addressed. The analysis will also consider the
proper handling, storage, and use of hazardous chemicals that would be used during
operations.

Noise The EIR will evaluate construction-related noise increases and associated effects
on ambient noise levels, applicable noise standards, and the potential for indirect impacts to
nearby land uses.

Transportation and Traffic Project construction activities would generate construction


trucks and vehicles, resulting in a temporary increase in traffic volumes along local and
regional roadways. The installation of pipelines along or adjacent to road right-of-ways could
result in temporary land closures and traffic delays. Impacts to vehicular traffic, traffic safety
hazards, public transportation, and other alternative means of transportation will be evaluated.
Traffic increases associated with project operations will also be addressed.

Cultural Resources The EIR will evaluate potential impacts on historic, archaeological,
and paleontological resources, and human remains. It is anticipated that any potential
impacts to cultural resources would be limited to project construction and/or facility siting.

Land Use The EIR will evaluate potential conflicts with established land uses as a result
of facility siting and during project construction. Potential conflicts with applicable plans
and policies will also be evaluated. Particular attention will be given to consistency with
the Coastal Plan.

Agricultural Resources Agricultural land uses are present within and around the project
area. The EIR also evaluate potential impacts to designated farmland and Williamson Act
contracts.

Utilities and Public Services The EIR will evaluate potential conflicts with existing
utility lines during project construction, including potential service interruption. Particular
attention will be paid to high-priority utilities that could pose a risk to workers in the
event of an accident during construction. Potential impacts related to landfill capacity
associated with the disposal of spoils and debris generated during project construction will
be described. Project consistency with federal, state, and local waste diversion goals will
also be considered.

Aesthetic Resources Project facilities would be sited along the coastal zone and
Highway 1, a designated scenic highway. The EIR will evaluate visual impacts related to
the new/proposed facilities.

Cumulative Impacts The environmental effects of the MPWSP, in combination with the
effects of past, present, and future foreseeable cumulative projects in the vicinity, could
result in significant cumulative impacts. Potential cumulative projects include the future
expansion of the Salinas Valley Water Project, a desalination plant for the Marina Coast
Water District/Fort Ord area, and the Groundwater Replenishment Project (if groundwater
replenishment is not made part of the proposed project or an alternative). The EIR will
evaluate the projects contribution to any identified cumulative impacts.

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Notice of Preparation

ESA / 205335.01
October 2012

Notice of Preparation

The MPWSP EIR will describe water supply and demand in the CalAm service area and the
relationship of the proposed project (including facility sizing and capacities) to such supply and
demand. The potential for implementation of the MPWSP to result in growth-inducing effects
will be evaluated.
To comply with the CEQA-Plus requirements under the CWSRF Guidelines, the EIR will include
information to support federal agency consultations under Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, Section 7 of the Federal Endangered Species Act, the Federal Clean Air Act
General Conformity Rule,9 and any other applicable federal consultations. If it is determined
through the scoping process that additional federal review is required, CPUC will coordinate with
the appropriate federal agency to comply with NEPA.
Where feasible, mitigation measures will be proposed to avoid or reduce any identified
environmental impacts attributable to the project.
Comments received during the EIR scoping period will be considered during preparation of the
MPWSP EIR. Public agencies and interested organizations and persons will have an opportunity
to comment on the Draft EIR after it is published and circulated for public review.

Scoping and Draft EIR Schedule


During this NOP review period, the CPUC is soliciting comments on the scope of environmental
issues as well as reasonable alternatives and mitigation measures that should be explored in the
Draft EIR.10 Written scoping comments may be submitted by hand, mailed, faxed, or sent by
email during the NOP review period, which closes at 5:00 p.m. on November 9, 2012. Please
include a name, address, and telephone number of a contact person to receive future
correspondence on this matter. Please send your comments to:
Andrew Barnsdale
California Public Utilities Commission
c/o Environmental Science Associates
550 Kearny Street, Suite 800
San Francisco, CA 94108
Fax: 415.896.0332
Or email to: MPWSP-EIR@esassoc.com

Scoping Meetings
CEQA Statute Section 21083.9 mandates that a scoping meeting be held for projects of statewide,
regional or area-wide significance. Given the high level of interest in and the importance of this
proposed project to the Monterey County region and to ensure that the public and regulatory
9

The General Conformity Rule ensures that the actions taken by federal agencies in nonattainment and maintenance
areas do not interfere with a states plans to meet national standards for air quality. As of March 30, 2012, the North
Central Coast Air Basin (NCCAB) meets all National Ambient Air Quality Standards and is not subject to a
maintenance plan with conformity obligations. Therefore, the MPWSP EIR will describe why the General
Conformity Rule would not apply to the MPWSP.
10 Publication of the Draft EIR is scheduled for summer 2013.

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Notice of Preparation

10

ESA / 205335.01
October 2012

Notice of Preparation

agencies have an opportunity to ask questions and submit comments on the scope of the EIR, a
series of scoping meetings will be held during the NOP review period. The scoping meetings will
start with a brief presentation providing an overview of the proposed project and the project
alternatives identified to date. Subsequent to the presentation, interested parties will be provided
an opportunity to interact with technical staff. Participants are encouraged to submit written
comments, and comment forms will be supplied at the scoping meetings. Written comments may
also be submitted anytime during the NOP scoping period to the mailing address, fax number, or
email address listed above. The locations and dates of the scoping meetings are listed below:
October 24, 2012
6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.
Rancho Canada Golf Club
4860 Carmel Valley Road
Carmel, CA 93923

October 25, 2012


1:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.
Oldemeyer Center
Blackhorse Room
986 Hilby Avenue
Seaside, CA 93955

October 25, 2012


6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.
Oldemeyer Center
Laguna Grande Hall
986 Hilby Avenue
Seaside, CA 93955

Preliminary List of Alternatives to the Project


In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, the EIR will describe a reasonable range
of potentially feasible alternatives to the MPWSP, or to the location of the project, that would
achieve most of the basic objectives of the project while avoiding or substantially lessening any
of the significant effects of the project, and will also evaluate the comparative merits of the
alternatives. Alternatives to the proposed MPWSP are briefly introduced below. The alternatives
set forth below comprise a preliminary list of potentially feasible alternatives. This list will be
refined, and may be expanded or contracted, as warranted based upon comments received and
data gathered as part of the EIR preparation process on such topics as feasibility (as well as
economic, environmental, legal and social factors), ability to avoid significant effects of the
project, and ability to meet the basic objectives of the project.

5.4-mgd Desalination Plant with Groundwater Replenishment


As an alternative to the proposed 9-mgd desalination plant, CalAm would implement a 5.4-mgd
desalination plant and enter into a water purchase agreement with the Monterey Peninsula Water
Management District (MPWMD) to purchase up to 3,500 afy of product water from the
Groundwater Replenishment Project. CalAm has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding
with the MRWPCA and Monterey Peninsula Water Management District to collaborate on
development of the Groundwater Replenishment Project. The MRWPCA currently owns and
operates two plants that treat wastewater influent from the Monterey Peninsula and Salinas
Valley service area: the Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant treats community wastewater for
discharge to the ocean; also, in the mid-1990s, the MRWPCA constructed and now operates a
tertiary treatment plant known as the Salinas Valley Reclamation Project, which treats water for
agricultural irrigation that is distributed via the Castroville Seawater Intrusion Project.11
11 The Salinas Valley Reclamation Project and the Castroville Seawater Intrusion Project are projects being operated

in partnership with the Monterey County Water Resources Agency and growers in the Salinas Valley.

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Notice of Preparation

11

ESA / 205335.01
October 2012

Notice of Preparation

The Groundwater Replenishment Project would include replenishment of the Seaside Groundwater
Basin with wastewater treated at a proposed advanced water treatment plant to be located at the
Regional Treatment Plant. The Groundwater Replenishment Project would convey the treated
water into the Seaside Basin for dilution and storage. Replenishment could occur at either inland
or coastal locations and could include vadose zone wells and/or injection wells. Vadose zone
wells would be used for recharge of the unconfined Paso Robles Aquifer, and injection wells
would directly replenish the confined Santa Margarita Aquifer. The Groundwater Replenishment
Project could be operated during the winter months and during other non-peak months. Extraction
from the Seaside Groundwater Basin can occur later, at any time of the year.

DeepWater Desal Alternative


DeepWater Desal LLC is proposing the DeepWater Desal Alternative, a 25-mgd seawater reverse
osmosis desalination facility that would serve Santa Cruz, San Benito, and Monterey Counties.
The desalination facility would be constructed at Capurro Ranch on a leased 8.14-acre property
located on Highway 1 near Moss Landing. This site is immediately north of the Moss Landing
harbor in Santa Cruz County, and approximately 1 mile from the proposed seawater intake to be
located at the Sandholdt pier, which would be rebuilt under this alternative.12 The intake and
brine discharge pipes would be anchored to the Sandholdt pier. Approximately 50 million gallons
of raw seawater per day would be drawn via a passive13 open-water intake at a depth of about
100 feet through an existing pipeline and easement14 located on the edge of the Monterey
Submarine Canyon. The desalination system would use some existing facilities at the Moss
Landing Power Plant. Approximately 25 mgd of brine discharge would be diluted in the Moss
Landing Power Plants cooling water discharge and returned to the ocean. The desalination
system would include pretreatment facilities and onsite storage tanks and would utilize an
electrical power-source mix. The DeepWater Desal Alternative could qualify for tax-free
municipal bond financing. DeepWater Desal LLC anticipates that municipal agencies within the
Monterey Bay area would form a joint powers authority to assume ownership of the DeepWater
Desal Alternative.15 No details are available at this time regarding the infrastructure needed to
convey product water to the Monterey Peninsula or other service areas.

Peoples Moss Landing Water Desalination Project (Peoples


Project) Alternative
The Peoples Project would be a 10-mgd desalination facility located at the Moss Landing Green
Commercial Park, adjacent to the Moss Landing Power Plant on the former National Refractories
& Minerals Corporation site. The proposed 200-acre site is currently zoned for light and heavy
industrial use, and approximately 25 acres would be designated for the desalination plant. The
Peoples Project would consist of the following major components: screened, passive open-water
12 Construction of the DeepWater Desal Alternative would include the reconstruction of the Sandholdt Pier on its
historical site.
13 Passive intake means that the maximal velocity of seawater being drawn in through the wedge-wire screen will
never exceed 1 foot per second.
14 DeepWater Desal LLC intends to lease this pipeline easement from Dynegy.
15 DeepWater Desal LLC, Our Location and Our Approach. Available online at http://deepwaterdesal.com/.
Accessed August 2012. Updated 2011.

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Notice of Preparation

12

ESA / 205335.01
October 2012

Notice of Preparation

intake (existing, located at the former National Refractories and Minerals Plant site); outfall
pipeline (existing); intake pump station (existing); pretreatment media filtration system; 10-mgd
seawater desalination system; 45-mgd onsite product water storage tanks; post-treatment
facilities; product water pump station; solids handling system; electrical and solar power supply
and energy recovery system; and approximately 13 miles of transmission and/or distribution
pipeline to convey product water to the Monterey Peninsula. The transmission pipeline would be
constructed in paved and unpaved areas and would require crossings at Mojo Cojo Slough,
Tembladero Slough, and the Salinas River. The City of Pacific Grove has agreed to serve as the
lead public agency for The Peoples Moss Landing Water Desalination Project.16

Conservation Alternative
As an alternative to the proposed project, CalAm would implement water reduction efforts and
other conservation measures to reduce demand on the existing water supply. The Monterey
Peninsula Water Management District currently works with CalAm to provide education and
encourage water conservation in an effort to protect water resources in the community. These
conservation efforts include: conservation billing rates, limited watering schedule, free water
audits, free water-saving devices, rebates on high-efficiency appliances, rebates for low water
landscaping, and turf removal. This alternative, which would further expand conservation
programs, could set stricter conservation requirements for residential and commercial customers.
Under this alternative, CalAm would reduce system water loss via leakage control zones, pressure
control, acoustic monitoring, transmission main testing, and main replacement programs. CalAm
would use tiered rates to reduce water use. CalAm would also work with customers to promote
water-wise landscaping and turf replacement, graywater use, plumbing retrofits, and other best
management practices. It is yet to be determined if the Conservation Alternative would be a
project alternative, or if the Conservation Alternative, implemented in conjunction with
desalination, would enable the proposed MPWSP desalination plant to be reduced in size.

Locational Alternatives
The MPWSP EIR will also consider locational alternatives to the MPWSP preferred project,
including alternative desalination plant locations and sizes (capacity); alternate pipeline
alignments; and alternate intake well locations and configurations (i.e. open water intake; vertical
wells; Ranney collector wells; etc.).17

16 The Peoples Moss Landing Water Desal Project, The Project. Available online at

http://www.thepeopleswater.com/theproject.html. Accessed August 2012. Updated March 2012.

17 A Ranney well is a radial arrangement of screens that form a large infiltration gallery with a single central

withdrawal point used to extract water from an aquifer with direct connection (caisson constructed in the sand) to
surface water.

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Notice of Preparation

13

ESA / 205335.01
October 2012

This page intentionally left blank

Appendix A
NOP and NOI Scoping Report

Attachment B
Notice of Intent

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

A-35

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

This page intentionally left blank

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 165 / Wednesday, August 26, 2015 / Notices

rmajette on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

5. Identify the mechanisms of climate


impacts on ecosystems, living marine
resources and resource-dependent
human communities.
6. Track trends in living marine
resources and resource-dependent
human communities and provide early
warning of change.
7. Build and maintain the science
infrastructure needed to fulfill NOAA
Fisheries mandates with changing
climate conditions.
Implementing the Strategy is crucial
for fulfilling NOAA Fisheries mandates,
reducing climate-related impacts and
increasing the resilience of living
marine resources and resourcedependent communities in a changing
climate. The Strategy recommends
specific near- and medium-term actions
that address common information needs
across NOAA Fisheries mandates and
regions.
The draft Climate Science Strategy
underwent public review from January
thru March 2015 (80 FR 3558, January
23, 2015) and received approximately
35 stakeholder comments from fishery
management councils, states, tribes,
academics, Non-Governmental
Organizations and members of the
public. The comments were generally
positive with agreement on the need for
action and support for both the content
of the strategy and its implementation.
The Strategy is designed to be
customized and implemented through
Regional Action Plans that focus on
building regional capacity and
partnerships to address the Strategys
seven objectives. In 20152016, NOAA
Fisheries Science Centers and Regional
Offices will develop Regional Action
Plans to identify strengths, weaknesses,
priorities, and actions to address the
Strategy over the next 5 years.
Development of the Regional Action
Plans will include opportunity for input
from science and management partners
and others. The Strategy is a key part of
NOAA Fisheries efforts to respond to
growing demands for information to
help reduce impacts and increase the
resilience of living marine resources and
the communities that depend on them
in a changing climate.
Dated: August 21, 2015.
Ned Cyr,
Director, Office of Science and Technology,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 201521172 Filed 82515; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 351022P

VerDate Sep<11>2014

14:29 Aug 25, 2015

Jkt 235001

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Proposed Monterey Peninsula Water
Supply Project; Intent To Prepare a
Draft Environmental Impact Statement;
Scoping Meeting
Office of National Marine
Sanctuaries (ONMS), National Ocean
Service (NOS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare
environmental impact statement;
Scoping meeting.
AGENCY:

A permit application has been


submitted by California American Water
Company (CalAm) to Monterey Bay
National Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS) to
construct and operate a seawater reverse
osmosis (SWRO) desalination facility
project (Project) in Monterey County,
California. The permit review process
will be conducted concurrently with a
public process conducted pursuant to
the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). NOAA
is soliciting information and comments
on the range of issues and the
significant issues to be analyzed in
depth related to the Project proposed
within MBNMS boundaries.
DATES: Comments must be received by
October 2, 2015. A public meeting will
be held as detailed below:
Date: September 10, 2015.
Location: Sally Griffin Active Living
Center.
Address: 700 Jewell Avenue, Pacific
Grove 93950.
Time: The meeting will begin at 2:00
p.m.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be
submitted by either of the following
methods:
Electronic Submissions: Submit all
electronic public comments via the
Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to
www.regulations.gov/
#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NOS-20150105, click the Comment Now! icon,
complete the required fields and enter
or attach your comments.
Mail: MBNMS Project Lead for
CalAm Desalination Project, 99 Pacific
Ave., Bldg. 455a, Monterey, CA 93940.
Instructions: Comments sent by any
other method, to any other address or
individual, or received after the end of
the comment period, may not be
considered by NOAA. All comments
received are a part of the public record
and will generally be posted for public
viewing on www.regulations.gov
without change. All personal identifying
information (e.g., name, address, etc.),
SUMMARY:

PO 00000

Frm 00023

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

51787

confidential business information, or


otherwise sensitive information
submitted voluntarily by the sender will
be publicly accessible. ONMS will
accept anonymous comments (enter N/
A in the required fields if you wish to
remain anonymous).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Karen Grimmer at 99 Pacific Ave., Bldg.
455a, Monterey, CA 93940 or
mbnms.comments@noaa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background Information
I. Background
A permit application has been
submitted by CalAm for construction
and operation of its proposed Monterey
Peninsula Water Supply Project
(MPWSP or Project). The purpose of the
MPWSP is to replace existing water
supplies for CalAms Monterey District
service area.
The MPWSP comprises various
facilities and improvements, including:
A sub-surface seawater intake system; a
9.6-million-gallons-per-day (mgd)
seawater reverse osmosis (SWRO)
desalination plant; desalinated water
storage and conveyance facilities; and
expanded Aquifer Storage and Recovery
(ASR) facilities.
The desalination facility would be
capable of producing 10,627 acre-feet
per year (AFY) of potable water on a 46acre site located north of the City of
Marina on unincorporated Monterey
County property. The MPWSP proposes
ten subsurface slant wells to draw
seawater from beneath the ocean floor in
Monterey Bay to produce the source
water for the desalination plant. The
subsurface slant wells would be located
primarily within the City of Marina, in
the active mining area of the CEMEX
sand mining facility. The slant wells
would be approximately 700 to 1000
feet in length, with well tips located at
approximately 200 to 220 feet below
mean sea level. Up to 24.1 mgd of
source water would be needed to
produce 9.6 mgd of desalinated product
water.
The desalination plant would
generate approximately 13.98 mgd of
brine, including 0.4 mgd of decanted
backwash water. The brine would be
discharged into Monterey Bay via a 36inch diameter pipeline to a new
connection with the existing Monterey
Regional Water Pollution Control
Agencys (MRWPCA) outfall and
diffuser located at the wastewater
facility.
II. Need for Action
This notice of intent (NOI) to prepare
a draft environmental impact statement

E:\FR\FM\26AUN1.SGM

26AUN1

51788

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 165 / Wednesday, August 26, 2015 / Notices

and conduct scoping is published in


accordance with: Section 102(2)(C) of
the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) of 1969, as amended; and the
White House Council on Environmental
Quality Regulations for Implementing
the Procedural Provisions of NEPA
(CEQ NEPA Regulations).
The Project was subject to a Draft
Environmental Impact Report (EIR),
under the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
published by the California Public
Utilities Commission (CPUC) in April
2015. The NEPA environmental
documentation will include an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS),
which may be issued as a stand-alone
document or as a joint draft CEQA/
NEPA (EIR/EIS) document with the
CPUC.
The environmental document will
identify and assess potential
environmental impacts associated with
the proposed Project and a range of
alternatives. Federal agencies would use
the EIS to consider related permits or
other approvals for the Project as
proposed. Possible alternatives could
include not approving the Project,
approving a reduced size Project, or
approving the Project with additional
modifications identified as part of the
terms and conditions of a permit or
other approval.
Publication of this notice initiates the
public scoping process to solicit public
and agency comment, in writing or at
the public meeting, regarding the full
spectrum of environmental issues and
concerns relating to the scope and
content of the EIS, including:
Analyses of the human and marine
resources that could be affected;
the nature and extent of the
potential significant impacts on those
resources;
a reasonable range of alternatives to
the proposed action; and
mitigation measures.

rmajette on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

This notice also advises the public


that NOAA will coordinate its
consultation responsibilities under
section 7 of the Endangered Species Act
(ESA), Essential Fish Habitat (EFH)
under the Magnuson Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act
(MSA), section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act (NHPA, 16
U.S.C. 470), and Federal Consistency
review under the Coastal Zone
Management Act (CZMA), along with its
ongoing NEPA process including the
use of NEPA documents and public and
stakeholder meetings to also meet the
requirements of other federal laws.
In fulfilling its consultation
responsibility under the ESA, MSA,
NHPA, CZMA and NEPA, NOAA
intends to identify consulting parties
and involve the public in accordance
with NOAAs NEPA procedures, and
develop in consultation with identified
consulting parties alternatives and
proposed measures that might avoid,
minimize or mitigate any adverse effects
on endangered species, essential fish
habitat, historic properties, or coastal
zone management issues, and describe
them in any environmental assessment
or draft environmental impact
statement.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.
Dated: August 20, 2015.
John Armor,
Acting Director for the Office of National
Marine Sanctuaries.
[FR Doc. 201521133 Filed 82515; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510NKP

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
[Docket ID: DoD2015OS0088]

Proposed Collection; Comment


Request
Office of the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness, DoD.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:

III. Process
This NOI is published by NOAA/
MBNMS, the lead federal agency.
MBNMS has requested CPUC to re-issue
the Project EIR as part of a joint draft
CEQA/NEPA document. If the CPUC, as
CEQA lead agency, determines that a
joint CEQA/NEPA document is
appropriate, the two agencies will
prepare a joint draft EIR/EIS after
completion of the federal scoping
process. The NEPA scoping session
begins at 2:00 p.m., on Thursday,
September 10, 2015 at Sally Griffin
Active Living Center in Pacific Grove,
CA.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

IV. Federal Consultations

14:29 Aug 25, 2015

Jkt 235001

In compliance with the


Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
Office of the Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Personnel and Readiness
announces a proposed public
information collection and seeks public
comment on the provisions thereof.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether
the proposed collection of information
is necessary for the proper performance
of the functions of the agency, including
whether the information shall have

SUMMARY:

PO 00000

Frm 00024

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the


agencys estimate of the burden of the
proposed information collection; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the
burden of the information collection on
respondents, including through the use
of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
DATES: Consideration will be given to all
comments received by October 26, 2015.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by docket number and title,
by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
Mail: Department of Defense, Office
of the Deputy Chief Management
Officer, Directorate of Oversight and
Compliance, Regulatory and Audit
Matters Office, 9010 Defense Pentagon,
Washington, DC 203019010.
Instructions: All submissions received
must include the agency name, docket
number and title for this Federal
Register document. The general policy
for comments and other submissions
from members of the public is to make
these submissions available for public
viewing on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov as they are
received without change, including any
personal identifiers or contact
information.
Any associated form(s) for this
collection may be located within this
same electronic docket and downloaded
for review/testing. Follow the
instructions at http://
www.regulations.gov for submitting
comments. Please submit comments on
any given form identified by docket
number, form number, and title.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To
request more information on this
proposed information collection or to
obtain a copy of the proposal and
associated collection instruments,
please write to the Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Defense, Military
Community and Family Policy, ATTN:
Casualty Affairs, 4000 Defense
Pentagon, Washington, DC 203014000.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Title; Associated Form; and OMB
Number: Questionnaire of Local
Inhabitants, DD Form 1074; Disposition
of Civilian Remains, DD Form 3004;
OMB Control Number 0704XXXX.
Needs and Uses: The information
collection requirement is necessary to
obtain and document information from
local inhabitants on the location and
circumstances surrounding the death of
U.S. personnel for whom the
Department has responsibility to recover

E:\FR\FM\26AUN1.SGM

26AUN1

APPENDIX A1

Draft EIR/EIS Distribution List

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

A1-1

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix A1
Draft EIR/EIS Distribution List

The Draft EIR/EIS, in either CD format or hard copy, was distributed to the following persons,
agencies and individuals. Wide public notification of the website containing the Draft EIR/EIS
for download, and locations of hard copies for public review, was also made through direct
mailing to all property owners and residences within 300-feet of any proposed facility, in the
media and in the Federal Register.
Charissa L. Villanueva ............................. Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
Cody Elliott .............................................. Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
Laura Horton ............................................ Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
Rita I. Chavez ........................................... Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
Marc Del Piero ........................................ Ag Land Trust of Monterey County
Jan Driscoll, Attorney............................... Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory Natsis
Dane Hardin ............................................. Applied Marine Sciences
Maura F. Twomey, Executive Director .... Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments
Jeff Coffman ............................................. Bauer International Corporation
Bruce Stevbry ........................................... Benchmark Resources
Jean Shoaf................................................. BHFS
Scott Blaising, Attorney ........................... Braun Blaising McLaughlin & Smith, P.C
James Brezack .......................................... Brezack & Associates Planning
Caitlin K. Malone ..................................... Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP
Russell McGlothlin................................... Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP
Ryan Drake ............................................... Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP
Anna Shimko ............................................ Burke Williams & Sorensen
Congressman Sam Farr ............................ CA Central Coast (CA-20)
Tom Luster ............................................... CA Coastal Commission
Trish Chapman ......................................... CA Coastal Conservancy
Elizabeth Areizaga ................................... CA Department of Fish & Wildlife
Terry Palmisano ....................................... CA Department of Fish & Wildlife
Kevan Urquhart ........................................ CA Department of Fish & Wildlife
Brandon Sanderson................................... CA Department of Fish & Wildlife
Craig Bailey .............................................. CA Department of Fish & Wildlife
Eric Wilkins .............................................. CA Department of Fish & Wildlife
Jan R. Sweigert ......................................... CA DPH, Health and Human Services Agency
Matt Rodriquez ......................................... CA EPA
John Laird ................................................. CA Natural Resources Agency
Jennifer Lucchesi, Executive Officer ....... CA State Lands Commission
Cynthia Herzog......................................... CA State Lands Commission
Cy R. Oggins, Chief ................................. CA State Lands Commission
Jill Poudrette ............................................. CA State Parks

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

A1-2

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix A1
Draft EIR/EIS Distribution List

Matt Fuzie................................................. CA State Parks


Steve Bachman ......................................... CA State Parks
Kathryn Tobias, Senior Staff Counsel ...... CA State Parks
Senator Dianne Feinstein ......................... CA United States Senator
Corporate Counsel .................................... CalAm
Anthony Cerasuolo ................................... CalAm
David Sousa .............................................. CalAm
Kevin Tilden ............................................. CalAm
Rich Svindland ......................................... CalAm
Rob MacLean ........................................... CalAm
Sherrene Chew ......................................... CalAm
Catherine Stedman ................................... CalAm
Luke Gianni .............................................. CalAm
Ian Crooks ................................................ CalAm
Cathy Hongola-Baptista ........................... CalAm
Cynthia Russell......................................... CalAm
Javier Naranjo........................................... CalAm
Margaret Bailes ........................................ CalAm
Nicholas Subias ........................................ CalAm
Sabrina Ikemire ........................................ CalAm
Sarah Leeper, Attorney............................. CalAm
Jeffrey Linam ........................................... CalAm
Kevin Tilden ............................................. CalAm
Tony Cerasuolo ........................................ CalAm
Laurens Silver, Attorney .......................... California Environmental Law Project
State Senator Sam Blakeslee .................... California's 15th District
Senator Bill Monning ............................... California's 17th District
Kelly Nix .................................................. Carmel Pine Cone
Mike Fillmon ............................................ Carmel Resident
J. Eric Tynan............................................. Castroville Community Service District
John Robertson ......................................... Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board
Kim Sanders ............................................. Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board
Peter Von Langen ..................................... Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board
Phil Hammer............................................. Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board
Sharon Denker .......................................... Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board
Ed Mitchell ............................................... Citizens for Public Water
Jason Burnett ............................................ City of Carmel-by-The-Sea
Public Works Division ............................. City of Marina

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

A1-3

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix A1
Draft EIR/EIS Distribution List

Marilyn Lidyoff ........................................ City of Marina


Frank O'Connell, Mayor Pro Tem ............ City of Marina
Gail Morton, City Council........................ City of Marina
Layne Long, City Manager....................... City of Marina
Bruce Carlos Delgado, Mayor .................. City of Marina
Nancy Amadeo, City Council................... City of Marina
David Brown, City Council ...................... City of Marina
Theresa Szymanis ..................................... City of Marina Community Development Department
Virgil Piper ............................................... City of Marina Planning Commission
Greg Furey ................................................ City of Marina Planning Commission
Debra Daniels ........................................... City of Marina Planning Commission
David Burnett ........................................... City of Marina Planning Commission
Gene Doherty ........................................... City of Marina Planning Commission
Kenneth Turgen ........................................ City of Marina Planning Commission
Margaret Davis ......................................... City of Marina Planning Commission
Fred Meurer, City Manager ...................... City of Monterey
Jessica Clark ............................................. City of Monterey
Clyde Roberson ........................................ City of Monterey
Chip Rerig ................................................ City of Monterey
Bill Kampe, Mayor ................................... City of Pacific Grove
Rudy Fischer, Council Member ............... City of Pacific Grove
Thomas Frutchey, City Manager .............. City of Pacific Grove
David Pendergrass, Mayor ....................... City of Sand City
Rick Riedl ................................................. City of Seaside
Rick Medina ............................................. City of Seaside Community Development Division
Diana Ingersoll ......................................... City of Seaside, Resources Management Services
Mistie Wilson ........................................... City of Seaside, Resources Management Services
Tim OHalloran ........................................ City of Seaside, Resources Management Services
John Narigi ............................................... Coalition of Peninsula Businesses
Bob McKenzie .......................................... Coalition of Peninsula Businesses
Bill Robnett, Library Director .................. CSU Monterey Bay
Vidhya Prabhakaran ................................. Davis Wright & Tremaine, LLP
Frances Farina, Attorney .......................... De Lay & Laredo
Heidi Quinn .............................................. De Lay & Laredo
Brent R. Constantz ................................... DeepWater Desal LLC
Kim Adamson........................................... DeepWater Desal LLC
Dan Carroll, Attorney ............................... Downey Brand, LLP.
Robert Donlan .......................................... Ellison, Schneider & Harris, LLP

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

A1-4

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix A1
Draft EIR/EIS Distribution List

Eric Zigas ................................................. Environmental Science Associates


Michael Houlemard .................................. Fort Ord Reuse Authority
Steve Endsley ........................................... Fort Ord Reuse Authority
Juliet M. Quiambao ................................. Friedman & Springwater LLP
Ruth Stoner Muzzin.................................. Friedman & Springwater, LLP
Mark Fogelman ........................................ Friedman & Springwater, LLP
Brian Mooney, Attorney........................... Gorden & Rees, LLP
Edward Fitzgerald ................................... Gorden & Rees, LL
Kenneth Strong ......................................... Gorden & Rees, LLP
Roger K. Masuda ...................................... Griffith & Masuda
Chuck Hansen........................................... Hansen Investment Holdings LLC
Elizabeth Conron ...................................... Homeowner
Carol Ann Reeb ........................................ Hopkins Marine Station
John Fio .................................................... HydroFocus
Tim Durbin ............................................... Hydrogeologist Working Group
Peter Leffler .............................................. Hydrogeologist Working Group
Dennis Williams ....................................... Hydrogeologist Working Group
Martin Feeney........................................... Hydrogeologist Working Group
Eric Robinson ........................................... Kronick Moskovitz Tiedermann & Girard
Janet Brennan ........................................... Landwatch Monterey County
Julie Engell ............................................... Landwatch Monterey County
John H. Farrow ......................................... LandWatch Monterey County
Carlos Ramos ........................................... Latino Water-Use Coalition-Monterey Peninsula/
Latino Seaside Merchants Association/
Communidad en Action
Molly Erickson ......................................... Law Offices of Michael W. Stamp
Martha Lennihan ...................................... Lennihan Law
Lori Anne Dolqueist, Attorney ................. Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP
Carl Niizawa ............................................. Marina Coast Water District
Keith Van Der Maaten ............................. Marina Coast Water District
Thomas Moore ......................................... Marina Coast Water District
Jan Shriner ................................................ Marina Coast Water District
Christel Allford......................................... Mast Realty
Paul Michel, Superintendent .................... MBNMS
Karen Grimmer......................................... MBNMS
Bridget Hoover ......................................... MBNMS
Kevin Stone .............................................. MCAR
Don Evans ................................................ MCWO

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

A1-5

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix A1
Draft EIR/EIS Distribution List

Patrick Mitchell ........................................ Mitchell Chadwick on behalf of CEMEX


David W. Balch ........................................ Moncrief & Hart, on behalf of Peoples Project
Trevor Fay ................................................ Monterey Abalone Company
Amiee David............................................. Monterey Bay Aquarium
Barbara Meister ........................................ Monterey Bay Aquarium
Margaret Spring ........................................ Monterey Bay Aquarium
Al Budris .................................................. Monterey Bay Sanctuary Advisory Council
Jim Moser ................................................. Monterey Bay Sanctuary Advisory Council
Gary Pezzi ................................................ Monterey Bay Sanctuary Advisory Council
Dr. Steve Lindley ..................................... Monterey Bay Sanctuary Advisory Council
Gary Hoffmann......................................... Monterey Bay Sanctuary Advisory Council
Tucker Hirsch ........................................... Monterey Bay Sanctuary Advisory Council
Rich Hughett............................................. Monterey Bay Sanctuary Advisory Council
Cyndi Dawson .......................................... Monterey Bay Sanctuary Advisory Council
Deborah Halberstadt ................................. Monterey Bay Sanctuary Advisory Council
Dave Feliz, Reserve Manager................... Monterey Bay Sanctuary Advisory Council
Paul Reilly ................................................ Monterey Bay Sanctuary Advisory Council
Tom Rowley ............................................. Monterey Bay Sanctuary Advisory Council
Steve McShane ......................................... Monterey Bay Sanctuary Advisory Council
Dr. John Hunt ........................................... Monterey Bay Sanctuary Advisory Council
Deb Wilson-Vandenberg .......................... Monterey Bay Sanctuary Advisory Council
Brent Marshall .......................................... Monterey Bay Sanctuary Advisory Council
Clifton Herrmann ..................................... Monterey Bay Sanctuary Advisory Council
Dan Haifley .............................................. Monterey Bay Sanctuary Advisory Council
Brian Nelson ............................................. Monterey Bay Sanctuary Advisory Council
Steve Scheiblauer, Harbormaster ............. Monterey Bay Sanctuary Advisory Council
Barton Selby ............................................. Monterey Bay Sanctuary Advisory Council
Christina McGinnis .................................. Monterey Bay Sanctuary Advisory Council
Jimmy Dutra ............................................. Monterey Bay Sanctuary Advisory Council
Megan Rodenbeck .................................... Monterey Bay Sanctuary Advisory Council
Cynthia Mathews ...................................... Monterey Bay Sanctuary Advisory Council
Katherine O'Dea ....................................... Monterey Bay Sanctuary Advisory Council
Amity Sandage ......................................... Monterey Bay Sanctuary Advisory Council
Jose Montes .............................................. Monterey Bay Sanctuary Advisory Council
Michael Bekker ........................................ Monterey Bay Sanctuary Advisory Council
Edwin Smith ............................................. Monterey Bay Sanctuary Advisory Council
Carol Maehr .............................................. Monterey Bay Sanctuary Advisory Council
Dan Carl ................................................... Monterey Bay Sanctuary Advisory Council

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

A1-6

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix A1
Draft EIR/EIS Distribution List

Tami Grove............................................... Monterey Bay Sanctuary Advisory Council


Dan Falat .................................................. Monterey Bay Sanctuary Advisory Council
Dr. Steven Haddock ................................. Monterey Bay Sanctuary Advisory Council
Linda McIntyre, Esq. ................................ Monterey Bay Sanctuary Advisory Council
Letise Lafeir ............................................. Monterey Bay Sanctuary Advisory Council
Lisa McCann ............................................ Monterey Bay Sanctuary Advisory Council
Philip Sammet .......................................... Monterey Bay Sanctuary Advisory Council
Robert Massaro......................................... Monterey Bay Sanctuary Advisory Council
Kirk Schmidt ............................................ Monterey Bay Sanctuary Advisory Council
Kathy Fosmark ......................................... Monterey Bay Sanctuary Advisory Council
Margaret "PJ" Webb ................................. Monterey Bay Sanctuary Advisory Council
Dr. Mariela de la Paz Carpio-Obeso......... Monterey Bay Sanctuary Advisory Council
Steve McGrath .......................................... Monterey Bay Sanctuary Advisory Council
LCDR Jason Brand ................................... Monterey Bay Sanctuary Advisory Council
Amy Clymo .............................................. Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District
Victor Henry ............................................. Monterey City Library
Charles McKee ......................................... Monterey County
Norman Groot........................................... Monterey County Farm Bureau
Castroville Branch .................................... Monterey County Free Library
Buena Vista Branch .................................. Monterey County Free Library
Seaside Branch ......................................... Monterey County Free Library
Carmel Valley Branch .............................. Monterey County Free Library
Jim Johnson .............................................. Monterey County Herald
Jacqueline R. Onciano ............................. Monterey County Resource Management Agency
Luke Connelly ......................................... Monterey County Resource Management Agency
Mike Novo, Planning Director ................. Monterey County Resource Management Agency
Mike Logsdon........................................... Monterey County Water Resources Agency
Robert Johnson ......................................... Monterey County Water Resources Agency
David Chardavoyne, General Manager .... Monterey County Water Resources Agency
Raul Martinez, Assistant Engineer ........... Monterey County, DPW
Jody Handson ........................................... Monterey Peninsula Chamber of Commerce
Michael Bowhay....................................... Monterey Peninsula Country Club
David Stoldt, General Manager ................ Monterey Peninsula Water Management District
Joe Oliver ................................................. Monterey Peninsula Water Management District
David Laredo ............................................ Monterey Peninsula Water Management District
Larry Hampson ......................................... Monterey Peninsula Water Management District
David Hart ................................................ Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency
Sabrina V. Teller ...................................... Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

A1-7

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix A1
Draft EIR/EIS Distribution List

Bob Holden............................................... Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency


Paul Sciuto, General Manager ................ Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency
Chayito Ibarra ........................................... Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency
Mike McCullough .................................... Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency
Nelson Vega ............................................. MPOA/Vega Investment
Katy Sanchez, Program Analyst ............... Native American Heritage Commission
Korie Schaeffer......................................... NMFS - West Coast Region
Alecia Van Atta ........................................ NMFS - West Coast Region
Patrick Rutten ........................................... NOAA Fisheries
William Stevens ....................................... NOAA Fisheries
Lloyd Lowery ........................................... Noland, Hamerly, Etienne & Hoss
Peter Landreth .......................................... NRG Energy
Governor Jerry Brown .............................. Office of Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr
Senator Barbara Boxer ............................. Office of U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer
Diana Godwin........................................... Pacific Grove City Library
Carolyn Nielson ........................................ Peoples Moss Landing Desal Project
Laura Godfrey Zagar ................................ Perkins Coie, LLP
Ann B. Beaumont ..................................... Perkins Coie, LLP
James McTarnaghan ................................. Perkins Coie, LLP
Catherine Berte ......................................... Perkins Coie, LLP
Jonas Minton ............................................ Planning and Conservation League
Kriss Neuman ........................................... Point Blue Conservation Science
Patricia Nelson ......................................... Public Trust Alliance
Michael Warburton, Exec Dir. ................. Public Trust Alliance
J.U. Pistone, MD ...................................... Public Trust Alliance
Charles S. Cech ........................................ Public Water Now
George Riley............................................. Public Water Now
Melodie Chrislock .................................... Public Water Now
Paul Findley .............................................. RBF Consulting
Roger Moore............................................. Rossmann and Moore, LLP
John Steinbeck Library ............................. Salinas Public Library
Nancy Isakson, President ......................... Salinas Valley Water Coalition
Bob Jaques ................................................ Seaside Basin Watermaster
Dewey Evan ............................................. Seaside Basin Watermaster
Paul Bruno ................................................ Seaside Basin Watermaster
Bob Jaques ................................................ Seaside Basin Watermaster
Darren M. Franklin ................................... Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLP
Edward T. Schexnayder............................ Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

A1-8

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix A1
Draft EIR/EIS Distribution List

Gabriel Ross, Attorney ............................. Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger, LLP


Ahmad Kashkoli ....................................... State Water Resources Control Board
David Balgobin......................................... State Water Resources Control Board
Claire Waggoner....................................... State Water Resources Control Board
Joe Geever ................................................ Surfrider Foundation
Angela Howe ........................................... Surfrider Foundation
Sarah Damron ........................................... Surfrider Foundation
Anthony Tersol ......................................... Surfrider Foundation - Monterey Chapter
Staley Prom, Esq. ..................................... Surfrider Foundation - Monterey Chapter
Karin Locke .............................................. Sustainable Pacific Grove
Mark Mondragon ...................................... Tribe - Amah Mutsun Tribal Band
Edward Ketchum ...................................... Tribe - Amah Mutsun Tribal Band
Valentin Lopez ......................................... Tribe - Amah Mutsun Tribal Band
Irenne Zwierlein ....................................... Tribe - Amah Mutsun Tribal Band
Tony Cerda ............................................... Tribe - Coastanoan Rumsen Carmel Tribe
Tom Little Bear Nason ............................. Tribe - Esselen Tribe of Monterey County
Ann Marie Sayers ..................................... Tribe - Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Coastanoan
Pauline Martinez-Arias............................. Tribe - Ohlone/Coastanoan-Esselen Nation
Christianne Arias ...................................... Tribe - Ohlone/Coastanoan-Esselen Nation
Louise Miranda-Ramirez .......................... Tribe - Ohlone/Coastanoan-Esselen Nation
Julie Tilley Barlow, AICP ........................ Turnstone Consulting
Katerina Galacatos ................................... US Army Corps of Engineers
Joelle Lobo ............................................... US Army Garrison, Presidio of Monterey
US Dept. of Homeland Security .............. US Coast Guard
Commanding Officer ................................ US Coast Guard Station Monterey
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator ............. US EPA Region 9
Stephanie Gordon ..................................... US EPA Region 9
David Wampler ........................................ US EPA Water Division
Stephanie Skophammer Gordon ............... US EPA, Region 9, Environmental Review Section
Jacob Martin ............................................. US Fish and Wildlife Service
Roger Root ............................................... US Fish and Wildlife Service
Diane K. Noda, Field Supervisor ............. US Fish and Wildlife Service
Dick Rotter ............................................... Water Plus
Paul Hart .................................................. Water Plus
Ron Weitzman, President ......................... Water Plus
Ron Weitzman, President ......................... Water Plus
Robert Wellington .................................... Wellington Law Office

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

A1-9

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix A1
Draft EIR/EIS Distribution List

Individuals
Douglas Smith

Mel Kent

James Toy

Christina W. Holston

Frederick and Karin Schwoerke

Nancy Selfridge

Jay Roland

Bill Carrothers

Ronald J. Roland

Manuel and Janine Fierro

Lester Schwabe

Cynthia Laurance

David Beech

Jay Bartow

Kristie Rtimer

Steven Huish

Jean Kiacht

Michael Ostovich

Steve Grace

Myrleen Fishel

Ian Oglessy

Michael Baer

Martha Wright

Jane Haines

Bob Olives

Vicki Williams

Roger Powers

Herbard and Peggy Olsen

Meredith Harrill

R. Burkan

Marion Botty

Jean Donnelly

John and Marion Bottomley

Leslie Rosenfeld

Pat and Tony Venza

Chris Herron

Dan Presser

Darby Moss Worth

Stephen Collins

Taylor Pollard

Donovan

Bill Bourcier

Phyllis Meurer

Bill Godwin

Roy L. Thomas

George Brehmer

Roland Martin

Harvey Billig

Larry Parrish

L.A. Paterson

Roger J. Dolan

Caulis Romos

Margaret Ann Coppernoll, Ph.D.

Lindy Marrington

Kathy and Harvey Biala

Buck Jones

Christina Bell

Doug Wilhelm

Barbara Martin

Safwat Malek

Peter Le

Michael Cate

Ken Ekelund

Robert Siegfried

Ray M. Harrod Jr.

Susan Willey

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

A1-10

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

APPENDIX B1

MPWSP Plant Sizing Data: Various Five- and


Ten-Year Normal, Dry, and Maximum Month
Demand Scenarios

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

B1-1

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

This page intentionally left blank

Exhibit CA-30
(A.12-04-019)
Provided by California American Water
CPUC Evidentiary Hearing
December 2, 2013

MPWSP - PLANT SIZING DATA


5 Year:
Normal Year - with SB , LOR , PB , TBB

Demand

SUPI)ly

Item

Item

(AFY)

Desai Plant
Carmel River
Sand City
ASR

9,752
3,376
94
1,300

Lots of Record
Pebble Beach

500

Tourism Bounce back

15,296

Total

15,296

Total

13,291
1,180
325

5 year Avg Demand

774

Seaside Basin

(AFY)

Deficit

Exh. CA-6, Direct Testimony of Richard C. Svindland, dated April 23, 2012
("Svindland Direct"), pp. 16-18 (desal plant size, ASR), 22 (lots of record),
Attachment 3, p. 3 (5-Year Average Demand), 7-8 (Carmel River), 8 (Sand
City); Exh. CA-12, Supplemental Testimony of Richard C. Svindland, dated
January 11,2013 ("Svindland Supplemental"), pp. 4-5 (Seaside Basin, Tourism
Bounce Back, Pebble Beach, 5 year avg demand), Attachment 1, pp. 3 (5 Year
avg Demand), 4 (Lots of Record, Pebble Beach, Tourism Bounce Back), 9
(Sand City, Seaside Basin); Exh. CA-21, Rebuttal Testimony of Richard C.
Svindland, dated March 8, 2013 ("Svindland Rebuttal"), p. 16 (DesaI Plant); RT
988:10 - 989:21 (Svindland/CAW [Normal 5 year avg demand); RT 990:15 991 :7 (Svindland/CA W [Seaside BasinD.

Dry Year at S tart 0 fD esal 'peration Wit. h S B, LO R, P B. T BB

Demand

Supply

Item
Desai Plant
Carmel River
Sand City
ASR
Seaside Basin
Total

Item

(AFY)

9,752
3,376
94

774
13,996

(AFY)

5 year Avg Demand

13,291
1,180
325

Lots of Record
Pebble Beach

500

Tourism Bounce back

15,296

Total
Deficit

1,300

System Demand for No Impact

11,991

Exh. CA-6, Svindland Direct, pp. 16-18 (de sal plant size), 22 (lots of record),
Attachment 3, p. 3 (5-Year Average Demand), 7-8 (Carmel River), 8 (Sand
City); Exh. CA-12, Svindland Supplemental, pp. 4-5 (Seaside Basin, Tourism
Bounce Back, Pebble Beach, 5-year avg demand), Attachment 1, pp. 3 (5 year
avg demand), 4 (Lots of Record, Pebble Beach, Tourism Bounce Back), 9 (Sand

City, Seaside Basin); Exh. CA-21, Svindland Rebuttal, p. 16 (DesaI Plant); RT


990:15 - 991:7 (Svindland/CAW [Seaside Basin]).

Max Deman dYear at Sta rt 0 f Desa 10'peratlOn Wit. h SB , LOR , PB , TBB


Supply

Demand

(AF'()

Item
Desai Plant

(AFY)

Item
5 year Max Demand
Lots of Record

Sand City

9,752
3,376
94

Pebble Beach

325

ASR

1,300

Tourism Bounce back

500

Carmel River

Seaside Basin

774

14,644

15,469

Total

15,296

Total

Deficit

173

System Demand for No Impact

14,471

Exh. CA-6, Svindland Direct, pp. 16-18 (desal plant size), Attachment 3, pp. 78 (Carmel River supply), 8 (Sand City); Exh. CA-12, Svindland Supplemental,
pp. 4 (Seaside Basin, Tourism Bounce Back, Pebble Beach), Attachment 1, p. 4
(Pebble Beach, Tourism Bounce Back), 9 (Sand City, Seaside Basin); Exh. CA21, Svindland Rebuttal, p. 16 (DesaI Plant); RT 990:15 - 991:7
(Svindland/CAW); RT 990:15 - 991:7 (Svindland/CAW [Seaside Basin]).

Max Deman dYeara t Sta rt 0 f Desa 10'peratlon - DRYYear, WI"th SB, PB , TBB
Demand

SUPJly
Item
Desai Plant
Carmel River
Sand City

(AFY)

9,752
3,376
94

ASR
Seaside Basin
Total

774
13,996

(AFY)

Item

14,644

5 year Max Demand


Lots of Record

Pebble Beach

325

Tourism Bounce back

500
15,469

Total
Deficit

1,473

System Demand for No Impact

13,171

Exh. CA-6, Svindland Direct, pp. 16-18 (de sal plant size), Attachment 3, pp. 7-8
(Carmel River supply), 8 (Sand City); Exh. CA-12, Svindland Supplemental,
pp. 4 (Seaside Basin, Tourism Bounce Back, Pebble Beach), Attachment 1, p. 4
(Pebble Beach, Tourism Bounce Back), 9 (Sand City, Seaside Basin); Exh. CA21, Svindland Rebuttal, p. 16 (DesaI Plant); RT 990:15 - 991:7
(Svindland/CAW); RT 990: 15 - 991:7 (Svindland/CAW [Seaside Basin]).

Max Demand Year at S tart 0 f Desai >peratlon - DRY Year, PB, TBB, no S B
SUPI~ly

Item

Demand
(AFY)

Item

Desai Plant

9,752

Carmel River

3,376

Sand City

94

ASR
Seaside Basin
Total

1,474

(AFY)
14,644

5 year Max Demand


Lots of Record

Pebble Beach

325

Tourism Bounce back

500
15,469

Total

14,696

Deficit

773

System Demand for No Impact

13,871

Exh. CA-6, Svindland Direct, pp. 16-18 (de sal plant size), Attachment 3, pp. 7-8
(Carmel River supply), 8 (Sand City, Seaside Basin); Exh. CA-12, Svindland
Supplemental, pp. 4 (Seaside Basin, Tourism Bounce Back, Pebble Beach),
Attachment 1, p. 4 (Seaside Basin, Pebble Beach, Tourism Back Back), 9 (Sand
City, Seaside Basin); Exh. CA-21, Svindland Rebuttal, p. 16 (DesaI Plant); RT
990:15 - 991:7 (Svindland/CAW [Seaside Basin]).

10 Year:
PI an t Needdt
e o meet10 year

Max Deman d & LOR , PB , TBB , SB


Demand

Supply
Item

(AFY)

Desai Plant

11,623

Carmel River
Sand City
ASR
Seaside Basin
Total

3,376
94
1,300
774
17,167

Item

(AFY)
15,162

10 year Max Demand


Lots of Record

1,180

Pebble Beach

325

Tourism Bounce back

500
17,167

Total
Deficit

Exh. CA-6, Svindland Direct, p. 22 (lots of record), Attachment 3, pp. 7-8


(Carmel River supply), 8 (Sand City); Exh. CA-12, Svindland Supplemental,
pp. 4 (Seaside Basin, Tourism Bounce Back, Pebble Beach), Attachment 1, p.
4 (Seaside Basin, Lots of Record, Pebble Beach, Tourism Back Back), 9
(Sand City, Seaside Basin); RT 990:15 - 991:7 (Svindland/CAW [Seaside
Basin]).

10 year

Max Deman d -WIth

9 6 MGD PI an t & 5B b ut no LOR , PB , TBB

Supply
Item

Demand

(AFY)

(AFY)

Item

Desai Plant

9,976

10 year Max Demand

Carmel River

3,376

Lots of Record

Sand City

94

Pebble Beach

ASR

1,300

Tourism Bounce back

Seaside Basin

774

Total

Total

15,520

15,162

15,162
Deficit

(358)

Exh. CA-6, Svindland Direct, Attachment 3, pp. 7-8 (Carmel River supply),
8 (Sand City); Exh. CA-12, Svindland Supplemental, pp. 4 (Seaside Basin),
Attachment 1, p. 4 (Seaside Basin), 9 (Sand City, Seaside Basin); RT 990:15
- 991:7 (Svindland/CAW [Seaside Basin]).

10 year

Max Deman d - Wit. h 9 6 MGD PI an t DRY Y ear


Supply
Item

Demand

(AFY)

Desai Plant

9,976

10 year Max Demand

Carmel River

3,376

Lots of Record

Sand City

94

Pebble Beach

ASR

(AFY)

Item

15,162

Tourism Bounce back

Seaside Basin

774

Total

14,220

15,162

Total
Deficit

942

Exh. CA-6, Svindland Direct, Attachment 3, pp. 7-8 (Carmel River supply), 8
(Sand City); Exh. CA-12, Svindland Supplemental, pp. 4 (Seaside Basin),
Attachment 1, p. 4 (Seaside Basin), 9 (Sand City, Seaside Basin); RT 990:15
- 991:7 (Svindland/CAW [Seaside Basin]).

10 year

Max Deman d -WIth

9 6 MGD PI an t DRY Y ear & N0 8 aSIn


. Paylback

Supply

Demand

(AFY)

Item

(AFY)

Item

Desai Plant

9,976

10 year Max Demand

Carmel River

3,376

Lots of Record

Sand City

94

Pebble Beach

ASR

15,162

Tourism Bounce back

Seaside Basin

1,474

Total

14,920

15,162

Total
Deficit

242

Exh. CA-6, Svindland Direct, Attachment 3, pp. 7-8 (Carmel River supply),
8 (Sand City, Seaside Basin); Exh. CA-12, Svindland Supplemental, pp. 4
(Seaside Basin), Attachment 1, p. 4 (Seaside Basin), 9 (Sand City, Seaside
Basin); RT 990:15 - 991:7 (Svindland/CAW [Seaside Basin]).

Max Month:
M
aXlmum Mth5
on - yr A vg .

Supply
Item

Demand

(AF)

Desai Plant

813

5 year Average

Carmel River

100

Lots of Record

Sand City

113
31
48

433

Tourism Bounce back

Seaside Basin

370

Total

1,724

1,388

Pebble Beach

ASR (Extraction)

Total

(AFY)

Item

1,580
Deficit

(143)

Exh. CA-6, Svindland Direct, p. 17 (maximum demand months/days).

M"
aXlmum Mon th

- 5 yr H"Igih

Supply

Demand

(AF)

Item

813

5 year Max

Carmel River

100

Lots of Record

Sand City

(AFY)

Item

Desai Plant

1,532
113

Pebble Beach

31
48

ASR (Extraction)

433

Tourism Bounce back

Seaside Basin

370

Total

Total

1,724

1,724

Deficit

Exh. CA-6, Svindland Direct, p. 17 (maximum demand months/days).

M"
aXlmum Mon th

- 10 yr H igh

Supply

Demand

(AF)

Item

813

10 year Max

Carmel River

200

Lots of Record

Sand City

(AFY)

Item

Desai Plant

1,709
113

Pebble Beach

31
48

ASR (Extraction)

433

Tourism Bounce back

Seaside Basin

448

Total

Total

1,901

1,902

(0)

Deficit

Exh. CA-6, Svindland Direct, p. 17 (maximum demand months/days).

MaXlmum
"
Mont h - 10 yr Higlh - DRY Y ear at PI ant Start Up
Supply
Item

Demand

(AF)
813

10 year Max

Carmel River

200

Lots of Record

Sand City

ASR (Extraction)
Seaside Basin
Total

(AFY)

Item

Desai Plant

448
1,469

1,709
113

Pebble Beach

31

Tourism Bounce back

48
1,901

Total
Deficit

433

Exh. CA-6, Svindland Direct, p. 17 (maximum demand months/days).

SVRG:
Customer
Desai Plant Size
MGD

AFY

Demand

SV Return

Available

AFY

AFY

AFY

Remaining
for
Operations
AFY

Excess
Availablity

9.6

10,752

9,752

880

1,000

120

1.1%

6.9

7,728

6,752

590

976

386

5.0%

6.4

7,168

6,252

550

916

366

5.1%

Exh. CA-12, Svindland Supplemental, pp. 11 (DesaI Plant Size and Demand); Exh.
CA-21, Svindland Rebuttal, p. 16 (DesaI Plant).

APPENDIX B2

State Water Board Final Analysis of the


Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

B2-1

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

This page intentionally left blank

TO:

Paul Clanon
Executive Director
Public Utilities Commission
505 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102-3298

FROM:

Michael Buckman
Senior Environmental Scientist
DIVISION OF WATER RIGHTS

DATE:

JUL 31 2013

SUBJECT:

FINAL REPORT ON ANALYSIS OF MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER


SUPPLY PROJECT PROPOSED IN APPLICATION 12-04-019 BY CALIFORNIA
AMERICAN WATER COMPANY

Enclosed is the State Water Resources Control Boards (State Water Board) final report on an
analysis of California American Water Companys (Cal-Am) proposed Monterey Peninsula
Water Supply Project (MPWSP). The California Public Utilities Commission (Commission)
requested that the State Water Board assist the Commission in reviewing whether Cal-Am has
the legal right to extract desalination feedwater for the proposed MPWSP.

On December 21, 2012, the State Water Board provided the Commission an initial draft of the
report and on February 14, 2013, the Commission provided the State Water Board comments
on the initial draft report. The Commissions February 14, 2013 correspondence also contained
additional information for the State Water Board to evaluate, specifically, a revised design of the
feedwater intake system for the MPWSP.
On April 3, 2013, the State Water Board released a revised report as well as a notice of
opportunity for public comment. Staff received six timely letters from commenters and made
revisions to the draft.

On June 4, 2013, the State Water Board held a public workshop in Monterey to allow for local
stakeholder input. At the workshop staff presented a review of the revised draft report and
received feedback. Following the public workshop, State Water Board staff made minor
amendments and finalized the report.

Mr. Paul Clanon


Public Utilities Commission

-2-

JUL 31 2013

If you have any questions regarding this matter, you may contact me at (916) 341-5448
(mbuckman@waterboards.ca.gov) or Paul Murphey at (916) 341-5435
(pmurphey@waterboards.ca.gov). Written correspondence should be addressed as follows:
State Water Resources Control Board
Division of Water Rights
Attn: Michael Buckman
P.O. Box 2000
Sacramento, CA 95812

Enclosure

STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD


FINAL REVIEW OF CALIFORNIA AMERICAN

WATER COMPANYS MONTEREY PENINSULA


WATER SUPPLY PROJECT
July 31, 2013

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................................................. i
1.

Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1

2.

Background .............................................................................................................. 2

3.

Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Description............................................. 4

4.

Physical Setting ........................................................................................................ 9

5.

4.1

Groundwater Aquifers ........................................................................................ 9

4.2

Groundwater Quality & Seawater Intrusion ...................................................... 14

4.3

Groundwater Recharge and Discharge ............................................................ 18

4.4

Groundwater Gradient ...................................................................................... 19

4.5

Groundwater Modeling ..................................................................................... 20

Proposed Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project ............................................. 21


5.1

Gravity Well Design .......................................................................................... 21

5.2

Pumping Well Design ....................................................................................... 22

5.3

Groundwater Capture Zone Delineation ........................................................... 23

5.4

Extraction Scenarios ........................................................................................ 25

5.4.1

Extraction of Feedwater by Gravity Wells .................................................. 25

5.4.2

Pumping from Unconfined Conditions ....................................................... 26

5.4.3

Pumping from Confined Conditions ........................................................... 30

5.4.4

Potential Pumping Effects on Seawater Intrusion ...................................... 30

5.5
6.

Summary of Impacts ........................................................................................ 31

Legal Discussion of Proposed Extraction Wells in Basin ........................................ 33


6.1

General Principles of Groundwater Law ........................................................... 34

6.2

Developed Water ............................................................................................. 36

6.3

Physical Solution Discussion............................................................................ 40

6.4

Summary of Legal Analysis .............................................................................. 46

7.

Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 48

8.

Recommendations .................................................................................................. 50

APPENDIX A: RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED ........................... 52


APPENDIX B: RESPONSES TO LATE COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED ................. 61
APPENDIX C: REFERENCES ...................................................................................... 63
APPENDIX D: TIMELY COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED .......................................... 66
APPENDIX E: LATE COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED ............................................ 260

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
The California Public Utilities Commission (Commission) asked the State Water
Resources Control Board (State Water Board) whether the California American Water
Company (Cal-Am) has the legal right to extract desalination feedwater for the proposed
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP). Cal-Am proposes several
approaches that it claims would legally allow it to extract water from the Salinas Valley
Groundwater Basin (SVGB or Basin) near or beneath Monterey Bay without violating
groundwater rights or injuring groundwater users in the Basin. The purpose of this
report is to examine the available technical information and outline legal considerations
which would apply to Cal-Ams proposed MPWSP.

Technical Conclusions
There are gravity and pumped well designs proposed for the MPWSP, with several well
locations proposed. Well design and location tests will be needed for complete
technical and legal analysis. The conditions in the aquifer where MPWSP feedwater
would be extracted could be either confined or unconfined, however, there is currently
not enough information to determine what type of conditions exist at the location of the
MPWSP wells. Effects from confined aquifer pumping would be observed over a larger
area than if extraction occurred from an unconfined aquifer. Previous groundwater
modeling studies for one of the proposed MPWSP well locations indicated there would
be an approximate 2-mile radius for the zone-of-influence of the extraction wells, if
groundwater was pumped from an unconfined aquifer. It is unknown what the effects
would be if water was pumped from a confined aquifer with different hydrogeologic
conditions.

The aquifers underlying the proposed extraction locations have been intruded with
seawater since at least the 1940s. The impairment means that beneficial uses of the
water in the intruded area are limited; however the actual extent of water use is not
known. Groundwater quality in the Basin will be a key factor in determining the effects
i

of extraction on groundwater users in the Basin, assessing any potential injury that may
occur, and measures that would be necessary to compensate for it.

Legal Conclusions
To appropriate groundwater from the Basin, the burden is on Cal-Am to show their
project will not cause injury to other users. Key factors will be: (1) how much fresh
water Cal-Am extracts as a proportion of the total pumped amount, (to determine the
amount of water, that after treatment, would be considered desalinated seawater
available for export as developed water); (2) whether pumping affects the water table
level in existing users wells, (3); whether pumping affects seawater intrusion within the
Basin (4) how Cal-Am returns any fresh water it extracts to the Basin to prevent injury to
others; and (5) how groundwater rights might be affected in the future if the proportion
of fresh and seawater changes in the larger Basin area or the immediate area around
Cal-Ams wells.

If overlying groundwater users are protected from injury, appropriation of water


consistent with the principles discussed in this report may be possible. To export water
outside the Basin, Cal-Am must show 1) the desalinated water it produces is developed
water, 2) replacement water methods to return water to the Basin are effective and
feasible, and 3) the MPWSP can operate without injury to other users. A physical
solution could be employed to assure all groundwater users rights are protected.

Recommendations
Additional information is needed to accurately determine MPWSP impacts on current
and future conditions of the Basin regardless of whether the extraction occurs from
pumped or gravity wells. First, specific information is needed on the depth of the wells
and aquifer conditions. Studies are needed to determine the extent of the Dune Sand
Aquifer, the water quality and water quantity of the Dune Sand Aquifer, the extent and
thickness of the Salinas Valley Aquitard, and the extent of the 180-Foot Aquifer.

Second, the effects of the MPWSP on the Basin need to be evaluated. Specifically, a
series of test boring/wells are needed to assess the hydrogeologic conditions at the site.
ii

Aquifer testing is also needed to determine the pumping effects on both the Dune Sand
Aquifer and the underlying 180-Foot Aquifer. Pre-project conditions should be identified
prior to aquifer testing. Aquifer tests should mimic proposed pumping rates. To avoid
unnecessary delays in development of the final system configuration, it is advisable that
Cal-Am conduct similar testing, concurrently, at the other potential alternative locations
for the extraction wells.

Third, updated groundwater modeling is needed to evaluate future impacts from the
MPWSP. Specifically, modeling scenarios are necessary to predict changes in
groundwater levels, groundwater flow direction, and changes in the extent and
boundary of the seawater intrusion front. Additional studies are also necessary to
determine how any extracted fresh water is replaced, whether through re-injection wells,
percolation basins, or through existing recharge programs. It may also be necessary to
survey the existing groundwater users in the affected area. The studies will form the
basis for a plan that avoids injury to other groundwater users and protects beneficial
uses in the Basin. To ensure that this modeling provides the best assessment of the
potential effects of the MPWSP, it is important that any new information gathered during
the initial phases of the groundwater investigation be incorporated into the groundwater
modeling studies. In addition, modeling should include cumulative effects of the
MPWSP, the Castroville Seawater Intrusion Project, and the Salinas Valley Water
Project on the Basin.

iii

1. Introduction
In a letter dated September 26, 2012, the California Public Utilities Commission
(Commission) asked the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board)
whether the California American Water Company (Cal-Am) has the legal right to extract
desalination feedwater for the proposed Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project
(MPWSP). The Commission, lead agency under the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) for the proposed project, did not request that the State Water Board make a
water rights determination, rather it requested an opinion on whether Cal-Am has a
credible legal claim to extract feedwater for the proposed MPWSP in order to inform the
Commissions determination regarding the legal feasibility of the MPWSP.
In a letter dated November 16, 2012, the State Water Board informed the Commission
that State Water Board staff would prepare an initial report for the Commission. On
December 21, 2012, the State Water Board provided the Commission an initial draft of
the report and on February 14, 2013, the Commission provided the State Water Board
comments on the initial draft report. The Commissions February 14, 2013
correspondence also contained additional information for the State Water Board to
evaluate, specifically, a revised design of the feedwater intake system for the MPWSP.
State Water Board staff reviewed the additional information and prepared a revised
draft. The revised draft was then noticed to the public for comment on April 3, 2013,
and additional information included with the comment letters received was considered
and used to revise the report where appropriate.
Cal-Am proposes several approaches it claims would legally allow it to extract water
from the Basin near or beneath Monterey Bay without violating groundwater rights or
injuring other groundwater users in the Basin. The purpose of this report is to examine
the available technical information and outline legal considerations which would apply to
Cal-Ams proposed MPWSP.

This paper will (1) examine the available technical information 1 and that provided by the
Commission; (2) discuss the effect the proposed MPWSP could have on other users in
the Basin; (3) discuss the legal constraints and considerations that will apply to any user
who proposes to extract water from the Basin; and (4) outline information that will be
necessary to further explore MPWSPs feasibility and impacts. Ultimately, whether a
legal means exists for Cal-Am to extract water from the Basin, as described in its
proposal outlined in the CEQA Notice of Preparation 2 (NOP) document and in the
additional information provided, will depend on developing key hydrogeologic
information to support a determination based on established principles of groundwater
law.

2. Background
In 2004, Cal-Am filed Application A.04-09-019 with the Commission seeking a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the Coastal Water Project. The
primary purpose of the Coastal Water Project was to replace existing water supplies
that have been constrained by legal decisions affecting the Carmel River and Seaside
Groundwater Basin water resources. The Coastal Water Project proposed to use
existing intakes at the Moss Landing Power Plant to draw source water for a new
desalinization plant at Moss Landing. In January 2009, the Commission issued a Draft
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Coastal Water Project and two project
alternatives the North Marina Project and the Monterey Regional Water Supply
Project (Regional Project). In October 2009, the Commission issued the Final EIR 3
(FEIR) and in December 2009, it certified the FEIR. In December 2010, the
Commission approved implementation of the Regional Project.
In January 2012, Cal-Am withdrew its support for the Regional Project and
subsequently submitted Application A.12-04-019 to the Commission for the proposed
MPWSP as described in their September 26, 2012 letter. In October 2012, the

Please see Appendix C for a list of references relied upon and considered in this report.
California Public Utilities Commission, Notice of Preparation, Environmental Impact Report for the CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project, October 2012.
3
Cal-Am, Coastal Water Project, FEIR, October, 2009.
2

Commission issued a NOP for a Draft EIR for the proposed MPWSP. The Commission
requested in their September letter that the State Water Board prepare an initial staff
report by December 2012. The short timeframe for the initial report was necessary to
inform written supplemental testimony due in January 2013 for Cal-Am and written
rebuttal testimony from other parties due February 2013. The State Water Board
completed and transmitted its initial draft report to the Commission on December 21,
2012.
In a memo dated February 14, 2013, the Commission expressed its appreciation to the
State Water Board for the initial draft report. Additionally, the Commission included
comments and questions regarding the draft report and requested the State Water
Board evaluate new and additional information in its final report. State Water Board
staff reviewed the additional information and prepared a revised draft. 4
The revised draft was then noticed to the public for comment on April 3, 2013. At the
conclusion of the public comment period on May 3, 2013, six comment letters had been
received on the Draft Report. 5 Comments that pertain to the State Water Boards report
generally fell into the following categories: 1) State Water Boards role and objective in
preparing the Report; 2) sources of information used in preparing the Report (including
adequacy of the environmental document for the previously proposed Coastal Water
Project and use of previously developed groundwater model); 3) concerns about injury
to other legal users of water (including potential impacts on existing efforts to control
seawater intrusion); 4) legal issues related to the exportation of water from the Basin; 5)
the need for better information about the hydrogeology of the proposed project location
and the effects the proposed project would have on groundwater in the Basin; and 6)
legal interpretation of groundwater appropriation law and concepts discussed within the
Draft Report. We have modified the report to be responsive to the comments received,

Commission correspondence to State Water Board, February 14, 2013.


http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M047/K304/47304686.pdf
5
Monterey County Farm Bureau (Norman Groot), LandWatch Monterey County (Amy L. White), the
Salinas Valley Water Coalition (Nancy Isakson), Ag Land Trust (Molly Erickson of the Law Offices of
Michael W. Stamp), Water Plus (Ron Weitzman), and Cal-Am (Rob Donlan of Ellison, Schneider, & Harris
L.L.P)

where appropriate. Additionally, we have included summary responses to the above


general categories as Appendix A to this report.

3. Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Description


When the Commission requested the assistance of the State Water Board in September
2012, the most current information available on the MPWSP was the description in the
NOP for a forthcoming Draft EIR. State Water Board staff analyzed the NOP and how
closely the new description matched the alternatives in the December 2009 FEIR
completed for the Coastal Water Project. Of the two project alternatives in the FEIR,
the North Marina Project more closely resembled the proposed MPWSP described in
the NOP. For this reason, State Water Board staff assumed most of the information,
including the slant well construction and operation as described in the FEIR North
Marina Project Alternative 6, was applicable to the proposed MPWSP. However,
because the configuration and location for the proposed extraction well system has not
yet been studied, direct comparison of the findings from the previous environmental
reviews to the system that is currently being considered is not possible. 7
On February 14, 2013, the Commission provided comments on an initial draft of this
report and requested that State Water Board staff make revisions to address
ambiguities while also considering new and additional information concerning
modifications to the design and configuration of the MPWSP. The new information
provided to the State Water Board by the Commission includes: an updated project
description, changes in the location and configuration of the extraction well system, new
information about the nature of the 180-Foot Aquifer, timing of implementation for

Cal-Am, Coastal Water Project, FEIR, Section 3.3 North Marina Project, October, 2009.
The use of the Cal-Am Coastal Water Project FEIR in this report was informative in creating a broad
picture of the potential impacts to groundwater resources in the Basin. The FEIR was not used to arrive
at specific conclusions of the definite impacts that would result from the MPWSP. The analysis provided
in this report can and should be applied in the context of a future EIR. It is anticipated that additional
information gained from the studies recommended in our report will assist the Commission in determining
the impacts of the MPWSP on the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin.
7

certain compensation measures, and supplemental testimony from Richard Svindland of


Cal-Am. 8
The Commission requested that the State Water Board evaluate two possible
alternatives for the MPWSP; (1) the Proposed Project (preferred alternative) with slant
wells located at a 376-acre coastal property owned by the CEMEX Corporation and
illustrated by the yellow dots on Figure SWRCB 1, and; (2) Intake Contingency Option
3 with a slant well intake system at Portrero Road north of the Salinas River as shown
in the top center of Figure SWRCB 2 by the small green dots. Figure SWRCB 3
shows the approximate locations of the alternatives in the greater geographic area. The
preferred alternative would consist of 7 to 9 slant wells that would draw water from
under the ocean floor by way of gravity for delivery to the desalination plant. Intake
Contingency Option 3 would consist of 9 wells extracting water from beneath the ocean
floor by use of submersible pumps. For both alternatives, approximately 22 million
gallons of water per day (mgd) would be extracted from the wells to produce 9 mgd of
desalinated water. The design of these options is further described in Section 5 of this
report.
Information provided to the State Water Board to date does not allow staff to definitively
address the issue of how the proposed project would affect water rights in the Basin.
Currently, it is unknown which aquifer(s) the wells will extract water from, and further
complicating the analysis, the relationship of the aquifers in the well area to surrounding
low-permeability aquitards is uncertain. Given these significant unknowns, this State
Water Board report assumes, for the purposes of this preliminary evaluation, that the
MPWSP hydrogeologic characteristics and effects to the SVGB would be similar to the
North Marina Project alternative analyzed in the FEIR, inclusive of the design
modifications described in the Commissions February 2013 correspondence. The
State Water Board provides recommendations for additional studies that are necessary
to clarify the hydrogeologic conditions that would allow for a more complete review.

Commission correspondence to State Water Board, February 14, 2013.


http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M047/K304/47304686.pdf

Figure SWRCB 1

Figure SWCRB 2

Figure SWRCB 3

4. Physical Setting
This section contains a discussion of the physical setting of the SVGB that includes
a description of the hydrogeologic characteristics, groundwater quality, movement
and occurrence of groundwater, and groundwater modeling results. It is important to
understand the physical characteristics of the Basin to accurately determine the
effects the MPWSP will have on the Basin.

4.1

Groundwater Aquifers

Knowledge of the hydrogeologic characteristics in the area of the proposed


MPWSP wells is important in determining the impacts of the proposed project.
As shown by the dark blue line in Figure SWRCB 4, the SVGB extends
approximately 100 miles from Monterey Bay in the northwest to the headwaters
of the Salinas River in the southeast. Major aquifers in the SVGB are named for
the average depth at which they occur. The named aquifers from top to bottom
include the 180-Foot Aquifer, the 400-Foot Aquifer and the 900-Foot or Deep
Aquifer. A near-surface water-bearing zone comprised of dune sands, commonly
referred to as the Dune Sand Aquifer, also exists but is considered a minor
source of water due to its poor quality. 9 The Dune Sand Aquifer is not regionally
extensive and is not a recognized subbasin within the SVGB. 10 The extent and
the amount of groundwater in storage in the Dune Sand Aquifer are unknown.
Figure SWRCB 5 is a cross-section taken from the FEIR for the Coastal Water
Project that shows the relationship of aquifers and aquitards. The estimated
extent of the Dune Sand Aquifer and its relation to the 180-Foot Aquifer can be
seen in the upper left hand corner of Figure SWRCB 5. Figure SWRCB 6
shows the westerly portion of the cross-section in the vicinity of the project area.
The proposed slant wells will either extract water from the 180-Foot Aquifer
subbasin and/or the Dune Sand Aquifer.

California Department of Water Resources, Californias Groundwater, Bulletin 118, Central Coast
Hydrologic Region, SVGB, February 2004.
10
Cal-Am, Coastal Water Project, FEIR, Section 4.2, Groundwater Resources, p. 4.2-5, October 2009.

The 180-Foot Aquifer is generally confined by the overlying Salinas Valley


Aquitard (SVA). The SVA is a well-defined clay formation with low permeability
that retards the vertical movement of water to the underlying 180-Foot Aquifer.
The SVA extends vertically from the ground surface to approximately 100 to 150
feet below mean sea level (msl) and extends laterally from Monterey Bay to 10
miles south of Salinas. Based on information from logs of two wells located
approximately mile south and mile northeast from the proposed MPWSP
slant wells, the top of the SVA is between 150 to 180 feet below msl. The well
logs show the top of the underlying 180-Foot Aquifer at approximately 190 to 220
feet below msl. 11
Studies have shown that in some areas the SVA thins enough to create
unconfined conditions in the 180-Foot Aquifer. 12 It is unknown if these
unconfined conditions exist in the proposed MPWSP well area. Determination of
the existence of the SVA, and thus the conditions of the aquifer at the location of
the proposed MPWSP wells will be critical in determining the area of impact of
the project as discussed at greater length in Section 5 of this report.

11

Cal-Am, Coastal Water Project, FEIR, Section 4.2 Groundwater Resources, Figure 4.2-3, October,
2009.
12
Monterey County Water Resources Agency, Monterey County Groundwater Management Plan,
Chapter 3 Basin Description, pp. 3.7 & 3.8, May 2006.

10

Figure SWRCB 4

11

Figure SWRCB 5

12

Figure SWRCB 6

13

4.2

Groundwater Quality & Seawater Intrusion

Groundwater quality at the site of the proposed MPWSP wells will play an
important role in determining the effects of extraction on the other users in the
Basin. Historic and current pumping of the 180-Foot Aquifer has caused
significant seawater intrusion, which was first documented in the 1930s. 13
Seawater intrusion is the migration of ocean water inland into a fresh water
aquifer. This condition occurs when a groundwater source (aquifer) loses
pressure, allowing the interface between fresh water and seawater to move into
the aquifer. A common activity that induces intrusion is pumping of the
groundwater basin faster than the aquifer can recharge. 14
The Monterey County Water Resources Agency (MCWRA) uses the Secondary
Drinking Water Standard upper limit of 500 milligrams per liter (mg/L)
concentration for chloride to determine the seawater intrusion front. The
MCWRA also uses the Secondary Drinking Water Standard to determine
impairment to a source of water. MCWRA uses 100 mg/L of chloride as a
threshold value for irrigation. 15 Standards are maintained to protect the public
welfare and to ensure a supply of pure potable water. MCWRA currently
estimates seawater has intruded into the 180-Foot Aquifer approximately 5 miles
inland as shown on Figure SWRCB 7. The increasing trend of inland
movement of seawater intrusion is also important and provides qualitative data
on future trends in the Basin. This seawater intrusion has resulted in the
degradation of groundwater supplies, requiring numerous urban and agricultural
supply wells to be abandoned or destroyed. In MCWRAs latest groundwater
management plan (2006), an estimated 25,000 acres of land overlies water that
has degraded to 500 mg/L chloride. The amount of 500 mg/L chloride water that

13

California Department of Water Resources, Californias Groundwater, Bulletin 118, Central Coast
Hydrologic Region, SVGB, 180/400 Foot Aquifer subbasin, February 2004.
14
MCWRA, Monterey County General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, pp. 4.3-25, March 2012,
15
Ibid.

14

enters the Basin was reported to be as high as 14,000 acre-feet per annum (afa)
or 4.5 billion gallons. 16
The Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board's Basin Plan lists
designated beneficial uses and describe the water quality which must be attained
to fully support those uses. 17 The Basin Plan states that water for agricultural
supply shall not contain concentration of chemical constituents in amounts which
adversely affect agricultural beneficial use. Table 3-3 of the Basin Plan provides
guidelines for interpretation of the narrative water quality objective and indicates
that application of irrigation water with chloride levels above 355 mg/L may cause
severe problems to crops and/or soils with increasing problems occurring within
the range of 142-355 mg/L. 18
The MCWRA and the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board show
impairment in the intruded area for drinking and agricultural uses. Since this
groundwater is reportedly impaired, it is unlikely that this water is, or will be put to
beneficial use. However, if groundwater use is occurring in the intruded area,
MPWSP effects that cause injury to legal users will need to be determined. 19
Conditions in the Basin will need to be monitored to determine the level of water
quality impairment and any changes that occur as a result of the MPWSP.
Local agencies have taken steps to reduce the rate of seawater intrusion and
enhance groundwater recharge in the SVGB. To address the seawater intrusion
problem, the MCWRA passed and adopted Ordinance No. 3709 in September
1993. 20 Ordinance No. 3709 prohibits groundwater extractions and installation of
new groundwater extraction facilities in certain areas within the seawater
intrusion zone. To enhance groundwater recharge, efforts have also been made
16

MCWRA, Monterey County Groundwater Management Plan, Chapter 3 Basin Description, pages
3.14 & 3.15, May 2006.
17
Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Basin, Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Coast
Region. Page I-1, June 2011.
18
CCRWQCB, Basin Plan, pp. III-5 and III-8.
19
A comment letter submitted by Law Offices of Michael W. Stamp on behalf of Ag Land Trust on May 3,
2013, states that a well on the Armstrong Ranch, adjacent to the CEMEX site, is being used to irrigate
more than one acre of seed stock.
20
Monterey County Water Resources Agency, Ordinance No. 3709, September 14, 1993.

15

to increase fresh water percolation through the Castroville Seawater Intrusion


Project (CSIP) which was completed in 1998. 21 The CSIP is a program operated
by the Monterey County Water Pollution Control Agency that reduces
groundwater pumping from seawater intruded areas and distributes recycled
water to agricultural users within the SVGB. The program provides a form of
groundwater recharge by effectively reducing groundwater extraction in those
areas of the Basin that are part of the CSIP area and providing some recharge
through deep percolation of applied irrigation water. The Salinas Valley Water
Project (SVWP) was initiated in 2000 to address seawater intrusion and provide
other benefits. The main components of the project involve reservoir
reoperation, modifications to the Nacimiento Dam spillway, and installation of a
rubber dam on the Salinas River in the northern part of the Salinas Valley to
increase summer flows and provide agricultural water to offset the use of
groundwater. 22 Despite these and other efforts, seawater intrusion continues an
inland trend into the Basin. 23

21

Cal-Am, Coastal Water Project, FEIR p. 4.2-17, October, 2009.


Although several components of the SVWP have been implemented and future phases of this project
are being considered, any potential implications the SVWP may have for development of the MPWSP are
unknown.
23
MCWRA, Monterey County General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, March 2012, concludes
on page 4.3-33 that without the SVWP and the associated development of additional water supplies to
augment existing groundwater supplies, both existing and future water needs would result in further basin
overdraft and seawater intrusion.
22

16

Figure SWRCB 7

17

4.3

Groundwater Recharge and Discharge

An understanding of groundwater recharge and discharge in a groundwater basin


is important in determining whether a basin is in overdraft. Basins that have
overdraft (i.e. more discharge than recharge) experience a reduction in the
amount of available groundwater. This shortage may lead to a reduction in the
amount of water a legal user may extract under their water right.
Groundwater recharge in the lower portion of the Salinas Valley is largely by
infiltration along the channel of the Salinas River and its tributaries. This
accounts for approximately 50 percent of the total recharge within the SVGB.
Approximately 40 percent of the total recharge is from irrigation return water with
the remaining 10 percent due to precipitation, subsurface inflow and seawater
intrusion. 24
Approximately 95 percent of outflow from the Basin is from pumping with the
remaining 5 percent due to riparian vegetation evapotranspiration. Groundwater
withdrawal outpaces groundwater recharge of fresh water, resulting in overdraft
conditions. 25
Historically, groundwater flowed seaward to discharge zones in the walls of the
submarine canyon in Monterey Bay. 26 This seaward flow of groundwater
prevented seawater from intruding landward into the SVGB. In much of the area,
groundwater in the 180-Foot Aquifer and 400-Foot Aquifer is confined beneath
extensive clay layers, and the hydraulic head in the aquifers is influenced by the
elevation of the water table in the upgradient recharge areas where the aquifer
materials are near the surface. When a well is drilled through these confining
layers, this hydraulic head, or pressure head, forces water in wells to rise above
the top of the aquifer; such aquifers are called confined aquifers. With increased
pumping, groundwater head elevations in the 180-Foot and 400-Foot Aquifers
have declined creating large pumping depressions in the aquifer pressure
24

MCWRA, County Groundwater Management Plan, Chapter 3 Basin Description, pp. 3-10, May 2006
Ibid
26
DWR, Bulletin 118.
25

18

surface. These cause the groundwater gradient to slope landward, reversing the
historic seaward direction of groundwater flow. The pressure surface for the
water in these aquifers is now below sea level in much of the inland area and
flow is now dominantly northeastward from the ocean toward the pumping
depressions. 27 This northeastward flow gradient has allowed seawater to intrude
into the SVGB, thereby degrading groundwater quality in the 180-Foot and 400Foot Aquifers.
The Department of Water Resources calculated that total water inflow into the
180-Foot and 400-Foot Aquifers is approximately 117,000 afa. Urban and
agriculture extractions were estimated at 130,000 afa and subsurface outflow
was estimated at 8,000 afa. 28 Therefore, there is currently a net loss or overdraft
of approximately 21,000 afa in the 180-Foot and 400-Foot Aquifers. Basin
overdraft has averaged approximately 19,000 afa during the 1949 to 1994
hydrologic period with an average annual seawater intrusion rate of 11,000 af. 29
The overdraft condition is important because it limits the availability of fresh water
supplies to Basin users.

4.4

Groundwater Gradient

Based on the occurrence of large pumping depressions in inland areas, it can be


reasonably assumed that there is a strong landward gradient (slope) of
groundwater flow, at least within the 180-Foot Aquifer. 30 However, because the
degree of confinement of the 180-Foot Aquifer and the degree of connection
between this aquifer and the overlying Dune Sand Aquifer are not known it is not
possible to accurately predict what the effects of the landward gradient of
groundwater flow will be for various extraction scenarios. However, if present,
this landward gradient in the 180-Foot Aquifer would be a factor in determining
the effects of the groundwater extraction, regardless of whether the aquifer is
27

Cal-Am, Coastal Water Project, FEIR, Section 4.2, p. 4.2-9, October 2009.
DWR, Bulletin 118.
29
Monterey County Groundwater Manage Plan, p. 3-10, May 2006
30
Monterey County Water Resources Agency Groundwater Informational Presentation, August 27, 2012
(http://www.mcwra.co.monterey.ca.us/Agency_data/Hydrogeologic%20Reports/GroundwaterInformational
Presentation_8-27-2012.pdf)
28

19

confined or unconfined in this area. It is important to understand the


groundwater gradient in the area of the proposed MPWSP because it will
influence the amount of water extracted from the landward side versus the
seaward side of the basin. More investigation will be needed to verify the degree
of the gradient and determine its effects on the MPWSP.

4.5

Groundwater Modeling

A groundwater model that accurately reflects the hydrogeologic characteristics of


the Basin is critical in providing insight to the effects the MPWSP would have on
the Basin. As part of the FEIR for the Coastal Water Project, a local groundwater
flow and solute transport model (Model) was developed to determine the effects
that pumping would have on groundwater levels and seawater intrusion in the
area. 31 This Model was constructed using aquifer parameters, recharge and
discharge terms, boundary conditions and predictive scenarios developed for a
regional groundwater model called the Salinas Valley Integrated Groundwater
and Surface Model (SVIGSM). The Model was developed to specifically focus
on the North Marina area and has a much finer cell size than the SVIGSM,
allowing for improved resolution in the vicinity of the proposed MPWSP. The
Model can model seawater intrusion, a capability that the SVIGSM does not
have.
The Model consists of six layers. The layers represented from top to bottom are
the following: (1) a layer directly beneath the ocean that allows direct connection
from the ocean to the aquifers; (2) the 180-Foot Aquifer and overlying Dune Sand
Aquifer; 32 (3) an unnamed aquitard; (4) the 400-Foot Aquifer; (5) an unnamed
aquitard; and (6) the Deep Aquifer. It should be noted the Model does not
include a layer that represents the SVA. 33 Therefore, the Model assumes that

31

Cal-Am, Coastal Water Project, FEIR, Appendix E, Geoscience, North Marina Groundwater Model
Evaluation of Projects, July and September 2008.
32
Cal-Am, Coastal Water Project, FEIR, Section 4.2, p. 4.2-47, October 2009.
33
Cal-Am, Coastal Water Project, FEIR, Appendix E, Geoscience, North Marina Groundwater Model
Evaluation of Projects, p. 19, July 2008.

20

the 180-Foot Aquifer is unconfined and in hydraulic connection with the Dune
Sand Aquifer.
The Models aquifer parameters such as depth, hydraulic conductivity, storativity,
and effective porosity were obtained from the SVIGSM. In addition, monthly data
for recharge and discharge values were obtained from the SVIGSM. The North
Marina predictive scenario was run for a 56-year period from October 1948 through
September 2004. This is the same period used in the SVIGSM predictive
scenarios.
Two potential projects were evaluated with the Model: (1) the North Marina
Project; and (2) the Regional Project. In both of these alternatives, the 180-Foot
Aquifer was modeled as an unconfined aquifer. It is not known if the MPWSP
wells would indeed be in unconfined conditions. Consequently, the alternatives
results discussed below may or may not be predictive of the MPWSP. In
addition, the groundwater model did not include the Portrero Road alternative.
Therefore, an updated groundwater model that accurately reflects the most
current understanding of local hydrogeologic conditions for all alternatives is
needed in order to estimate the effects the MPWSP would have on the Basin and
groundwater users.

5. Proposed Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


On March 8, 2013, the Commission requested that the State Water Board evaluate two
possible alternatives for the MPWSP; a preferred alternative consisting of gravity well
design and a secondary alternative consisting of a pumping well design. This section
contains a discussion on the intake design of both alternatives and potential effects
each would have on the SVGB.

5.1

Gravity Well Design

The preferred alternative has two options for the feedwater intake system: a 6.4
mgd system consisting of seven slant wells and a 9.6 mgd system consisting of
nine slant wells. This report focuses on the 9.6 mgd system since it has the
potential to have a greater effect on the groundwater basin. The 9.6 mgd system
21

will consist of eight slant wells and one test slant well. Results of the test well will
dictate final well design and will determine whether the wells would extract water
from the Dune Sand Aquifer and/or the 180-Foot Aquifer. The proposed location
of the gravity intake system is adjacent to the 376-acre parcel of land owned by
the CEMEX Corporation (Figure SWRCB 1). The well system consists of two
four-well clusters (North Cluster and South Cluster) plus the test well. Each well
is thirty inches in diameter and up to approximately 630 feet in length with up to
470 feet of screen. The wells are designed as gravity wells without the
requirement for submersible well pumps. The output of each slant well is
estimated at approximately 1,800 gpm. Each slant well has an 8-foot diameter
vertical cassion, which is connected to a 36-inch diameter beach connector
pipeline via an 18-inch diameter gravity connector. Feedwater flows by gravity
from the slant well to the gravity connector and to the beach connector pipeline
where it enters a 23 mgd intake pump station. The intake pump system pumps
the feedwater to the desalination plant using four 250-horsepower pumps. The
total well capacity required is approximately 23 mgd to meet the feedwater
requirement for a 9.6 mgd desalination plant operating at an overall recovery of
42 percent.
The gravity well design is a new alternative presented to the State Water Board
for evaluation at the CEMEX owned property. Groundwater modeling for an
earlier pumping well alternative at the CEMEX site indicated that the pumped
wells would have an impact to groundwater users within a 2mile radius of the
wells due to the lowering of groundwater levels. Since modeling has not been
done for the gravity well alternative, State Water Board staff is unable to
accurately predict impact to existing users and the Basin from the gravity wells.

5.2

Pumping Well Design

As described in the Commissions February 14, 2013 correspondence, the


secondary alternative (Intake Contingency Option 3) includes a feedwater intake
system consisting of nine pumped slant wells extending offshore into the
Monterey Bay. The slant wells would extract 23 mgd of water from the Dune
Sand Aquifer and convey the water via a 36-inch diameter connector pipeline to
22

a 23 mgd intake pump station and finally to the desalination plant. The slant
wells would be installed at the parking lot on the west end of Portrero Road along
the roadway that parallels the beach north of the parking lot (Figure SWRCB 2).
The potential impacts from the pumping wells at this site cannot yet be
determined since groundwater modeling has not been done for this location.
Until a more detailed groundwater model is developed for this area, State Water
Board staff is unable to determine the extent of impacts to existing water users.
Staff recommends that the groundwater modeling include evaluation of potential
alternative Project locations that may be under consideration for meeting the
water supply needs of this area.

5.3

Groundwater Capture Zone Delineation

For aquifers with a substantial gradient (slope) in the direction of groundwater


flow, there is an important distinction between the cone of depression around the
pumping well (area where the water surface or pressure head is lowered) and the
capture zone for water that flows to the pumping well. Where there is an existing
slope to the water table or pressure surface of the groundwater system, not all
the water in the cone of depression flows to the pumping well, and much of the
water the pumping well intercepts is far outside the cone of depression in the
upgradient direction. 34 The practical effect of this situation is that, with a
landward gradient of groundwater flow, more of the water captured by the
pumping well comes from the upgradient direction (in this case from the seaward
direction) and a much smaller proportion of the water captured by the pumping
well is from downgradient (inland) direction. Water captured from the seaward
direction would likely be seawater. Water captured from the landward side could
potentially have a greater likelihood of capturing some portion of fresh water;
however, groundwater in this area is expected to be highly impacted by seawater
intrusion. Therefore, because the gradient means more water will be captured
from the seaward direction and the groundwater in the area is likely impacted by
seawater intrusion there is a reduced possibility that the wells will capture fresh
34

C.W. Fetter. 1994, Applied Hydrogeology 3rd Edition, p. 501

23

water. At this time it is unclear how many operational wells are in the immediate
vicinity of the proposed location for the extraction well system. Because more
seawater will be drawn into the extraction well system from offshore areas than
water flowing toward the wells from inland areas, any wells located in close
proximity to the extraction system could experience increased water quality
degradation due to complex flow paths within the capture zone of the extraction
well system. If there are wells currently in use within this area, Cal-Am would
need to monitor the situation and compensate 35 the well users if they are injured
by the decreased water quality or lower water levels.
The extraction wells are not predicted to draw water equally from seaward and
landward areas. In a system that has no gradient of flow, extraction wells would
draw water equally from seaward and landward directions, but this is not true in
the proposed MPWSP area because there is a significant gradient of
groundwater flow from the seaward areas toward the inland pumping
depressions. In the long-term, the situation may be altered and the source of the
water drawn from the extraction well system would need to be reevaluated under
the following conditions: (1) if pumping of water from inland areas is reduced to
the point that the groundwater system is in equilibrium, and (2) the pumping
depressions are reduced such that there is no longer a landward gradient.
The FEIR groundwater modeling studies conducted for the proposed extraction
of groundwater from the 180-Foot Aquifer included an evaluation of groundwater
elevations and gradients. The modeling evaluated the effects the landward
gradient of groundwater flow could have in determining the source of water that
would be captured by the extraction well system. As more information about the
groundwater system becomes available, a more detailed evaluation of the
capture zone for the extraction system will be possible. This type of capture
zone analysis will be important in evaluating the long-term effects of the

35

Compensation could be in the form of monetary payment or other forms to make the injured user
whole.

24

extraction well system and any potential impacts on existing water users and the
Basin.

5.4

Extraction Scenarios

There are three likely scenarios in which Cal-Am would extract groundwater for
its MPWSP: (1) extraction from gravity wells from an unconfined aquifer or a
confined aquifer; (2) pumping from an unconfined aquifer; or (3) pumping from a
confined aquifer.
5.4.1 Extraction of Feedwater by Gravity Wells
Cal-Am has proposed to construct a slant test well and collect data that
will determine if the gravity well alternative is feasible. If water is extracted
using gravity wells, the hydraulic effects on the aquifer would be the same
for either pumped wells or the proposed gravity wells as long as the
amount of drawdown in the wells is the same. Likewise, if the wells were
completed in either a confined or an unconfined aquifer, the effects on
those aquifers would be the same if the level of drawdown in the wells
were the same. However, if a pumping well had a greater drawdown than
a gravity well, there would be more of an effect to the aquifer from the
pumping well. The important factor is not what mechanism induces flow
from the wells but the actual drawdown produced in the groundwater
system.
The gravity well system would limit the maximum amount of drawdown
from the extraction wells. Drawdown would be limited to the head
differential between sea level and the depth of the intake pump station that
the gravity wells drain into. This would add a level of protection against
drawing more water from the shoreward direction because it would
preclude the larger drawdowns that could result with submersible pumps
in the wells. The cone of depression (zone of influence) for the extraction
well system would be limited by the fixed head differential established by
the depth of the intake pump station. This configuration will also likely
prevent the operator from being able to maintain maximum flow rates from

25

the extraction well system because there is no ability to increase pumping


rates should tidal effects become a factor. The obvious potential problem
with the gravity well scenario is that if the flow to the wells is limited by
lower permeability zones or well efficiency problems, the operator cannot
increase pumping rates to obtain the quantities of water the system is
designed to achieve.
5.4.2 Pumping from Unconfined Conditions
If pumping were to occur under unconfined conditions, water would be
extracted either from the Dune Sand Aquifer or from the 180-Foot Aquifer
(if the SVA is not present at the proposed well-site). In general, when
water is pumped from an unconfined aquifer, water is removed from the
aquifer and the water table in the aquifer is lowered as water drains by
gravity from the pore spaces in the aquifer. This lowering or drawdown of
the water table causes a cone of depression that is greatest close to the
well and gets smaller in all directions as the distance from the well
increases. 36 Modeling results of the North Marina Project show that
pumping would cause a decline in groundwater elevations at the slant
wells of approximately 15 feet. There would be about a 2-foot decline in
groundwater levels approximately one mile from the slant wells decreasing
to less than 0.5 feet about 1.5 miles away. 37 The lowering of groundwater
levels approximately 2 miles from the slant wells likely would be negligible.
If the final design calls for gravity wells at the north Marina site, then
modeling would be needed to estimate the effects from the gravity wells.
Since modeling was not done for the Portrero Road site the effects from
pumping at that location are unknown. Once the zone of influence is
estimated for each location and each pumping scenario, it will be possible
to determine whether any wells in the vicinity would be affected by project
pumping.
36

Driscoll, 1986, Groundwater and Wells, pp. 63-64.


Cal-Am, Coastal Water Project, FEIR, Appendix E, Geoscience, North Marina Groundwater Model
Evaluation of Projects, p. 21 (E-28), July 2008.
37

26

According to information from the State Water Boards GAMA database,


approximately 14 wells are within 2 miles of the proposed MPWSP (Figure
SWRCB 8). All of these wells are within the seawater-intruded portion of
the Basin. Currently, the predominant groundwater flow direction in the
180-Foot Aquifer is toward the northeast. Project pumping would likely
change the flow direction to more of a southwest to westerly direction
within the zone of influence. Outside the zone of influence there would be
little if any change to groundwater flow direction; however, the rate of flow
in the original direction (northeast) would be reduced. Therefore, the
MPWSP would slow the rate of seawater intrusion in a landward direction
from the wells. The GAMA database may not include all groundwater
wells, so it is not clear how many other wells are located in this area, or at
what depths the wells are screened. 38 Cal-Ams investigations should
include an inventory of existing wells near the MPWSP extraction well
location. Where Well Completion Reports are available, information from
those reports should be evaluated and considered for inclusion in
development of the groundwater model. If legal users of groundwater in
this area are found to be impacted by the groundwater extraction system,
either through a reduction in the water table level or the amount of fresh
water available at their wells, those impacts would need to be addressed
by Cal-Am.

38

A comment letter submitted by Law Offices of Michael W. Stamp on behalf of Ag Land Trust on May 3,
2013, states that a well on the Armstrong Ranch, adjacent to the CEMEX site, is being used to irrigate
more than one acre of seed stock.

27

Figure SWRCB 8

28

As mentioned above, groundwater flow to the MPWSP extraction wells


would initially be from all directions in a radial pattern. Because the ocean
provides a constant source of nearby recharge to the extraction wells, the
zone of influence for the extraction wells cannot expand much farther than
the distance between the extraction wells and the ocean, or in the case of
confined aquifer conditions, the distance between the extraction wells and
the undersea outcrop of the confined aquifer. While a portion of the water
flowing to the well does come from the less saline water on the shoreward
side, the relative percentage of water drawn from the shoreward side of
the wells will depend on various factors, including the gradient of
groundwater flow toward inland pumping depressions. If the North Marina
Project model is applicable, then approximately 87 to 97 percent of the
water pumped (approximately 21,400 to 23,938 afa) would come from the
ocean side of the wells and approximately 3 to13 percent of the water
(approximately 762 to 3,250 afa) would come from the landward side of
the wells. 39
It is unlikely that pumping from an unconfined aquifer would extract fresh
groundwater since the seawater intrusion front within the 180-Foot Aquifer
is approximately 5 miles landward from the proposed pumps. Because
the Model shows that the seawater intrusion front remains basically the
same with or without the North Marina Project, it is likely that the amount
of water extracted from the eastern portion of the aquifer will be seawater
intruded. Although this brackish 40 water may be of substantially better
quality than seawater, it is likely degraded to the point that it is, with few

39

Cal-Am, Coastal Water Project, FEIR, Appendix E, Geoscience, North Marina Groundwater Model
Evaluation of Projects p. 22 (E-29), July and September 2008.
40
Brackish water in this report is defined as groundwater within the seawater intrusion zone that contains
chloride levels greater than 500 ppm. Water with chloride concentrations less than 500 mg/L is
considered fresh water.

29

exceptions 41, not suitable for any beneficial use other than feedwater for
desalination purposes.
5.4.3 Pumping from Confined Conditions
If pumping were to occur under confined conditions, water would be
extracted from the confined 180-Foot Aquifer. When a confined aquifer is
pumped, the loss of hydraulic head occurs rapidly because the release of
the water from storage is entirely due to the compressibility of the aquifer
material and the water. 42 This zone of influence in a confined aquifer is
commonly several thousand times larger than in an unconfined aquifer. 43
Therefore, the effects from MPWSP pumping on the groundwater
pressure head would occur more rapidly and over a much larger area than
the effects seen in an unconfined aquifer. Modeling in the FEIR did not
predict the effects of pumping from a confined condition, so there are no
estimates on the extent of potential impacts. Generally speaking, the
pressure head would be lowered in wells much further inland and the longterm effects on groundwater flow direction would be felt over a wider area.
Since pumping from a confined condition would affect a much larger area,
there would be a greater likelihood of the MPWSP affecting groundwater
users at greater distances from the project location.
5.4.4 Potential Pumping Effects on Seawater Intrusion
The seawater intrusion front, as defined by the 500 mg/L chloride limit,
currently extends approximately five miles inland from Monterey Bay.
Efforts to control seawater intrusion though implementation of the SVWP
and CSIP projects and various administrative actions have slowed but not
stopped the advance of the seawater intrusion front, and there is concern
that the implementation of the proposed MPWSP may hinder the efforts to
41

A commenter reported that there is a well in this general area used for a small agricultural plot,
however there is no information about the well location or depth, and further investigation would be
necessary to determine whether this well could be impacted by the proposed extraction wells.
42
Driscoll, 1986, Groundwater and Wells, pp. 64-65.
43
United States Geologic Survey, Sustainability of Groundwater Resources, Circular 1186. Section A, p.
2.

30

restore water quality in the intruded areas. To the extent that the MPWSP
will generate new water that will be returned to the Basin as wastewater
return flows, any potential impacts on the seawater intrusion control efforts
may be lessened. Groundwater modeling conducted for the previously
studied North Marina Project indicated that the recession of the seawater
intrusion front would be affected positively during the first 13 years of
implementation of that project and that thereafter the project would have
little or no effect on the efforts to reverse the advancing front of seawater
intrusion. 44
Within the zone of influence of the MPWSP extraction wells, seawater
would be drawn into the aquifers from the seaward direction, and brackish
water from within the seawater intruded portion of the aquifers would also
be drawn toward the extraction well system. As discussed in Section 5.3,
the relative percentages of off-shore seawater and on-shore brackish
water extracted from the wells would depend on the local groundwater
gradient of flow and other factors.
Based on our current understanding of the groundwater system, a greater
volume of seawater, relative to brackish water, would be drawn into the
extraction well system. For groundwater wells that may be located in
close proximity to the extraction wells, i.e., within the capture zone for the
extraction wells, groundwater elevations would be lowered and water
quality may be adversely affected by the extraction well system. 45

5.5

Summary of Impacts

There are three types of potential impacts the proposed extraction wells could
have on inland water users. First, the inland groundwater users may experience
a reduction in groundwater levels in their wells, with associated increases in
pumping costs. This type of effect could be reasonably evaluated with
44

Coastal Water Project, FEIR, Appendix E, Geoscience, North Marina Groundwater Model Evaluation of
Projects, p. 21 (E-28), July 2008.
45
C.W. Fetter. 1994, Applied Hydrogeology 3rd Edition, p. 501

31

groundwater modeling. Until the degree of confinement and connection between


the Dune Sand Aquifer and the 180-Foot Aquifer has been more thoroughly
studied, the potential for injury to inland water users due to reduced groundwater
elevations and diversion of water from the aquifer cannot be conclusively
determined. As discussed in the above sections, however, the incremental effect
at any particular location would be relatively slight. Staff estimates, based on
currently available data cited in this report, that effect would be on the order of
less than a 0.5 foot decline in wells located 1.5 miles from the extraction well
system. 46 This impact alone would not likely be sufficient to take any currently
known operating production wells out of service.
The second type of effect the extraction well system could have on in-Basin
groundwater users is a reduction in the quantity of fresh water that is available for
their future use. The quantity would depend on a variety of factors as discussed
in the preceding sections. For users outside the capture zone this effect would
not be felt immediately; thus, replacement water could be provided after the
MPWSP has been in operation and modeling information becomes available to
evaluate the actual quantity of fresh water that needs to be returned to the
system. 47

One measure to address potential injury to those users would be to

supply replacement water to the existing CSIP system for delivery to


groundwater users in the affected area. 48 Since the capture zone for the
extraction well system will likely be limited to areas already heavily impacted by
seawater intrusion, it would not be appropriate to inject or percolate desalinated
water in this intruded area, as the water would essentially be wasted. For any
users within the capture zone of the MPWSP wells, Cal-Am would be required to
assess and compensate for any injury caused by a reduction in the quantity of
fresh water that is available for their use. Because injury could occur at the time
46

Coastal Water Project, FEIR, Appendix E, Geoscience, North Marina Groundwater Model Evaluation of
Projects, July 2008. p. 21 (E-28)
47
A comment letter submitted by LandWatch Monterey County on April 28, 2013, expresses concern for
impacts to the groundwater users in the North County area who do not received CSIP water. Impacts
from the proposed project would need to be evaluated on a site specific basis.
48
The CSIP may not be a viable method to address injury at the Portero Road location if the users
affected by the MPWSP are outside of the CSIP recharge zone.

32

of pumping for those users in the capture zone, a supply replacement method
such as the CSIP would not be appropriate, and other measures may be
necessary.
The third type of effect the extraction well system could have on in-Basin
groundwater users is limited to groundwater users in close proximity to the
extraction wells. These users could experience additional degradation in the
quality of water drawn from their wells. This effect should be isolated to a very
localized area within the capture zone of the extraction wells system.

6. Legal Discussion of Proposed Extraction Wells in Basin


Although the Basin is in a condition of overdraft, the Basin has not been adjudicated
and water withdrawals by the Basins users are not quantified by court decree. Water
users assert that the Basins water is managed through cooperative agreements
reached by the Basins groundwater users. 49 Users claim that Cal-Ams proposed
Project would disrupt the agreements within the Basin, lead to a costly adjudication, and
are barred by principles of groundwater law. 50
Cal-Am needs no groundwater right or other water right to extract seawater from
Monterey Bay. Based on the information provided, however, the proposed MPWSP
could extract some fresh water from within the Basin. An appropriative groundwater
right is needed to extract water from the Basin for use outside the parcel where the
wells are located. 51 To appropriate groundwater from the Basin, Cal-Am will have to
demonstrate that the MPWSP will develop a new source of water that is surplus to the
needs of groundwater users in the Basin and that operating the Project will not result in
injury to other users. This includes showing that the Project will not adversely affect the
seawater intrusion front. Because the Basin is in a condition of overdraft, to
49

Salinas Valley Water Coalition, Letter to State Water Board Chair, Charles Hoppin, (December 3,
2012).
50
See generally, Application 12-04-019 before the California Public Utilities Commission, Opening Brief of
LandWatch Monterey County Regarding Groundwater Rights and Public Ownership, July 10, 2012;
Opening Brief of Various Legal Issues of Monterey County Farm Bureau, July 10, 2012, available at:
www.cpuc.ca.gov.
51
An appropriative groundwater right is not necessary to recover water injected or otherwise used to
recharge the aquifer, where the water used for recharge would not recharge the aquifer naturally.

33

appropriate water for non-overlying uses, MPWSP will have to account for any reduction
in the amount of fresh water that is available to legal groundwater users in the Basin,
and Cal-Am will need to replace and compensate for any reduction. 52

6.1

General Principles of Groundwater Law

Groundwater rights may generally be classified as overlying, prescriptive or


appropriative. 53 Overlying users of groundwater have correlative rights which are
rights similar to riparian users rights, and an overlying user can pump as much
water as the user can apply to reasonable and beneficial use on the overlying
parcel so long as other overlying users are not injured. (City of Barstow v.
Mojave Water Agency (2000) 23 Cal.4th 1224, 1240 (Mojave).) In times of
shortage, pumping must be curtailed correlatively, to provide each overlying user
a reasonable share of the available supply. (Id. at 1241.)
Prescriptive rights are acquired through the taking of water that is not surplus or
excess to the needs of other groundwater users. Similar to other prescriptive
property rights, if the elements of prescriptive use are metthe use is actual,
open, notorious, hostile, adverse to the original owner, continuous and
uninterrupted for the statutory period of five yearsa user may acquire a
prescriptive right. (California Water Service Co. v. Edward Sidebotham & Son
(1964) 224 Cal.App.2d 715, 726.)
Appropriative groundwater rights apply to users who extract groundwater other
than those described above. (Mojave, supra, 23 Cal.4th at p.1241.)
Appropriative groundwater rights are not to be confused with appropriative rights
that apply to surface waters or subterranean streams administered by the State
Water Board. Unlike appropriative water rights that are permitted by the State
Water Board, appropriative groundwater rights are any rights to pump

52

Additionally, the Monterey County Water Resources Act, (Stats. 1990 ch. 52 21, Wests Ann. Wat.
Appen. 52-21 (1999 ed.).) prohibits water from being exported outside the Salinas Valley Groundwater
Basin.
53
Groundwater rights referenced in this report apply to percolating groundwater only.

34

groundwater that do not fall into either the overlying or prescriptive category. 54
No permit is required by the State Water Board to acquire or utilize appropriative
groundwater rights.
Because Cal-Am proposes to export water from the Basin to non-overlying
parcels in the Monterey Region, an appropriative groundwater right is required.
To appropriate groundwater, a user must show the water is surplus to existing
uses or does not exceed the safe yield of the affected basin. (City of Los
Angeles v. City of San Fernando (1975) 14 Cal.3d 199, 214.) The appropriator
must show the use will not harm or cause injury to any other legal user of water.
The burden is on the appropriator to demonstrate a surplus exists. (Allen v.
California Water and Tel. Co. (1946) 29 Cal.2d 466, 481.) But if, after excluding
all present and potential reasonable beneficial uses, 55 there is water wasted or
unused or not put to any beneficial uses, the supply may be said to be ample
for all, a surplus or excess exists and the appropriator may take the surplus or
excess (Peabody v. City of Vallejo (1935) 2 Cal.2d 351, 368-369 (Peabody).)
As discussed previously, because groundwater in the Basin is in a condition of
overdraft, the only way to show there is surplus water available for export to nonoverlying parcels is for a user to develop a new water source.
Cal-Ams proposed MPWSP would pump seawater, brackish water, and possibly
a fresh water component. The exact composition is yet to be determined, but the
proposed source water is substantially degraded by seawater intrusion and other
natural factors. Estimates based on the North Marina Project description are that
3 to 13 percent of the total water pumped through the proposed wells could be
attributed to the landward portion of the Basin and 87 to 97 percent could come
from the seaward direction relative to the pump locations.

54

This is generally true. There are other types of rights, including pueblo rights, federal reserved rights,
and rights to recover water stored underground pursuant to surface water rights. These other types of
rights are not discussed in detail in this report.
55
Potential overlying uses are often inherently implicated in determining whether a long-term surplus
actually exists. Where a basin is not in overdraft, however, there may be temporary surplus where
probable future overlying uses have not yet been developed.

35

Based on data currently available, the State Water Board is unable to estimate
what percentage or proportion of water extracted from the Basin landward of the
proposed well location could be attributed to fresh water sources. It is known,
however, that the Basins waters are degraded some distance landward from the
proposed wells. MCWRA currently estimates that seawater has intruded into the
180-Foot Aquifer approximately 5 miles inland. It is unknown whether seawater
has intruded the Dune Sand Aquifer, but the reported poor water quality of the
Dune Sand Aquifer likely limits beneficial uses of its water. 56 However, if the
groundwater is being used in this intruded area an evaluation of the effects to the
wells by the MPWSP will be needed to determine any potential injury to the
users.

6.2

Developed Water

Water an appropriator pumps that was not previously available to other legal
users can be classified as developed or salvaged water. 57 [I]f the driving of
tunnels or making of cuts is the development of water, as it must be conceded it
is, we perceive no good reason why the installation of a pump or pumping-plant
is not equally such development. (Garvey Water Co. v. Huntington Land & Imp.
Co. (1908) 154 Cal. 232, 241.) Further, it is generally accepted that whoever
creates a new source of water should be rewarded by their efforts. (See
generally Hoffman v. Stone (1857) 7 Cal. 46, 49-50.)
If Cal-Am shows it is extracting water that no Basin user would put to beneficial
use, Cal-Am could show its proposed desalination MPWSP develops new water
in the Basin, water that could not have been used absent Cal-Ams efforts to

56

California Department of Water Resources, Californias Groundwater, Bulletin 118, Central Coast
Hydrologic Region, SVGB, February 2004.
57
The concepts of developed and salvaged waters are closely related and the legal concepts are the
same. Technically, salvaged waters usually refers to waters that are part of a water supply and are saved
from loss whereas developed waters are new waters that are brought to an area by means of artificial
works. (See Hutchins, The California Law of Water Rights (1956) p. 383.) For purposes of this report,
the distinction is largely irrelevant and the term developed waters will be used throughout for consistency.

36

make it potable. Of course, this does not apply to any source water that is
considered fresh water and would not be considered developed water.
Making use of water before it becomes unsuitable to support beneficial uses or is
wasted, is supported both by statute, case law, and the California Constitution,
which in part states: the general welfare requires that the water resources of the
State be put to beneficial use to the fullest extent of which they are capableand
that the conservation of such waters is to be exercised with a view to the
reasonable and beneficial use thereof. (Cal. Const., art. X, 2; see also City of
Lodi v. East Bay Municipal Utility District (1936) 7 Cal.2d 316, 339-341 (Lodi);
[salvaged water that would otherwise be wasted should be put to beneficial use].)
The key principle of developed waters is if no lawful water user is injured, the
effort of an individual to capture water that would otherwise be unused should be
legally recognized. As the court determined in Cohen v. La Canada Land and
Water Co. (1907) 151 Cal. 680 (La Canada), if water would never reach or be
used by others there can be no injury. (Id. at p. 691.) In La Canada, waters
which were secured by the construction of tunnels could be considered
developed waters as the waters were determined to trend away from the
direction of the natural watershed and would never have reached it and would be
lost if left to percolate in their natural flow. (Ibid.)
Under these circumstances, as the waters developed by the
tunnels were not waters which would have trended towards or
supported or affected any stream flowing by the land of
appellant,she was not injured as an adjoining proprietor or as an
appropriator, and hence could not complain or insist upon the
application of the rule announced in the cases cited to prevent the
respondents from taking such developed waters to any lands to
which they might see fit to conduct them.
(La Canada, supra, 151 Cal. at p. 692.)
[F]ull recognition is accorded of the right to water of one who saves as well as of
one who develops it. (Pomona Land and Water Co. v. San Antonio Water Co.
(1908) 152 Cal. 618, 623-624 (Pomona) citing Wiggins v. Muscupaibe Land &
Water Co. (1896) 113 Cal. 182, 195 (Wiggins).)

37

[I]f plaintiffs get the one half of the natural flow to which they are
entitled delivered, unimpaired in quantity and quality, through a
pipe-line, they are not injured by the fact that other water, which
otherwise would go to wastewas rescued. Nor can they lay claim
to any of the water so saved.
(Pomona, supra, 152 Cal. at p. 631.)
In summary, if there is no injury, a user should be able to develop all water
available:
The plaintiff could under no circumstances be entitled to the use of
more water than would reach his land by the natural flow of the
stream, and, if he receives this flow upon his land, it is immaterial to
him whether it is received by means of the natural course of the
stream or by artificial means. On the other hand, if the defendant is
enabled by artificial means to give to the plaintiff all of the water he
is entitled to receive, no reason can be assigned why it should not
be permitted to divert from the streamand preserve and utilize the
one hundred inches which would otherwise be lost by absorption
and evaporation.
(Wiggins, supra, 113 Cal. at p. 196.)
As discussed above, in developing a new water source Cal-Am must establish no
other legal user of water is injured in the process. Even if Cal-Am pumps water
unsuitable to support beneficial uses, the water could not be considered
developed water unless users who pump from areas that could be affected by
Cal-Ams MPWSP are protected from harm.
Cal-Am proposes a replacement program for the MPWSP water that can be
attributed to fresh water supplies or sources in the Basin. If Cal-Am can show all
users are uninjured because they are made whole by the replacement water
supply and method of replacement, export of the desalinated source water would
be permissible and qualify as developed water. In the future, this developed
water, under the above described conditions, would continue to be available for
export even if there are additional users in the Basin. Developed waters are
available for use by the party who develops them, subject to the no injury
standard discussed previously.

38

Cal-Am could use one or more of several possible methods to replace any fresh
water it extracts from the Basin. Cal-Am could return the water to the aquifer
through injection wells, percolation basins, or through the CSIP. Cal-Am would
need to determine which of those methods would be the most feasible, and
would in fact, ensure no harm to existing legal users. The feasibility analysis
would depend on site-specific geologic conditions at reinjection well locations
and at the percolation areas. These studies need to be described and supported
in detail before Cal-Am can claim an appropriative right to export surplus
developed water from the Basin.
The Monterey County Water Resources Agency Act (Agency Act) an uncodified
Act adopted in 1990 sets out the role and jurisdiction of MCWRA in administering
the Basins waters. 58 In furtherance of the Agency Act, MCWRA adopted
Ordinance 3709 (Ordinance) which applies to groundwater extractions after
1995. The Ordinance essentially finds that seawater intrusion is a threat to
beneficial uses and the Ordinance prohibits extractions within the northern
Salinas Valley from a depth of 0 msl to -250 feet msl. The Ordinance provides a
variance procedure for a user to request relief from a strict application of the
Ordinance.
Section 21 of the Agency Act acknowledges that the Agency is developing a
project that will establish a balance between extraction and recharge in the
Basin. To preserve that balance, the Agency Act provides (with limited
exception) that no groundwater from that Basin may be exported for any use
outside that basin.... Export is not defined in the Agency Act. In the water
rights context, limitations on export ordinarily are not interpreted to apply to
situations where the conveyance of water to areas outside a watershed or stream
system is accompanied by an augmentation of the waters in that area, so there is
58

The applicability of the Agency Act to the MPWSP is unclear. As currently proposed, the project would
use slanted wells and have screened intervals located seaward from the beach. Although the project
would serve areas within the territory of the MPWSP, the points of diversion for these proposed wells may
be located outside the territory of MCWRA as defined by the Agency Act. (See Section 4 of the Agency
Act, Stats. 1990, ch. 1159, Wests Ann. Wat. Appen., 52-4 (1999 ed.); Gov. Code, 23127 [defining
boundaries as following the shore of the Pacific Ocean].)

39

no net export. 59 An interpretation based on the net effect of the project also
appears to be consistent with the purposes of the Agency Act. Section 8 of the
Agency Act states that one of the objectives and a purpose of the Agency Act is
to provide for the control of the flood and storm waters of the Agency, and to
[control] storm and flood waters that flow into the Agency, and to conserve those
waters for beneficial and useful purposes In reference to groundwater, the
Agency Act states the Agencys purpose is to prevent the waste and diminution
of the water supply in the Agencys jurisdiction, including controlling groundwater
extractions as required to prevent or deter the loss of usable groundwater
through intrusion of seawater. Another purpose of the Agency Act is to provide
for the replacement of groundwater through development and distribution of a
substitute water supply.
Based on the State Water Boards analysis, as reflected in the Report, the
Project as proposed would return any incidentally extracted usable groundwater
to the Basin. The only water that would be available for export is a new supply,
or developed water. Accordingly, it does not appear that the Agency Act or the
Ordinance operate to prohibit the Project. The State Water Board is not the
agency responsible for interpreting the Agency Act or MCWRAs ordinances. It
should be recognized, however, that to the extent the language of the Agency
Act and Ordinance permit, they should be interpreted consistent with policy of
article X, section 2 of the California Constitution, including the physical solution
doctrine, discussed below.

6.3

Physical Solution Discussion

To operate the MPWSP, Cal-Am must ensure the MPWSP will not injure other
legal users in the Basin. This could require implementation of a physical
solution.

59

See, e.g. SWRCB Decision 1594 (1984) [interpreting the priority of needs for beneficial use in the
watershed of origin over exports by the Central Valley Project and the State Water Project not to apply to
waters imported to the watershed by the projects].)

40

A physical solution is one that assures all water right holders have their rights
protected without unnecessarily reducing the diversions of others. The phrase
physical solution is used in water-rights cases to describe an agreed upon or
judicially imposed resolution of conflicting claims in a manner that advances the
constitutional rule of reasonable and beneficial use of the state's water supply.
(City of Santa Maria v. Adam (2012) 211 Cal. App. 4th 266, 286 (City of Santa
Maria).) A physical solution may be imposed by a court in connection with an
adjudication of a groundwater basin where rights of all parties are quantified, as
part of a groundwater management program, or as part of a water development
project. 60 One important characteristic of a physical solution is that it may not
adversely impact a partys existing water right. (Mojave, supra, 23 Cal.4th 1224,
1251.) Physical solutions are frequently used in groundwater basins to protect
existing users rights, maintain groundwater quality, allow for future development,
and implement the constitutional mandate against waste and unreasonable use.
(See California American Water v. City of Seaside (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 471,
480.)
From the standpoint of applying the States waters to maximum beneficial use,
and to implement Article X, section 2 of the California Constitution, physical
solutions can and should be imposed to reduce waste. 61 (See, e.g., Lodi, supra,
7 Cal.2d 316, 339-341, 344-345; Hillside Memorial Park and Mortuary v. Golden
State Water Co. (2011) 205 Cal.App.4th 534, 549-550.) In Lodi, a physical
solution was imposed to limit the wasting of water to the sea. The defendant
appropriator was required to keep water levels above levels that would injure the
senior user or to supply equivalent water to the plaintiff. (Lodi, supra, 7 Cal.2d
316, 339-341, 344-345.)
Agreement of all parties is not necessary for a physical solution to be imposed.
(See Lodi, supra, at p.341, citing Tulare Irrigation District v. Lindsay Strathmore
60

Sawyer, State Regulation of Groundwater Pollution Caused by Changes in Groundwater Quantity or


Flow (1998) 19 Pacific. L.J.1267, 1297.
61
Additionally, Water Code section 12947 states the general policy of promoting saline water conversion
to fresh water in the State.

41

Irrigation District (1935) 3 Cal.2d 489, 574.) In addition, a basin need not be
determined to be in a condition of overdraft for a physical solution to be instituted.
Although we may use physical solutions to alleviate an overdraft situation, there
is no requirement that there be an overdraft before the court may impose a
physical solution. (City of Santa Maria, supra, 211 Cal.App.4th, 266, 288.)
Likewise, a physical solution can also be imposed in a basin that is determined to
be in a condition of overdraft. (See generally Pasadena v. Alhambra (1949) 33
Cal.2d 908 [in a situation of continued overdraft, the court imposed limits on all
users].)
Under the physical solution doctrine, although the Basin continues to be in a
condition of overdraft, to maximize beneficial use of the states waters Cal-Am
may be allowed to pump a mixture of seawater, brackish water, and fresh water
and export the desalinated water to non-overlying parcels. As a subsequent
appropriator, the burden is on Cal-Am to show its operations will result in surplus
water that will not injure users with existing legal rights. (See Lodi, supra, 7
Cal.2d at p.339.) To avoid injury to other users and protect beneficial uses of the
Basins waters, Cal-Am would have to show it is able to return its fresh water
component to the Basin in such a way that existing users are not harmed and
foreseeable uses of the Basin water are protected.
Modeling of the North Marina Project, which may be similar to the MPWSP,
indicates that approximately 762 to 3,250 afa could be extracted from the
landward direction of the slant wells, or approximately 3 to 13 percent of the total
water extracted could be water that is contained or sourced from the Basin rather
than seawater derived from Monterey Bay. The percentage of this water that is
fresh or potable would have to be determined and the proportion of fresh water
that is extracted for the desalination facility would have to be replaced. The
exact method for replacing the fresh water extracted will be a key component of
any legally supportable project. Replacement methods such as injection to
recharge wells, delivery to recharge basins, or applying additional water through
the CSIP program would need to be further examined to implement a physical
solution that ensures no injury to other legal users. Cal-Am would need to
42

determine which of those methods would be the most feasible and result in
returning the Basin to pre-project conditions.
One possibility raised by interested parties is that Basin conditions may change
in the future, for reasons independent of MPWSP operation. If the seawater
intrusion front were to shift seaward, Cal-Am might extract a higher proportion of
fresh water from its wells and reach a limit where it would be infeasible for it to
return a like amount of fresh water back to the Basin and still deliver the amount
of desalinated water needed for off-site uses. Based on the current project
design and location of the extraction wells, it is highly unlikely that in the
foreseeable future Cal-Am will draw an increased percentage of fresh water from
wells with intake screens located several hundred feet offshore. If pumping
within the Basin remains unchanged, it is projected that the MPWSP would not
pump fresh water within a 56-year period if pumping occurred in an unconfined
aquifer. 62 Since modeling has not been done simulating confined conditions, the
extent of the impact on fresh water supply or wells is unknown in this situation.
If, however, Basin conditions do change and Cal-Ams fresh water extractions
increase, several scenarios could develop.
One possible scenario is that Cal-Am could show that (1) but-for the MPWSP,
new fresh water would not be available in the Basin, and (2) as Cal Am continues
to operate the MPWSP, the increased amount of fresh water available is
developed water that would have previously been unavailable both to it and to
other users. If this increased fresh water available to Basin users alleviates
seawater intrusion issues, as well as provides for a new supply in excess of what
would otherwise be available in the Basin, a physical solution could be imposed
that would apportion the new water supply and allow continued pumping.
As discussed above, it is unlikely that Basin conditions would improve
independent of MPWSP operation. If there is increased fresh water availability in

62

North Marina Project modeling showed that if pumping occurred in an unconfined aquifer over a 56
year period, then pumping would have little to no effect on the movement of the seawater intrusion front
FEIR July 2008, Appendix E p. 21 (E-28).

43

the Basin that cannot be attributed to the MPWSP and Cal-Ams fresh water
extractions exceed what it can return to the Basin, Cal-Am may have to limit its
export diversions to ensure that other legal users are not injured. Alternatively, it
is possible that Cal-Am could implement modifications to the groundwater
extraction system to offset any impacts on fresh water sources 63.
Based on historical uses of water in the Basin and despite efforts to reduce
groundwater pumping in seawater intruded areas through enactment of
Ordinance 3709 and efforts to increase recharge through the CSIP, there is no
substantial evidence to suggest that Basin conditions will improve independent of
the MPWSP without a comprehensive solution to the overdraft conditions.
Although implementation of the SVWP has reportedly contributed to a reduction
in the rate of seawater intrusion, there are still very large pumping depressions in
the Basin, and these pumping depressions provide a significant driving force for
sustained seawater intrusion which will likely continue for many decades.
There is expected to be minimal impact to fresh water sources at start-up and for
the first several years of operation as water will certainly be sourced from the
intruded portion of the aquifer. The magnitude and timing of the effect on other
users would have to be determined to allow for a design solution to avoid or
compensate for the impact of continued operation. (See Lodi, 7 Cal.2d 316, 342;
[the fact that there is no immediate danger to the City of Lodi's water right is an
element to be considered in working out a proper solution.] The physical
solution doctrine could allow for an adjustment of rights, so long as others legal
rights are not infringed upon or injured. [I]f a physical solution be ascertainable,
the court has the power to make and should make reasonable regulations for the
use of the water by the respective partiesand in this connection the court has
the power to and should reserve unto itself the right to change and modify its
orders (Peabody, supra, 2 Cal.2d at pp. 383-384.)

63

For example, active groundwater barrier systems, or other means of isolating the extraction wells from
the groundwater system could be implemented.

44

Ongoing monitoring of the impacts of the MPWSP will be necessary to determine


whether, and to what extent, changes to the Basins conditions occur. If and
when impacts to fresh water resources in the Basin are identified, any fresh
water injection wells would have to be designed to ensure water is injected in
areas not already degraded. Alternatively, or in conjunction with injection wells,
Cal-Am could ensure an adequate supply of replacement water is maintained
within the CSIP program. Initial studies would be needed to determine the most
suitable location based on soil permeability for additional percolation basins, if
necessary. As with injection wells, percolation basins would need to be located
where the underlying aquifer does not contain degraded water.
Based on the information provided in the FEIR, North Marina Project modeling
suggests a zone of influence of approximately 2 miles from the proposed
extraction wells. 64 According to the State Water Boards GAMA database, there
are approximately 14 known water wells within this zone. These 14 wells are
within the seawater intruded portion of the Basin. The current use of these wells
is unknown; however, it is unlikely the MPWSP would injure users of these wells
as the wells are within a zone where water quality is significantly impacted from
seawater intrusion and may not serve beneficial uses. Within this 2-mile radial
zone, the three foreseeable injuries that overlying users could experience are: (1)
a reduction in the overall availability of fresh water due to possible incidental
extraction by the MPWSP; (2) a reduction in water quality in those wells in a
localized area within the capture zone; and, (3) a reduction in groundwater
elevations requiring users to expend additional pumping energy to extract water
from the Basin.
If the MPWSP wells are located where unconfined aquifer conditions exist,
Project pumping likely would extract both seawater and brackish groundwater.
Other than seawater, the majority of the source water would be from within the
seawater-intruded portion of the Basin as the seawater intrusion front extends

64

Cal-Am, Coastal Water Project, FEIR, Appendix E, Geoscience, North Marina Groundwater Model
Evaluation of Projects p. 21 (E-28), July and September 2008.

45

approximately 5 miles landward from the proposed well locations. If the MPWSP
receives source water from a confined aquifer it would affect a much larger area
in the Basin, but without test wells and data showing operations under confined
aquifer conditions, it is not possible to determine what percentage of fresh water
would be pumped under confined conditions. Staff concludes, however, that the
potential for injury is greater if the source water is pumped under confined
conditions.

6.4

Summary of Legal Analysis

In summary, to appropriate groundwater from the Basin, the burden is on Cal-Am


to show no injury to other users. Key factors will be the following: (1) how much
fresh water Cal-Am is extracting as a proportion of the total pumped amount and
how much desalinated seawater is thus available for export as developed water;
(2) whether pumping affects the water table level in existing users wells and
whether Cal-Am can avoid injury that would otherwise result from any lowering of
water levels through monetary compensation or paying for upgraded wells; (3)
whether pumping affects water quality to users wells within the capture zone and
whether Cal-Am can avoid or compensate for water quality impacts.(4) how Cal
Am should return any fresh water it extracts to the Basin to prevent injury to
others; and (5) how groundwater rights might be affected in the future if the
proportion of fresh and seawater changes, both in the larger Basin area and the
immediate area around Cal-Ams wells.
As discussed in this report, additional data will be necessary to ensure that
continued operation of the MPWSP, under different source water extraction
scenarios, will not injure other legal groundwater users.
Both near and long-term, a new water supply from desalination, or the
implementation of a physical solution could ensure an adequate water supply for
all legal water users in the Basin and provide an assured supply of groundwater

46

to the Basins users. 65 Even if overdraft conditions continued in the Basin


following imposition of the solution, Cal-Am possibly could continue pumping
brackish water legally so long as the quantity was not detrimental to the
conditions in the Basin and other Basin users rights. When the supply is limited
public interest requires that there be the greatest number of beneficial uses
which the supply can yield. (Peabody, supra, 2 Cal.2d at p. 368.)
So long as overlying users are protected from injury, appropriation of water
consistent with the principles previously discussed in this report should be
possible. (See generally Burr v. MacClay Rancho Water Co. (1908) 154 Cal.
428, 430-31, 438-39 [if an appropriator does not exceed average annual
replenishment of groundwater supply, lower users water levels in wells or restrict
future pumping, the appropriators use is not adverse to other users].). Additional
support is found in City of San Bernardino v. City of Riverside (1921) 186 Cal. 7,
20; No injunction should issue against the taking of water while the supply is
ample for all. But the respective priorities of each water right should be
adjudged, so that if in the future the supply falls below the quantity necessary for
all, he who has the prior right may have his preferred right protected.
Cal-Am must show any desalinated water it produces is developed water; a new
supply to the existing groundwater resources in the Basin. It must show
replacement water methods are effective and feasible, and the MPWSP can
operate without injury to other users. As discussed earlier, if the MPWSP pumps
65

Some parties argue an adjudication of the Basins rights would be needed for the MPWSP to proceed.
While adjudication could provide some benefits to the Basins users it is not necessary for a physical
solution to be imposed. For reference, there are three general procedures by which an adjudication or
rights to use groundwater in the Basin could be quantified and conditioned: 1) civil action with no state
participation; 2) civil action where a reference is made to the State Water Board pursuant to Water Code
section 2000; or 3) a State Water Board determination, pursuant to the outlined statutory procedure that
groundwater must be adjudicated in order to restrict pumping or a physical solution is necessary to
preserve the quality of the groundwater and to avoid injury to users. (Wat. Code, 2100 et seq.)
Whether Cal-Am could force an adjudication of water rights is beyond the scope of this report but will be
briefly discussed. As applied in Corona Foothill Lemon Co. v. Lillibridge, (1937) 8 Cal. 2d 522, 531-32,
an exporter cannot force an apportionment where it is conclusively shown that no surplus water exists
and there is no controversy among overlying owners. But a conclusive showing that there is no water
available for export does not appear to be the case here. Water that is currently unusable, both due to its
location in the Basin and corresponding quality, could be rendered usable if desalinated and would thus
be surplus to current water supplies in the Basin.

47

source water from an unconfined aquifer, there may be no injury to other users
outside of a 2-mile radius, with the exception of possibly slightly lower
groundwater levels in the seawater-intruded area. Based on current information
we do not know the exact effects on other users if source water is pumped from a
confined aquifer, but the effects in general will be amplified.

7. Conclusion
The key determination is whether Cal-Am may extract water from the SVGB while
avoiding injury to other groundwater users and protecting beneficial uses in the Basin.
If the MPWSP is constructed with gravity wells or pumping wells the effects on the
aquifer would be the same as long as the amount of drawdown in the wells is the same.
But in the case of a pumped well, the operator has the ability to induce greater
drawdown than they would in the gravity wells. In this case, there would be a greater
effect to the aquifer. Since modeling has not been completed for the gravity well
scenario, it is unknown at this time the total effect the gravity wells would have on the
Basin and other groundwater users.
If the MPWSP is constructed as described in the FEIR for the North Marina Project, the
slant wells would pump from the unconfined Dune Sand Aquifer. If groundwater is
pumped from an unconfined aquifer and the modeling assumptions in the FEIR for the
North Marina Project are accurate, there will be lowering of groundwater levels within an
approximate 2-mile radius. Since seawater intrusion occurs in this area, this water
developed through desalination is likely new water that is surplus to the current needs
of other users in the Basin. Based on the information available, it is unlikely any injury
would occur by the lowering of the groundwater levels in this region. Nevertheless, CalAm must show there is no injury and if the MPWSP reduces the amount of fresh water
available to other legal users of water in the Basin or reduces the water quality so that
users are no longer able to use the water for the same beneficial use, such impacts
would need to be avoided or compensated for.
If the proposed slant wells are determined to be infeasible, and the project is instead
designed to extract groundwater with conventional pumping wells, the potential impacts
could be greater, but they would not necessarily result in injury that could not be
48

avoided or compensated through appropriate measures. Impacts on other water users


in the form of increased groundwater pumping costs could be eliminated through
financial compensation within a reasonable time frame from when the costs are
incurred. Impacts on the availability of fresh water could be determined through
modeling and any replacement of fresh water would have to be returned in an area that
is not already degraded by seawater intrusion. Impacts on users in the form of
decreased water quality could be compensated through the replacement of water with
similar quality to the pre-project conditions.
Modeling for the North Marina Project does not predict that Basin users fresh water
supplies would be affected if its wells pump from an unconfined aquifer, which we
assume to also be true for the MPWSP. If however, further exploratory testing shows
water is removed from a confined aquifer, water levels would be lowered in a larger
area and the effect on groundwater flow direction would be greater. Although pumping
from a confined condition affects a much larger area of the Basin, the quantity of fresh
water extracted from the aquifer would not necessarily be greater because the capture
zone for the extraction wells would be greatly influenced by existing groundwater
gradients. Additional studies are needed to determine whether the revised MPWSP
configuration could cause injury to other groundwater users in the Basin that would
require additional measures to avoid or compensate for that injury.
Cal-Am could legally pump from the Basin by developing a new water supply through
desalination and showing the developed water is surplus to the existing supply. If CalAms extractions are limited to water that currently serves no beneficial use; for
example, it is entirely derived from brackish or seawater sources, and Cal-Am returns all
incidental fresh water to the Basin in a method that avoids injury to other users, it is
likely the MPWSP could proceed without violating other users groundwater rights. A no
injury finding would have to be shown through monitoring, modeling, compensation,
project design or other means
A physical solution could be implemented to ensure all rights are protected while
maximizing the beneficial uses of the Basins waters. Such an approach is consistent
with the general policy in California Constitution article X section 2, and case law

49

provides guidance on solutions to address complex groundwater issues where supply is


constrained. The ongoing development of solutions tailored to the specific conditions
that apply to a given groundwater basin reflects the understanding that California waters
are too valuable not to be utilized to the maximum extent possible if beneficial uses and
other legal users rights are maintained.

8. Recommendations
Additional information is needed to accurately determine MPWSP impacts on current
and future Basin conditions regardless of whether the extraction occurs from pumped or
gravity wells. First, specific information is needed on the depth of the wells and aquifer
conditions. Specifically, studies are needed to determine the extent of the Dune Sand
Aquifer, the water quality and quantity of the Dune Sand Aquifer, the extent and
thickness of the SVA and the extent of the 180-Foot Aquifer.
Second, the effects of the MPWSP on the Basin need to be evaluated. Specifically, a
series of test boring/wells would be needed to assess the hydrogeologic conditions at
the site. Aquifer testing is also needed to determine the pumping effects on both the
Dune Sand Aquifer and the underlying 180-Foot Aquifer. Pre-project conditions should
be identified prior to aquifer testing. Aquifer tests should mimic proposed pumping
rates.
Third, updated groundwater modeling will be needed to evaluate future impacts from the
MPWSP. Specifically, modeling scenarios will need to be run to predict changes in
groundwater levels, groundwater flow direction, and changes in the extent and
boundary of the seawater intrusion front. Additional studies also will be necessary to
determine how any extracted fresh water is replaced, whether through re-injection wells,
percolation basins, or through existing recharge programs. It may also be necessary to
survey the existing groundwater users in the affected area. The studies will form the
basis for a plan that avoids injury to other groundwater users and protects beneficial
uses in the Basin. To ensure that this modeling provides the best assessment of the
potential effects of the MPWSP, it is important that any new information gathered during
the initial phases of the groundwater investigation be incorporated into the groundwater

50

modeling studies as well as all available information including current activities that
could influence the groundwater quality in the Basin.

51

APPENDIX A: RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED

State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) staff received six comment
letters on the Draft Review of California American Water Companys (Cal-Ams)
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP) (Report). Parties commenting on
the Report included the Monterey County Farm Bureau, Norman Groot (Groot);
LandWatch Monterey County, Amy L. White (White); the Salinas Valley Water Coalition,
Nancy Isakson (Isakson); Ag Land Trust, Molly Erickson of the Law Offices of Michael
W. Stamp (Erickson); Water Plus, Ron Weitzman (Weitzman), and Cal-Am, Rob Donlan
of Ellison, Schneider, & Harris L.L. P (Donlan). State Water Board staff appreciates the
time and consideration taken by the commenters. Staff reviewed and used the
comments and additional information included with the comment letters to enhance the
accuracy and completeness of the Report. Specifically, staff amended the Report to
include: 1) additional emphasis and direction on recommended studies; 2) discussion
potential injury that could occur to those users in close proximity to the MPWSP wells;
3) clarification on the information relied upon in the Report; 4) expanded discussion on
the Monterey County Water Resources Agency (MCWRA) Act (Agency Act) and
Ordinance No. 3709; 5) discussion of the Salinas Valley Water Project; and 6) a new
section on potential Project effects on seawater intrusion. Additionally, staff has
prepared a categorical response to comments below.
Comments that pertain to the State Water Boards Report generally fell into the
following categories: 1) State Water Boards role and objective in preparing the Report;
2) sources of information used in preparing the Report (including adequacy of the
environmental document for the previously proposed Coastal Water Project and use of
previously developed groundwater model); 3) concerns about injury to other legal users
of water (including potential impacts on existing efforts to control seawater intrusion); 4)
legal issues related to the exportation of water from the Salinas Valley Groundwater
Basin (Basin); 5) the need for better information about the hydrogeology of the
proposed project location and the effects the proposed project would have on
52

groundwater in the Basin; and 6) legal interpretation of groundwater appropriation law


and concepts discussed within the Report.

1. Does the State Water Board have authority to review the proposed Project? If
so, what is the State Water Boards role in preparing the Report? (Responds to
comments received from: Erickson, p. 2)

The California Public Utilities Commission (Commission) is the lead agency


under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for approval of the
proposed project. The Commission requested that the State Water Board
provide an opinion on the legal and technical considerations implicated in CalAms proposal to extract desalination feed water for the MPWSP. As stated in
the Report, the purpose is to examine the technical information and outline legal
considerations which would apply to the proposed MPWSP. State Water Board
staff is acting in an advisory role in developing the Report and providing an
opinion on whether the proposed project, many aspects of which have not yet
been finalized, could be implemented without violating groundwater rights or
resulting in injury to the Basin users.
State Water Board staff prepared the Report in an advisory role only, as
requested by the Commission. We have considered and addressed all
comments that pertain to the contents of the Report. Many comments go beyond
the scope of the Report and the State Water Boards role in its development.
The Report is an advisory opinion from State Water Board regarding certain legal
and technical issues related to the extraction of saline groundwater for a
proposed desalination project. It is not binding on any party or entity, and is in no
way a substitute for the public processes and environmental documentation that
will occur and be produced as part of the Commissions role in evaluating the
proposed project.

2. Is it appropriate for State Water Board staff to consider information included in


the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that was vacated by the Monterey County
53

Superior Court in developing the Report? (Responds to comments received


from; Erickson, pp. 9, 13, 14; White , pp. 3-4)

State Water Board staff considered technical information and groundwater


modeling that was conducted as part of the environmental and technical review
for the previously studied Coastal Water Project. In the Report, we qualify our
assessment of likely potential impacts. We also note that additional
investigations are needed to provide the information necessary to develop a
better understanding of the effects that pumping from the proposed extraction
wells would have on groundwater resources in the Basin. The Report, however,
states that we assume for the purposes of preliminary evaluation that the
hydrogeologic characteristics and effects to the groundwater system would be
similar to the North Marina Project alternative analyzed in the previously
considered Final EIR. The State Water Board staff reviewed the technical
information contained in the FEIR and relied on its analysis when it prepared the
Report because it was the best information available. The Report notes that
there are many unanswered questions about the nature of the subsurface
geology, and how the implementation of the proposed project will affect
subsurface water conditions. These questions can only be addressed by
proceeding with subsurface investigations and developing a more detailed and
comprehensive groundwater model. The final project design and location will be
part of the formal environmental review process conducted by the Commission.
The Commission staff indicates that during environmental review, the public will
have additional opportunity to comment on the adequacy of the technical aspects
of the project that the Commission examines. We have included a list of
references as an appendix to the Report.

3. Legal issues related to the exportation of groundwater from the Basin (Responds
to comments received from: Erickson, pp. 17, 19; White, p. 2; Groot, p. 2;
Isakson, pp. 4-5; Donlan, p. 5; Weitzman, p. 1)

54

The Report discusses the need for the MPWSP to account for potential injury to
overlying users of groundwater in the Basin that may result from groundwater
export to non-overlying parcels. Several commenters note that the Agency Act
prohibits export of groundwater from the Basin. The Commission did not request
that the State Water Board interpret the Agency Act. MCWRA, not the State
Water Board, is the agency responsible for interpreting and enforcing its enabling
legislation. Consistent with the legal principles applicable to California water
rights, however, interpreting the export prohibition to apply even if there is no net
export from the Basin, under circumstances where injury to other legal users of
water is avoided, does not appear to be a reasonable interpretation of the
Agency Act.

4. Would legal users of groundwater in the Basin be injured by the implementation


of the proposed Project? (Responds to comments received from: Erickson, pp.
2-6, 11, 14, 17-20; White, pp. 2-4; Groot, pp. 1-2; Isakson, p. 2; Donlan, pp.
1-5)

The State Water Boards Report discusses potential injury from the proposed
extraction wells. It concludes that further technical studies are necessary to
determine whether water can be extracted without harming existing legal
groundwater rights. Some of the commenters point to the importance of
developing a more detailed groundwater model, but also oppose constructing the
test well(s) and conducting the investigations necessary to obtain the information
required to develop such a model because of the assertion that injury will occur
immediately as a result of the test wells. Our Report concludes that it is
necessary for Cal-Am to conduct groundwater investigations in order to collect
the information needed to refine the groundwater model. Without this additional
information, the State Water Board cannot conclude whether the project could
injure any legal user of groundwater in the Basin.

55

5. What would be the impact on current or future efforts to address the severe
seawater intrusion problems in the Basin, and is it appropriate to conduct the
initial phase of investigation for the proposed Project before developing a more
definitive groundwater model? (Responds to comments received from:
Erickson, pp. 7-10, 12, 15, 16, 21; White, pp. 4-5; Isakson, pp. 3-6; Donlan,
p. 4)

The State Water Board used the best available information to characterize the
current extent of seawater intrusion. The Report recognizes the efforts embodied
in the Salinas Valley Water Project and the Castroville Seawater Intrusion Project
to address seawater intrusion and staff concludes that despite these and other
efforts, seawater intrusion continues its inland trend into the Basin. One
commenter criticizes this assessment stating, [t]he MCWRA position, affirmed
recently, is that seawater intrusion has not worsened. The State Water Board
has received no information from MCWRA indicating that its current position is
that seawater intrusion has been effectively halted and is no longer advancing.
Our characterization that seawater is continuing its inland trend is consistent with
the current information published by the MCWRA. Whether the seawater
intrusion efforts will be assisted by the implementation of the proposed project, or
hindered by it, is a question that can only be answered through further
investigation. These investigations are proposed as a component of the
MPWSP. Accordingly, the Report makes no finding on the issue. Although
outside the scope of the Report, we anticipate that the project proponents will
coordinate their activities with those of the MCWRA to ensure that both the
desalination project and the efforts to address seawater intrusion are compatible.

It is necessary to conduct the studies proposed for the initial stage of the
investigation in order to develop the required groundwater model. State Water
Board staff believes that this investigation can be conducted without adversely
affecting Basin water users. The investigation should ascertain whether any
groundwater users have wells in close proximity to the proposed test well, and

56

any concerns about the use of that well during the investigation phase should be
addressed.

6. Legal interpretation of Groundwater Law. (Responds to specific comments from


Erickson and Donlan. Page citations listed below.)

The State Water Board notes that several parties, notably Ag Land Trust,
question the State Boards interpretation of the legal principles that apply to the
proposed project. Staff has reviewed the comments and confirms that the Report
is consistent with its interpretation of legal precedent applicable to the Project. In
some instances, comments appeared to focus on selected passages and did not
consider the entire context in which the statements were made or the purpose for
which the legal precedent was cited. In other instances, it appears the
commenters questions or concerns were later addressed in subsequent
sections. Without responding to each legal argument raised, for clarification
purposes, staff would like to respond to the following legal points raised by the
following parties:

1) Erickson:

a. Comment on page 17 questions the statement in the Report that, No


permit is required by the State Water Board to acquire or utilize
appropriative groundwater rights. The comment claims the statement
is misleading and the State Water Resources Control Board has no
right to require any permit for an appropriative right.

Response: With respect to the first comment, the State Water Board
believes this is an accurate statementno permit is required by the
State Water Board for the acquisition of appropriative groundwater
rights in the Basin. Nor is it misleading. As indicated by the extensive
discussion of principles of groundwater law, the Report does not

57

suggest that the inapplicability of state permitting requirements is


sufficient to establish a right to divert and use percolating groundwater.

b. Comment on page 2 states, The SWRCB has no authority over


percolating groundwater that is being put to beneficial use. The
comment questions why the State Water Board would express view on
issues concerning groundwater rights, and states that the Report
should include a discussion of the State Water Boards authority.

Response: The State Water Board is the state agency with primary
responsibility for the regulatory and adjudicatory functions of the state
in the field of water resources. (Wat. Code, 174.) The water right
permitting and licensing system administered by the State Water Board
is limited to diversions from surface water channels and subterranean
streams flowing through known and definite channels. (See id.,
1200.) But the State Water Board has other authority that applies to all
waters of the state, surface or underground. This includes the State
Water Boards water quality planning authority, which extends to any
activity or factor affecting water quality, including water diversions.
(Id., 13050 subds. (e) & (i).), 13140 et seq., 13240 et seq.; see 44
Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 126, 128 (1964).)

The State Water Board has broad powers to exchange information with
other state agencies concerning water rights and water quality, and
more specific authority to evaluate the need for water-quality-related
investigations. (Wat. Code, 187, 13163, subd. (b).) The State Water
Board also has authority to conduct or participate in proceedings to
promote the full beneficial use of waters of the state and prevent the
waste or unreasonable use of water. (Id., 275.) This authority
includes participation in proceedings before other executive,
legislative, or judicial agencies, including the Commission. (Ibid.) And
the State Water Boards authority to promote the full beneficial use of
58

water and prevent waste or unreasonable use applies all waters the
state, including percolating groundwater. (See, e.g. SWRCB Decision
1474 (1977.)

The Water Code includes procedures for court references to the State
Water Board, under which the State Water Board prepares a report on
water right issues before the court. (Wat. Code, 2000 et. seq., 2075
et seq.; see National Audubon Society v. Superior Court (1983) 33
Cal.3d 419, 451 [these procedures are designed to enable courts to to
make use of the experience and expert knowledge of the board.]; San
Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. Superior Court (1996) 13 Cal.4th 893, 91415 [the Commission has broad authority including judicial powers].)

Thus, it is well within the State Water Boards authority and consistent
with the execution of its statutory responsibilities to report to the
Commission on matters related to rights to diversion and use of water,
including diversions of percolating groundwater. The conclusions and
recommendations in this Report are not binding on the Commission,
but provide a means for the Commission to make use of the
knowledge and expertise of the State Water Board.

c. Comment on page 19 states, Exportation of groundwater is prohibited


by state law and case law. There is no provision for this replacement
and export scheme absent adjudication.

Response: See Report pages 38-39. A physical solution can be


imposed without adjudication. The phrase physical solution is used
in water-rights cases to describe an agreed upon or judicially imposed
resolution of conflicting claims in a manner that advances the
constitutional rule of reasonable and beneficial use of the state's water
supply. (City of Santa Maria v. Adam (2012) 211 Cal. App. 4th 266,

59

286 (City of Santa Maria).) See also, Hutchins (1956) The California
Law of Water Rights pp. 351-354; 497-498.

2) Donlan:

a. Comment page 3, Cal-Am interprets the Report as concluding that


effects on wells within the zone of influence will not likely rise to the
level of legal injury requiring remedial action or a physical solution
unless there is a substantial impact to the use of those wells for
beneficial purposes citing Lodi v. East Bay Municipal Utilities District
(1936) 7 Cal.2d 316, 341.

Response: The comment correctly notes the physical solution doctrine


does not require that minor inconvenience or other insubstantial
impacts be avoided. As the Report notes, further studies are
necessary to determine whether Project effects on wells would rise to
the level of legal injury.

60

APPENDIX B: RESPONSES TO LATE COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED


State Water Board staff received two late comment letters on the Draft Review of the
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project: 1) from Steve Shimek representing the Otter
Project; and 2) from Molly Erickson representing Ag Land Trust. Mr. Shimeks
comments focused on the condition of the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin, seawater
intrusion, the need to improve water conservation measures, and the role of the
Monterey County Water Resources Agency. Since Mr. Shimeks comments did not
directly pertain to the Draft Review, staff will not provide a response to the comments.
Ms. Ericksons comments pertained to statements made by State Water Board staff
during the presentation of the Draft Review at the Board meeting held in Monterey on
June 4, 2013. Ms. Erickson claimed that staff had erroneously stated that the
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Regional Desal Project was challenged in
Monterey County Superior Court on legal issues only and not on technical issues. Ms.
Erickson claims the court invalidated the EIR on both legal and technical issues.
Following is State Water Board staffs response to Ms. Ericksons comments.

1. The court remanded the EIR on technical and legal grounds.

The court found that Marina Coast Water District abused its discretion by
proceeding as a responsible agency rather than as a lead agency under
CEQA. In the courts statement of decision and order, the court stated in
general terms that Marina Coast abused its discretion by failing to properly
and adequately identify, discuss, and address environmental impacts of the
project, including but not limited to: water rights, contingency plan,
assumption of constant pumping, exportation of groundwater, brine impacts,
impacts on overlying and adjacent properties, and water quality. The courts
decision noted the lack of data and analysis presented by Marina Coast
Water District to support its claims that groundwater was available for export
and the impacts of pumping on the physical environment. The court stated
there was no dispute that the project as proposed would extract water from
61

the 180-Foot Aquifer. The courts statement of decision did not invalidate
studies or data, rather the court found the analysis of environmental impacts
of the proposed project was incomplete for CEQA purposes.

2. The Board should not rely on any information in the EIR.

Please see Response to Comment 2, Appendix A:

3. If the Board decides to use the EIR, then staff should identify specific
language in the EIR that was used in the report.

State Water Board staff cited instances where the report used information
contained in the EIR. Additionally, staff created a reference list (Appendix C)
of those references relied upon and considered in the report. Although our
report goes to great lengths to explain the data gaps that exist and the need
for additional information, a footnote was added to the report on page 4 to
respond to the comment. Footnote 7 further clarifies staffs use of the EIR.
The footnote states, The use of the Cal-Am Coastal Water Project FEIR in
this report was informative in creating a broad picture of the potential impacts
to groundwater resources in the Basin. The FEIR was not used to arrive at
specific conclusions of the definite impacts that would result from the
MPWSP. The analysis provided in this report can and should be applied in
the context of a future EIR. It is anticipated that additional information gained
from the studies recommended in our report will assist the Commission in
determining the impacts of the MPWSP on the Salinas Valley Groundwater
Basin.

62

APPENDIX C: REFERENCES

References Relied Upon (in text legal citations omitted):


Application 12-04-019 before the California Public Utilities Commission, Opening Brief
of LandWatch Monterey County Regarding Groundwater Rights and Public Ownership,
July 10, 2012.
California American Water Company, Coastal Water Project, FEIR, Appendix E,
Geoscience, North Marina Groundwater Model Evaluation of Projects, July 2008.
California American Water Company, Coastal Water Project, FEIR, Appendix E,
Geoscience, North Marina Groundwater Model Evaluation of Projects, September 2008.
California American Water Company, Coastal Water Project Final Environmental Impact
Report, October 30, 2009.
California Department of Water Resources, Californias Groundwater, Bulletin 118,
Central Coast Hydrologic Region, SVGB, February 2004.
California Public Utilities Commission correspondence to State Water Board, February
14, 2013.
http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M047/K304/47304686.pdf
California Public Utilities Commission, Notice of Preparation, Environmental Impact
Report for the Cal-Am Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project, October 2012.
Driscoll, F.G. 1986, Groundwater and Wells.
Fetter C. W. 1994, Applied Hydrogeology 3rd Edition.
Monterey County Water Resources Agency, Ordinance No. 3709, September 14, 1993.
Monterey County Water Resources Agency, Monterey County Groundwater
Management Plan, Chapter 3 Basin Description, May 2006.
Monterey County Water Resources Agency, Monterey County General Plan Final
Environmental Impact Report, March 2012.
Monterey County Water Resources Agency Groundwater Informational Presentation,
August 27, 2012.
(http://www.mcwra.co.monterey.ca.us/Agency_data/Hydrogeologic%20Reports/Ground
waterInformationalPresentation_8-27-2012.pdf)
Opening Brief of Various Legal Issues of Monterey County Farm Bureau, July 10, 2012.

63

Salinas Valley Water Coalition, Letter to State Water Board Chair, Charles Hoppin,
December 3, 2012.
Sawyer, State Regulation of Groundwater Pollution Caused by Changes in
Groundwater Quantity or Flow (1998) 19 Pacific. L.J.1267, 1297.
United States Geologic Survey, Sustainability of Groundwater Resources, Circular
1186. Section A.
Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Basin, June 2011, Regional Water Quality
Control Board, Central Coast Region.

References Considered
Administrative Law Judges Directives to Applicant and Ruling on Motions Concerning
Scope, Schedule and Official Notice, August 29, 2012.
http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Efile/G000/M026/K469/26469814.PDF
Ag Land Trust letters to CPUC, November 6, 2006 and April 15, 2009.
Amy White, LandWatch, letter to Andrew Barnsdale, CPUC, November 24, 2009
Amy White, LandWatch, letter to California Coastal Commission, August 4, 2011.
Evidentiary Hearing Transcript, April 9, 2012 (cross-examination of Timothy Durbin) and
Direct Testimony of Timothy Durbin of Behalf of the Salinas Valley Water Coalition,
Before the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California, April 23, 2012.
Final Judgment in Ag Land Trust v. Marina Coast Water District (Monterey Superior
Court Case No. M105019).
Fugro, North Monterey County Hydrogeologic Study, Volume II -- Critical Issues Report
And Interim Management Plan FINAL REPORT, May 1996.
Johnson, Jim. Desal EIR dealt blow, Monterey County The Herald, February 4, 2012.
Paul Findley, RBF Consulting, Memorandum: MPWSP Desalination Plant Sizing
Update, January 7, 2013.
Reply Brief of LandWatch Monterey County regarding Groundwater Rights, July 25,
2012. http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/EFILE/BRIEF/171861.PDF
Richard C. Svindland, Supplemental Testimony Before the Public Utilities Commission
of the State of California, April 23, 2012 (with attachments).

64

Timothy Durbin, Technical Memorandum to Salinas Valley Water Coalition, December


3, 2012.
Timothy Durbin, Technical Memorandum to Salinas Valley Water Coalition, February
21, 2013.
U.S. EPA Ground Water Issue EPA/540/S-97/504, Design Guidelines for Conventional
Pump-and-Treat Systems, September 1997.

65

APPENDIX D: TIMELY COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED

66

Post Office Box 1876, Salinas, CA 93902


Email: LandWatch@mclw.org
Website: www.landwatch.org
Telephone: 831-759-2824
FAX: 831-759-2825

R ECEIVE D

April 25, 2013

4-28-13

Paul Murphey
Division of Water Rights
State Water Resources Control Board
P.O. Box 2000
Sacramento, CA 95812-2000

SWRCB Hearing Unit

Subject: Draft Review of California American Water Company Monterey Peninsula Water
Supply Project (MPWSP)
Dear Mr. Murphey:
LandWatch Monterey County has reviewed the referenced document (the Draft Review) and
has the following comments:
1.

We concur with the recommendation for additional studies to determine the extent of the
Dune Sand Aquifer, the water quality and quantity of the Dune Sand Aquifer, the extent and
thickness of the Salinas Valley Aquitard and the extent of the 180-Foot Aquifer and the
effects of the proposed Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP) on the Basin.
In particular, we believe it is critical that the additional studies recommended by Mr. Timothy
Durbin in testimony before the CPUC be conducted, including the following:
a hydrogeologic investigation to determine subsurface formations in the vicinity of
the site, including adequate boreholes and geophysical studies;
a geochemical investigation to determine mechanisms of seawater intrusion in the
vicinity of the site;
a large-scale aquifer test through a test well; and

67

April 19, 2013


Page 2
groundwater modeling, including consideration of density-drive effects and longterm effects after the end of the project.1
As Mr. Durbin explains, it is critical that the investigation proceed in this sequence because
the results of the hydrogeologic investigation, the geochemical investigation, and the aquifer
testing are essential to informing the groundwater modeling.2
Unfortunately, under the current schedule, the groundwater modeling, which is to be provided
through the CEQA process, will predate the aquifer testing, which will not occur until after
the CPUC is scheduled to decide whether to issue a Certificate of Public Convenience and
Necessity (CPCN) for the MPWSP.3 The SWRCB should encourage the CPUC to make
provision for additional modeling work and decision points on the MPWSP source water
intake method and location after the aquifer test, because the actual impacts may not be
understood with sufficient certainty at the time the CPUC issues the CPCN.
2.

In addition, Cal-Am has proposed groundwater wells at the Potrero Road site as an
alternative source water intake. Since this site is also within the Salinas Valley Groundwater
Basin (SVGB), the SWRCB should encourage the CPUC to require Cal-Am to undertake at
least a preliminary hydrogeologic investigation of the adequacy of this site concurrently with
its consideration of its preferred intake site at the Cemex site. Cal-Am is constrained by
SWRCB Order 95-10 and the Cease and Desist Order to limit its use of Carmel River water
expeditiously. Cal-Am already projects that it will not meet the CDO deadline due to
problems with permitting a test well at the Cemex site. Serial investigations of infeasible
intake options will only further delay compliance.

3.

The Draft Reviews legal analysis does not directly address the prohibition against
exporting groundwater from the SVGB per the Monterey County Water Resources Agency
Act. The sole reference to this prohibition is contained in footnote 32 at page 28. We believe
that this prohibition constitutes an independent statutory constraint on the MPWSP, which the
SWRCB should acknowledge.

4.

The Draft Review acknowledges that Cal-Am has the burden to demonstrate that the
MPWSP will not result in injury to any groundwater user. The draft review identifies two

A12-04-019, Evidentiary Hearing Transcript, April 9, 2013, pp. 1067-1073 (cross-examination of Timothy
Durbin) and Direct Testimony of Timothy Durbin on Behalf of the Salinas Valley Water Coalition, Exhibit SV-3,
Technical Memorandum No. 2 by Timothy Durbin, February 21, 2013, pp. 6-7.
2

A12-04-019, Evidentiary Hearing Transcript, April 9, 2013, p. 1073 (cross-examination of Timothy Durbin).

A12-04-019, Administrative Law Judges Directives To Applicant And Ruling On Motions Concerning
Scope, Schedule And Official Notice, August 29, 2012, pp. 8-9.

68

types of potential impacts: reduction of groundwater levels in wells and reduction in the
quantity of fresh water available for future use. The Draft Review acknowledges that the
magnitude and geographic extent of the reduction in fresh water is indeterminate at this point
because the fresh water capture zone is not delineated and there has been no determination
whether the source water aquifer is confined or unconfined.
The Draft Review proposes, apparently by way of example, that injury might be avoided or
adequately compensated through the return of pumped fresh water to the Basin via the
Castroville Seawater Intrusion Project (CSIP) or via injection wells, or through monetary
compensation for groundwater users who must deepen wells and/or incur higher pumping
costs. It is not clear without further analysis that these methods of avoiding or compensating
injury would suffice for all impaired groundwater users. For example, users not benefitting
from the CSIP project and who are upgradient from injection well sites may not benefit from
the proposed methods to return pumped freshwater. And users in marginal pumping
locations whose wells run dry may not be made whole by monetary compensation.
We are particularly concerned that Cal-Am be required to evaluate potential impacts to
groundwater users in the North County area who do not receive CSIP water. As LandWatch
has previously explained, the Coastal Water Project (CWP) EIR for the previously proposed
Regional Water Project and its alternatives failed to evaluate the effects of project pumping on
the upgradient North County aquifer.4 LandWatch identified the following defects in the
previous CWP EIRs analysis and proposed mitigation of groundwater impacts to North
County:
The North Monterey County Hydrogeologic Study (Fugro West, Inc., 1995)
establishes that
o North County groundwater is hydrologically connected and interdependent
with the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin (SVGB),
o North County groundwater is up-gradient from the SVGB,
o Increased pumping in the SVGB depletes available groundwater in North
County
None of the wells upon which projected groundwater elevations were modeled in
the CWP EIR are located in the up-gradient subareas of North County. Thus the
projected groundwater contours in the CWP EIR are not well founded.
4

Amy White, LandWatch, letter to Andrew Barnsdale, CPUC, Nov. 24, 2009; Amy White, LandWatch, letter
to California Coastal Commission, August 4, 2011. Both documents are available at
http://www.coastal.ca.gov/meetings/mtg-mm11-8.html, see link to additional correspondence under August 12, 2011
item 6a, Application No. E-11-019 (Monterey County Water Resources Agency, Marina Coast Water District,
California-American Water Company, Monterey Co.)

69

April 19, 2013


Page 4
The CWP EIR admits that monitoring wells are inadequate to support its
conclusions, but proposes that this defect can be remedied after the project is
constructed by augmenting the monitoring network in North County. This will
not establish baseline conditions.
No meaningful, measureable, or enforceable mitigation was proposed in the CWP
EIR if future monitoring identified impacts.5
Given the history of inadequate analysis in the CWP EIR, the SWRCB should urge the CPUC
to ensure adequate analysis of North County groundwater users. If additional monitoring
wells are required to establish baseline conditions before the MPWSP commences, the CPUC
should require Cal-Am to make provision for them now.
5.

The Draft Review acknowledges that future impacts must be evaluated, in part because it
is critical to protect foreseeable uses of the SVGB. A central consideration in this evaluation
is whether current and future efforts to halt and/or reverse sea water intrusion will be
successful. LandWatch is concerned that the Draft Report provides little clarity on this topic.
Although it mentions the CSIP program and the MCWRA Ordinance No. 3709 as efforts to
address sea water intrusion, the Draft Review unaccountably fails to mention the Salinas
Valley Water Project (SVWP), which is the latest and most comprehensive effort to address
sea water intrusion in the SVGB. Opinions differ significantly regarding the efficacy of the
SVWP as planned, the likelihood of its complete implementation, and the prospects of a
second phase of the project.6 However, the SVWP must be considered in the evaluation of
future impacts from the MPWSP.
Previous modeling of groundwater impacts from coastal wells for desalination source water in
the Coastal Water Project EIR projected a reversal of sea water intrusion due to the assumed

8-9.

A 12-04-019 Reply Brief of LandWatch Monterey County regarding Groundwater Rights, July 25, 2012, pp.

LandWatch has consistently advocated a more careful evaluation of the adequacy of efforts to address
overdrafting and sea water intrusion than has occurred to date. In this regard, LandWatch has presented evidence in
connection with the adoption of the Monterey County 2010 General Plan and in connection with environmental
review of various development projects that the SVWP may have been oversold as a solution to overdraft and sea
water intrusion conditions in the SVGB. For example, although the SVWP EIR concluded that seawater intrusion
would be halted based on the assumption that irrigated agricultural acreage and agricultural water use would decline
from 1995 to 2030, the Monterey County 2010 General Plan EIR admitted that irrigated acreage actually increased
substantially between 1995 and 2008 and projected that irrigated acreage will increase even more by 2030.
LandWatch has identified a number of additional problems with analyses of the efficacy of the SVWP and is
currently pursuing litigation seeking adequate analysis of SVGB water resource impacts through Monterey County
Superior Court Case No. M109434. Regardless whether the SVWP has been oversold, the CPUC should not assume
that the County will not eventually address sea water intrusion.

70

success of the SVWP and CSIP, but projected that this reversal would be slower with the
Regional Project than without it.7 Increased duration of degraded groundwater conditions
may constitute injury to groundwater users and should be evaluated by Cal-Am.
Notwithstanding the previous modeling that projected reversal of sea water intrusion and even
though it admits that the extent of the impact on fresh water supply or wells is unknown in
this situation, the Draft Review appears to dismiss the possibility that the MPWSP would
draw an increased percent of freshwater as highly unlikely.8 Again without any reference to
the SVWP, the Draft Review also states that there is no evidence to suggest that Basin
conditions will improve independent of the MPWSP without a comprehensive solution to the
overdraft conditions.9
The Draft Review does acknowledge that success in reversing sea water intrusion would result
in a higher percentage of fresh water pumping by the MPWSP. The Draft Review considers
two possible causal scenarios for the possible reversal of sea water intrusion. First it suggests
that Cal-Am may be able to show that the MPWSP is the but-for cause of this improvement,
in which case Cal-Am might be entitled to a portion of the new water supply. 10 Alternatively,
the Draft Review acknowledges that SVGB conditions might improve independent of the
MPWSP, in which case Cal-Am may have to limit its export diversions.
Because these two different outcomes have diametrically opposite consequences with respect
to the viability of the MPWSP itself, it is critical that the CPUC decision be informed by the
best assessment of the likely future success of efforts to halt or reverse sea water intrusion and
the effect of the MPWSP on those efforts. However, the Draft Review appears to suggest that
the issue can be deferred simply because [t]here is expected to be minimal impact to
freshwater sources at start-up and for the first several years of operation as water will certainly
be sourced from the intruded portion of the aquifer.11 The Draft Review suggests that
measures can be taken [if] and when impacts to freshwater resources in the Basin are
observed . . ..12 However, if Cal-Am were required to limit export diversions because the
MPWSP were pumping more freshwater than may legally be exported, the MPWSP may not
remain viable for its projected life. LandWatch submits that the CPUC cannot prudently
defer analysis of this possibility in approving a long-lived capital project.
7

Id., p. 9.

Draft Review, p. 36.

Id., p. 37.

10

Id., p. 36.

11

Id., p. 37.

12

Id.

71

April 19, 2013


Page 6
Thus, analysis and modeling should be required that would determine the probable success of
efforts to halt or reverse sea water intrusion, including MCWRA Ordinance 3709, the CSIP,
and the SVWP. This analysis and modeling should project future outcomes both with and
without the MPWSP.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft report.
Sincerely,

Amy L. White
Executive Director

72

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:

Ron Weitzman
Unit, Wr_Hearing@Waterboards
Comments on MPWSP Draft Report
Wednesday, May 01, 2013 4:39:01 PM

Paul Murphey
ECEIVE
Division of Water Rights
State Water Resources Control Board
5-1-13

SWRCB Hearing Unit


Dear Mr. Murphey:

Both draft responses by your agency to the CPUC request for your opinion on water rights
refer minimally to the state Agency Act (Monterey County Water Resources Act, (Stats. 1990 ch.52
21. Wests Ann. Cal. Water Code App.), which explicitly prohibits the exportation of groundwater
from the Salinas Valley River Basin. Both your draft responses describe this prohibition as follows:
prohibits water from being exported outside the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin. This
description refers to groundwater as simply water, which is not what the act itself specifies. In the
act, the term groundwater is used in contrast to surface water, the prohibition applying only to
groundwater. The CPUC, Cal Am, and your agency persistently and incorrectly refer to
groundwater as water having the meaning of fresh water. Your draft responses concentrate on
the question of whether the exportation of groundwater from the Salinas Valley Groundwater
Basin would do harm to current users of that water. That question is irrelevant, however, in view
of the Agency Acts prohibition of any groundwater, of whatever composition, from the Salinas
Valley Groundwater Basin. Although I am not an attorney, my general understanding of the law is
that a specific rule takes precedence over a general one. Therefore, regardless of the harm
demonstrated to be done or not done to current Salinas Valley water users, the Agency Act
specifically prohibits the exportation of groundwater from the basin. Water Plus, the ratepayer
organization that I represent, has repeatedly been saying that for months. In this regard, please
view the uncontested Water Plus testimony to the CPUC, attached, particularly Section III. Water
Plus understands the request by the CPUC to your agency for an opinion on water rights as an
attempt by the CPUC to involve you in the current Cal Am water-supply project to an extent that
might motivate you to relax your Cease-and-Desist Order, particularly since Cal Ams project cannot
now meet the current CDO deadline. Water Plus urges you not to relax the CDO. If you do, your
agency will lose all credibility regarding any future CDO deadlines you may set. The Cal Am project
is not the only one proposed to provide the water needed to ease the stress on the Carmel River.
At least two other proposals have been developed, one of them backed by a considerable
investment by its developer. If your agency truly seeks to help resolve our local water problem,
Water Plus believes the most effective action you could take would be to require the Monterey
Peninsula Water Management District to develop the needed new water supply project. The
district has the authority to do that, and if now immediately began the process in conjunction with
the partially developed Peoples project it could likely meet your current CDO deadline. Proceeding
in this direction would also save local ratepayers hundreds of millions of dollars, as documented in
Section III of the Water Plus CPUC testimony and on the Water Plus Web site, top of the center
column.

Thank you for your consideration of these comments.

73


Respectfully,

Ron Weitzman
President, Water Plus

74

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION


OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Application of California-American Water


Company (U210W) for Approval of the
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and
Authorization to Recover All Present and
Future Costs in Rates.

A.12-04-019
(Filed April 23, 2012)

REVISED TESTIMONY OF RON WEITZMAN


ON BEHALF OF WATER PLUS

Ron Weitzman

23910 Fairfield Place


Carmel, CA 93923

Telephone: (831) 375-8439


Facsimile: (no facsimile)

Email: ronweitzman@redshift.com
President, Water Plus

Dated February 22, 2013

Revision: March 21, 2013

75

Table of Contents
Table of Contents................................................................................................... 1
I.

Witness Information. ..................................................................................... 2

II.

Purpose of Testimony. ................................................................................... 2

III. The Current Cal Am Water Supply Project is Doomed to Failure. ................... 3
IV. The CPUC has Subverted its Mission by Discouraging Competition among
Water Supply Projects............................................................................................ 6
V. Any New Water Supply Project for the Monterey Peninsula Cannot Rely on
the Use of Treated Sewer Water. ........................................................................... 9
VI. A Large Desalination Plant Is Preferable to a Small One for the Monterey
Peninsula. ............................................................................................................ 11
VII. Open-ocean Intake Is Superior to Intake from Slant Wells Almost Generally
and Particularly in Monterey County. .................................................................. 13
VIII. Financing Can Cost Ratepayers Hundreds of Millions of Dollars Less if the
Project is Owned by a Public Agency rather than by Cal Am. ............................... 15
IX. The Pending Deal between Cal Am and the Monterey Peninsula Mayors
Costing Ratepayers Hundreds of Millions of Dollars Stands on a Shaky Legal
Foundation. ......................................................................................................... 20

76

I.

10

15

20

Q. Please tell me your name and provide some biographical information relevant
to this proceeding, if you will?
A. Yes, I would be glad to do that. My name is Ron Weitzman. I am married and
the father of two daughters, one deceased. I was born and began school in
Chicago and completed my pre-college education in Los Angeles. I have a B.A.
and an M.A. degree from Stanford University and a Ph.D. from Princeton
University in mathematical psychology. I have been on the faculties of a number
of universities throughout the United States and elsewhere in the world, including
the Middle East, the site of numerous desalination plants. I have taught many
dozens of courses in psychology and statistics and published many dozens of
articles and technical reports on mental test theory and survey analysis, a good
portion of them involving mathematical modeling. You can say that asking
questions has been my field of specialization, and so I feel comfortable with the Q
& A format of this prepared testimony. Throughout my work life and since
retirement, I have been involved as a volunteer and an activist in numerous
charitable and civic activities involving social services, performing arts, historic
preservation, environmental protection, and consumer interests. That now
includes Water Plus, a non-profit public-benefit corporation that meets weekly
and that I have served as president since founding it in September of 2010.
II.

25

30

Witness Information.

Purpose of Testimony.

Q. What is the purpose of this testimony?


A. I am presenting this testimony as a representative of Water Plus, a party to
this proceeding, pursuant to Rules 1.7(b) and13.8 of the Rules of Practice and
Procedure of the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). Water Plus
seeks to represent the ratepayers served by California-American Waters
Monterey County District (Cal Am) in this proceeding. Our concern is
ratepayers will foot the bill for yet another failed Cal-Am water-supply project.
2

77

III.

35

The Current Cal Am Water Supply Project is Doomed to Failure.

Q. You say that the currently proposed Cal Am water-supply project is doomed to
failure. Why?
A. The state Agency Act prohibits the exportation of groundwater from the
Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin,1 which is precisely what the Cal Am project
proposes to do. 2

40

45

Q. Supporters of the Cal Am project claim that the exportation prohibition applies
only to the fresh-water component of the groundwater and that the project
includes plans to return that component to the basin. How would you respond to
that claim?
A. The Agency Act makes no distinction between fresh water and salt or brackish
water. The only distinction it makes is between surface water and groundwater,
and the Acts prohibition applies exclusively to groundwater, of whatever mix.
Q. That being the case, then why did the Salinas Valley farming community not
invoke the Agency Act to prevent the now-dead Regional Desalination Project
from exporting groundwater from the basin?

50

A. The farming community did not then invoke and has not even now invoked the
Agency Act because it is a measure of last resort that can serve as a useful
bargaining tool for farmers to share in the revenue obtained from any watersupply project that involves the exportation of groundwater from the Salinas
Valley Groundwater Basin.
Q. What foundation, if any, do you have for that statement?

55

A. The issue concerning the farmers is that they have spent and are continuing to
spend a great deal of money on stemming the intrusion of saltwater into the
1

Monterey County Water Resources Agency Act (Agency Act), Stats. 1990, c. 1159, Section 21.
.12-04-019: Application of California-American Water Company (U210W) for Approval of the Monterey Peninsula
Water Supply Project and Authorization to Recover All Present and Future Costs in Rates, April 23, 2012 (A.12-04019).
2

78

60

Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin. So money is the basic issue. Any water-supply
project that could satisfy the farmers would have to provide them with at least
enough money to remediate whatever increase in saltwater intrusion the project
might produce. Because the farmers have rights to the basin water, they can also
add an extra charge for the use of their rights that may be sufficient to cover the
costs they have incurred to date in addressing saltwater intrusion.
Q. Has this sort of negotiation ever occurred in other aspects of the Regional
Desalination Project or in the current project, as far as you know?

65

70

75

80

A. Yes, in at least three. First, when Cal Am pulled out of the regional project, the
county owed several million dollars to Cal Am, as well as to itself in money
borrowed from internal programs unrelated to the project. To recover this
money, the county made an agreement with Cal Am to exempt the company from
a county ordinance that would have forbidden it from owning a desalination plant
in the county. 3 Very likely, Cal Am will use ratepayer revenue to cover the
countys debt. 4 Second, in the current project, a deal is pending between Cal Am
and the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority involving a trade-off
between the establishment of a local project governance committee and a
prohibition of support for public ownership. I am going to talk about this deal
later in the testimony. Third, in the regional project, the Ag Land Trust drafted a
rental agreement to allow the project to draw its groundwater from land owned
by the trust. (I have a hard copy of a draft of this agreement.) This agreement
never came to fruition because the Marina Coast Water District board believed it
was neither a necessary nor an appropriate expenditure for the project to go
forward. As a result, the Ag Land Trust sued and prevailed in Superior Court. 5 An
impediment to the regional project, the suit is now under appeal.
Q. Why would Cal Am make such an agreement with Monterey County when the
CPUC has voted to exempt the company from the county ordinance permitting
only a public agency to own and operate a desalination plant in the county?
3

Monterey County Ordinance 10.72.030(B).


Monterey County Herald, December 5, 2012, front page.
5
Ruling by Monterey County Superior Court Judge Lydia Villarreal, February 2, 2012.
4

79

85

90

95

100

A. A number of parties to the proceeding have requested a rehearing on the


preemption decision by the CPUC. The agreement between the county and Cal
Am is Cal Ams insurance against a possible reversal of the CPUC decision.
Q. If the state Agency Act is determinative, then why did an advisory letter from
the State Water Resources Control Board to the CPUC 6 fail to consider it and
instead indicated that the only hurdle involving water rights that Cal Am had to
overcome was to show that its project would do no harm to the farmers or others
who had the rights?
A. The advisory letter was solicited by the CPUC as an effort to obtain cover for
Cal Ams project in the event that it should fail on the water-rights issue. The
solicitation letter from the CPUC loaded its argument in favor of Cal Ams project
by interpreting groundwater as meaning fresh water, and the study summarized
in the advisory letter adopted that interpretation, contrary to the Agency Act.
The 30-page study report in fact referred only once in a footnote on p. 17 to the
Agency Act, and that reference incorrectly used the word water instead of
groundwater, presumably in an attempt to obscure the intent of the act. In
short, rather than resolving the determinative water-rights issue, the advisory
letter succeeded only in circumventing it.
Q. Do you have any further observations to make about this advisory letter?

105

110

A. Yes. In a decision to preempt the Monterey County desalination ordinance so


that Cal Am could go forward with the approval process for its project, the CPUC
claimed that seawater is just another form of source water comparable to water
drawn from riparian wells so that, In drawing seawater from wells for
desalination, Cal Am would just be doing business as usual. 7 The advisory letter
interestingly made the opposite claim. Rather than simply filtering water,
desalination is a process that produces it. That being the case, the exportation of
desalinated water from the Salinas Valley would not be the exportation of existing
groundwater but the exportation of something entirely new. Whichever
6
7

Letter from Michael Buckman to Paul Clanon, December 21, 2012.


D.12-10-030, October 31, 2012, pp.15-16.

80

interpretation is correct, if either, they cannot both be correct. Support for the
Cal Am project lies on an anything-but-solid foundation.
115

IV. The CPUC has Subverted its Mission by Discouraging Competition


among Water Supply Projects.
Q. You claim that the CPUC has subverted its mission by discouraging
competition among water-supply projects? What do you mean by that?

120

125

130

135

A. A principal reason the CPUC exists is to protect the public from possible abuses
by privately-owned public utilities that would otherwise be unregulated
monopolies. The mission statement of the CPUC restricts its authority to apply
solely to monopolies by requiring it to encourage competition wherever possible. 8
In addition to the Cal Am project, private interests have proposed two other
projects designed to meet local water needs. The Monterey Peninsula Regional
Water Authority has in fact commissioned a study to compare these two projects
with Cal Ams, but the CPUC has encouraged neither of their proponents to apply
alongside Cal Am for a CPUC certification of public convenience and necessity.
Q. The intent of both these alternative projects is to be owned and operated by a
public agency in compliance with the county desalination ordinance, but the
CPUC has jurisdiction only over private companies. Why then would you expect
the CPUC to act otherwise?
A. Neither of these other two projects has as yet acquired a public partner, and
so currently each of their proponents is a private entity seeking to provide water
for conveyance to members of the public. As such, they are currently subject to
CPUC authority. Knowing of their existence, the CPUC should not only invite
them, it should require them, to apply for a certification of public convenience
and necessity alongside Cal Am. Cal Am has no more local history in the watersupply business than the proponents of these other two projects do.
8

According to its mission statement, the CPUC is to regulate utility services, stimulate innovation, and promote
competitive markets, where possible, in the communications, energy, transportation, and water industries.

81

140

145

150

Q. The administrative law judge assigned to this proceeding has indicated that
time is too short for it to include other projects. The state cease-and-desist-order
deadline is less than four years away. What do you have to say about that?
A. At the initial preconference hearing for this proceeding last June, I, as a
representative of Water Plus, requested that in the interest of time the CPUC
consider all currently proposed projects simultaneously in a horse race rather
than sequentially. 9 If time were the true issue, that is the course that the
proceeding should have taken from the beginning. Now, if Cal Ams project fails,
as I am confident that it will, we are going to have to start all over, just as we have
done following the failure of the Regional Desalination Project. As long as the
CPUC has not certified any single project, it is not too late to include other
projects in the proceeding.
Q. Cal Am is an experienced water purveyor with an existing investment in the
community. What investment does either of these other two proponents have?

155

A. I cannot speak for both of them, but I can speak for one, who has to date
invested some $34 million in his project. By contrast, Cal Am investors have
risked not an iota of capital on their project. The CPUC has no excuse but to
include the other two projects in the proceeding.
Q. How can you say that? Where do you think the money that Cal Am has spent
on its project to date has come from?

160

A. That money is an internal company loan recorded in a memorandum account


for recovery from ratepayers when the proceeding is over, regardless of whether
the project goes forward.
Q. That is not automatically the case. The CPUC can decide not to approve the
recovery. So Cal Am investors are also risking capital, is that not so?

165

A. Either on its own or via its two erstwhile public partners, Cal Am has spent
about $40 million on the Regional Desalination Project, and, despite that projects
9

Transcript of Preconference Hearing for A.12-04-019 on June 6, 2012, p. 45, l. 25 p. 46, l. 15; p. 61, l. 1 l. 14; p.
67, l. 12 p. 68, l. 15.

82

170

175

failure, the CPUC has already approved the recovery of at least $32 million from
ratepayers, while its approval of the remainder is pending. 10 So Cal Am has every
reason to expect the CPUC to approve the recovery from ratepayers of all its
expenses on the current project. Ratepayers, Water Plus included, have no
reason to expect otherwise. If the CPUC does not include these other two
projects in the current proceeding, all the capital their investors have risked will
be lost. That does not constitute a level playing field. That does provide Cal Am
an unfair monopolistic advantage in contravention of the CPUC mission to
encourage competition.
Q. So what action are you proposing?

180

185

190

A. I am proposing that the CPUC invite the proponents of the other two projects
to apply to it alongside Cal Am for a certification of public convenience and
necessity. If either of these two decline, then the CPUC need not consider that
project further. Otherwise, it should consider the projects of all applicants
equally.
Q. How can a private party other than Cal Am apply to the CPUC to build, own,
and operate a desalination plant in Monterey County when the county will
enforce its ordinance preventing it from doing so while permitting Cal Am to
circumvent the ordinance?
A. Rather than exempting Cal Am from the ordinance based on the merits of its
project, the CPUC based its exemption of Cal Am solely on it as a private
applicant. 11 Simply stated, the CPUC exempted the applicant, not the project.
That being the case, the CPUC exemption should apply equally to other
applicants, as well, regardless of the merits of their projects. Because the CPUC
exemption takes precedence over the county ordinance, that ordinance cannot
stand in the way of applications submitted to the CPUC by any private party, not
solely Cal Am.
10

Monterey County Herald, July 19, 2012, front page.


D.12-10-030 does not refer to any specifics of the Cal Am proposal in A.12-04-019, and so it does not authorize
the project; it merely authorizes the applicant as a private company to go forward with processing its project
application in prospective contravention of Monterey County Ordinance 10.72.030(B).

11

83

195

Q. Different from the proponents of the other two projects, Cal Am does not
intend to sell its project to a public agency. Doesnt that make a difference?

200

A. No. As along as the other two projects are privately owned, they are no
different in that regard from Cal Ams. Intentions can change. The CPUC should
require all private proponents of water-supply projects to submit applications to
it and ignore only the ones that fail to do so. Speaking for Water Plus, that is my
strong recommendation.
V.
Any New Water Supply Project for the Monterey Peninsula Cannot
Rely on the Use of Treated Sewer Water.

205

210

Q. The mayors Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority, the Monterey


Peninsula Water Management District, and Citizens for Public Water, among
others, support the so-called three-legged stool, which includes processing sewer
water for drinking along with aquifer storage and recovery and desalination. Why
does Water Plus not support the sewer-water leg of this stool?
A. Treating sewer water to make it potable sounds like a good idea when first
considered because it can contribute to the conservation of natural resources.
On occasion, it may well be a good idea, but not everywhere and particularly not
here on the Monterey Peninsula, for two reasons: cost and reliability.
Q. How can that be so? Elsewhere, reliability has not been a problem, and cost
has been used as a reason to support the process.

215

220

A. Let me deal with reliability first. Locally, the pollution control agency would
submit sewer water already treated for agricultural use to further treatment to
make it potable. Farmers in the Salinas Valley and the Marina Coast Water
District own the rights to the initially-treated water because they paid, and are
continuing to pay, for the treatment facilities. Agriculture in the valley needs this
water throughout the year except possibly for the winter months. Only then
could water be available for further treatment and then only in wet years. The
frequency of such years is likely to decrease with the progression of global
9

84

225

warming. In a dry winter, when farmers will need their treated water, they will
not be able to give permission to the agency to treat it further for use elsewhere.
So dependence on treated sewer water as part of the overall Monterey Peninsula
water supply would make that supply extremely unreliable.
Q. What about cost?

230

235

A. The cost of treating sewer water to make it drinkable is especially high here in
Monterey County. One reason is that, if available at all, the water for treatment
would be available only during the four winter months. That means that the
capacity of the treatment facility would have to be three times greater than
normal for the yield of a specific amount of drinkable water each year. Whatever
the reasons, however, the cost of treating sewer water is much greater than
desalinating seawater locally. In fact, a study commissioned by the Monterey
Peninsula Regional Water Authority showed that for Cal Ams project a
combination of desalinated and treated sewer water costs $1,000 per acre-foot
more here than the cost of desalinated water alone. 12
Q. So, is Water Plus against any use of treated sewer water on the Monterey
Peninsula?

240

A. No. Water Plus is not against the use of treated sewer water as a
supplementary or emergency water supply. We are just against its use as part of
a water supply that our community would depend on.
Q. Does that mean that Water Plus could support its use on the Monterey
Peninsula?

245

A. No. Although we would not be against its use as a supplement, we could not
support it either.
12

Separation Processes, Inc. & Kris Helm Consulting: Evaluation of Seawater Desalination Projects: Final Report
Update, January 2013, Table ES 1-2, p. ES-6. This table shows desalinated water would cost $1,000 less per acrefoot when obtained from Cal Ams large desalination plant versus its small one, which would require
supplementation by treated sewer water to provide the total amount of potable water needed. The
supplementary treated sewer water, according to pollution control agency head Keith Israel in the March 15, 2012,
Monterey County Weekly, would cost about $1,000 more per acre-foot than desalinated water obtained from the
large desalination plant proposed by either of the other two projects described in the SPI table.

10

85

Q. Why?

250

A. Many people have phobias, such as the fear of heights or public speaking.
Similarly, many people have a fear of drinking treated sewer water. They find the
very idea to be repulsive. Mixing treated sewer water in the only water supply
available to them would be inhumane, regardless of how other people, including
Water Plus, may feel about it.
Q. Do you have any other reason why Water Plus does not support the local use
of treated sewer water?

255

A. Yes. Our local economy depends on tourism. Using treated sewer water could
hardly contribute to our communitys attractiveness as a tourist destination.
Q. In view of all these arguments against the use of treated sewer water, do you
know of any reason other than conservation that some people may have to
support its use locally?

260

A. Yes. People who oppose further growth on the Monterey Peninsula support
the three-legged stool because it could provide a cap on desalination, which they
fear, if unfettered, could open the floodgates to development. 13 Water is
essential to life. Water Plus believes that Its supply is an end in itself and should
not be used as a means to achieve other ends.

265

VI. A Large Desalination Plant Is Preferable to a Small One for the


Monterey Peninsula.
Q. You seem to by saying that Water Plus favors a large desalination plant over a
small one. Is that true?

270

A. Yes, at least with respect to cost. A large desalination plant may cost more
than a small one to build, but the opposite is true for the water they produce.
Each unit of water costs less, often much less, when produced by a large
13

An example is the local chapter of the League of Woman Voters. Its president had a letter in The Carmel Pine
Cone on February 8, 2013, taking just this position.

11

86

275

desalination plant than by a small one. 14 So, except for providing a bulwark
against development, building a small desalination plant in a community in short
supply of water like ours does not make sense. Why pay more for less?
Q. Are you aware of other reasons favoring a large over a small desalination plant
locally?

280

285

290

295

A. Yes. Our community has thousands of lots of records that lack water, and a
number of our cities need additional water to meet the requirements of their
development plans, particularly for their downtowns. This need exists especially
in Monterey, Seaside, and Pacific Grove, whose downtowns are dying. People
who want to add a bathroom to their homes are not able to do so, and the
scarcity of water is constantly increasing its cost on the Monterey Peninsula,
where we are paying several thousand dollars per acre-foot for it when the
national average is less than $900. 15 This is especially unfortunate because many
local residents are retirees who live on a limited income and because our hotels,
vital to our tourist industry, must be competitive in price with hotels elsewhere.
This challenge to competitiveness extends to our local military institutions, which,
like tourism, are a mainstay of our economy. The ever-escalating cost of water
escalates the cost of everything eventually to the point where a budgetconstrained Pentagon may have to move our local military institutions to
communities where the cost of living is lower. For all these reasons, both the
local hospitality industry and the Monterey Peninsula Chamber of Commerce
have publicly supported a large over a small desalination plant. 16 Water Plus joins
them in that support.

14

This relationship between size and cost is due at least in part to economies of scale. The Division of Ratepayer
Advocates presented a graph showing this relationship to support its request that the Regional Desalination
Project cap the cost per acre-foot of product water to $2,200, shown on the graph as a high-end value for a 10,000
acre-foot desalination plant. The graph was based on empirical data.
15
Cal Ams Monterey Peninsula water-supply revenue is now about $50 million annually. For 11,000 acre-feet of
current annual usage, that amounts to more than $4,500 per acre-foot. In the nearby, publicly-owned Marina
Coast Water District, it is about half that amount, according to its Comprehensive Annual Financial Report dated
June 30, 2012. The current national average, as reported in Wikipedia, is $886 per acre-foot.
16
In a Monterey County Herald commentary on December 1, 2012, Dale Ellis and Bob McKenzie, representing the
Coalition of Peninsula Businesses (including the local hospitality industry), recommended a desalination plant
having a capacity of nearly a 20,000 acre-feet per year, and in a November 26, 2012, advertisement in the same

12

87

VII. Open-ocean Intake Is Superior to Intake from Slant Wells Almost


Generally and Particularly in Monterey County.

300

305

310

315

Q. Cal Am has proposed to use slant wells terminating under the ocean floor as a
source of water for desalination. Hydrologists for and against this proposal have
recently submitted reports refuting each others positions. Are you sure you want
to chime in on this dispute among experts?
A. Yes, but not as a hydrologist, which I am not. Both sides agree that the
proposed wells will draw groundwater rather than surface water and that the
Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin extends under the ocean. Their only significant
disagreement seems to be whether at the well site an aquitard may exist above
the 180-foot aquifer that could prevent the seepage of ocean water through the
ocean floor down to the aquifer. 17 This is the aquifer from which Cal Am initially
proposed that its slant wells would draw source water. Acknowledging a possible
problem here, Cal Am has now modified its proposal so that withdrawing water
from this aquifer would be its fallback choice. Cal Ams currently preferred choice
for its groundwater source is the so-called Sand Dunes aquifer, which lies above
the disputed aquitard. 18 In either case, Cal Am would be drawing source water
from the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin, an action specifically prohibited by
the state Agency Act.
Q. That might justify your claim that the use of slant wells is a bad idea in
Monterey County, but you also claim that it is almost generally a bad idea. How
would you defend that claim?

320

A. Different from open-ocean intake, which is the local alternative, slant wells
have no history of anything other than experimental use. Aside from a possibly
newspaper the Monterey Peninsula Chamber of Commerce president recommended one having a capacity of
15,000 acre-feet per year.
17
GEOSCIENCE: Technical Memorandum, February 6, 2013, a response solicited by the CPUC to Timothy J. Durbin:
California-American Water Company Comments on Proposal to Pump Groundwater from the Salinas Valley
Groundwater Basin.
18
Monterey County Weekly, November 15, 2012, Cal Am Files Contingency Plans for Desal Roadblocks by Kera
Abraham.

13

88

325

330

335

340

less adverse impact on sea life than open-ocean intake, they have minimal
justification. The very existence of a dispute among experts regarding their local
viability indicates that geological conditions varying along the shoreline can
compromise their usefulness. Not being an expert in this case, I would assign a
50% chance that each side is right. If I were a farmer, that is a chance that I would
not like to take. As a ratepayer, that is certainly a chance that I would not like to
take. Neither would Cal Am if its shareholder money were at risk. Certainly,
investors facing a risk like that would be extremely reluctant to purchase bonds to
support the project.
Q. The risk may be 50-50 or even worse, but if the CPUC certifies the project,
investors may never know about that risk. What do you have to say about that?
A. That question goes to the difference between the world of law and the world
of science, but, as you suggest, it is practical question, not just a philosophical
one. Let me try to answer the philosophical question first. A joke among
philosophers aptly describes this situation: Well yes, it works in practice, but
will it work in theory? The dispute among hydrologists is about the validity of
different models of local geology. Models are theories having limited and specific
applications. So, in this sense, acting in a legal world, the CPUC is seeking to find
in favor of one theory as opposed to another. All the CPUC needs is a finding to
move the project forward.
Q. And the practical question?

345

A. A finding is not a fact. The consequences of making an incorrect finding just


to move the project forward can be devastating. Responsibility to both Cal Am
customers and prospective project investors requires that the CPUC be risk-averse
in making its findings.
Q. Do you have anything further to say on this issue?
A. Yes. A recent white paper I read by experts not involved in the local dispute
over slant wells identified a number of problems with them that may not be

14

89

350

355

360

merely site-specific. 19 Examples: The accumulation of sedimentation that could


clog the intake pipes may make the operation of slant wells costlier and less
reliable than open-ocean intake. Further increasing cost and compromising
reliability, suction of source water through the ocean floor could deplete its
oxygen and intensify its particulate content to the point that aeration, filtration,
and other expensive pre-processing such as temperature elevation would be
necessary to prevent the destruction of the membranes involved in the reverse
osmosis to remove the salt. Based on these and other problems, the paper
concludes that, in general, open-ocean intake is superior to the use of slant wells
as a source of water for desalination. Now I have a question. Shouldnt the
recommendation of independent experts take precedence over a
recommendation made by experts hired to favor either party to a dispute?
VIII. Financing Can Cost Ratepayers Hundreds of Millions of Dollars Less
if the Project is Owned by a Public Agency rather than by Cal Am.

365

370

375

Q. Water Plus has been claiming for years that public ownership of a desalination
plant could be significantly less costly than ownership by Cal Am. How specifically
can you substantiate that claim?
A. All you have to do is Google a mortgage calculator to see that for yourself. Cal
Am has for years obtained from ratepayers a return of investment on capitalimprovement projects of between 8% and 9%. This return is determined by a
formula involving about 6.5% interest charged to ratepayers on debt and about
10% profit on equity. By contrast, a public agency can borrow money now for
less than 3.5% interest, with no profit add-on chargeable to ratepayers. These
percentages are not the only differences between Cal Am and a public agency
affecting the cost of capital to ratepayers. SPI, the mayors consultant, estimated
the capital cost of each of the projects at close to $200 million, but Cal Ams own
estimate for its project is about twice that amount, the difference accountable as
Cal Am shareholder equity (based on a $200 million debt and a 50-50 debt-to19

WaterReuse Association: Overview of Desalination Plant Intake Alternatives: White Paper, June, 2011.

15

90

380

385

equity ratio). 20 Entering 8.25% with $400 million for Cal Am and 3.5% with $200
million for a public agency into the mortgage calculator for a 30-year loan yields
total costs of approximately $1.08 billion for Cal Am and $323 million for a public
agency. That is a savings of public over Cal Am ownership of about $757 million,
well over a half-billion dollars. And that does not even include taxes and the cost
of doing business with the CPUC, expenses that a public agency does not have.
Q. If that is the case, as it appears to be, then why have the local mayors and
others supported the Cal Am project?
A. Obviously, money is not their sole or even their principal concern. Yet, the
difference is so large that even they cannot ignore it. So both they and Cal Am
have proffered a number of possible offsets that are, unfortunately, unlikely to
work in practice.

390

395

Q. What are these possible offsets and why do you claim that they are unlikely to
work in practice?
A. A February 12, 2013, commentary in the Monterey County Herald by two of
the mayors listed these possible offsets: (a) a partial contribution (of about
$100 million) to the project by a public agency, (b) an interest-free $99 million
surcharge proposed by Cal Am, (c) at least partial financing via the state revolving
fund under the federal Clean Water Act, and (d) decreased electricity costs. 21
These options are either likely to fail to materialize or if they did they would also
be available to a public agency that could lower its costs by the same or even a
greater amount.

20

See Footnotes 2 and 12 for reference to this information. These estimates exclude Cal-Am only facilities such as
the pipeline from the desalination site to Seaside. Since Cal Am filed its application on April 23, 2012, it has
increased the capacity of its larger proposed desalination plant to be close to 10,000 acre-feet per year so that its
estimated debt-plus-equity cost to ratepayers will now likely be well over $400 million. The ratio currently
proposed by Cal Am for its project is 47-53, and so 50-50 is a conservative prediction of what this ratio will actually
turn out to be.
21
These four possible offsets represent an evolution of five originally proposed in an October 1, 2012, letter sent
to Cal Ams president, Robert MacLean, by Monterey mayor Charles Della Sala and Monterey County supervisor
David Potter. This letter also contains suggestions for a local governance structure to provide oversight on Cal
Ams project. The word contribution is in quotes because it is not a true contribution, or grant, but a loan to be
repaid with interest..

16

91

400

Q. Now why do you claim that the first offset might not work out?

405

A. In their commentary, the mayors did not specify any public agency they might
have in mind, but since the water management district general manager was a
principal author of their proposal the most likely candidate would be that district.
This appears to be the behind-the-scenes deal worked out between the authority
and the district. The problem is that Cal Am has no incentive to go along with it.
The company had a public partner in the Marina Coast Water District and pulled
out of the partnership in favor of the current project precisely because this
project would offer its shareholders a much greater profit. 22 The mayors' hope
apparently is that the CPUC will force Cal Am to accept their deal.

410

Q. Why wouldnt the CPUC do that?

415

A. The CPUC has no control over the water management district but is
responsible for the safety and reliability of our local water supply. The district has
no history of running a water-supply project on its own, and its possible
involvement with Cal Am in a complex financial partnership would involve too
many uncertainties for the CPUC to take the risk. For the same reason, financing
the project would also be at risk.
Q. What about the surcharge?

420

425

A. Local ratepayers are extremely upset about even the idea of a surcharge,
which, according to the mayors consultants data, could amount to almost half
the capital cost of the project. Normally, in a capital-improvement project like
desalination that requires a loan, the public would pay the interest on the loan
and Cal Am would pay the principal out of the profits its shareholders make on
the project. A surcharge is entirely different. The ratepayers would pay all the
capital costs, and Cal Am shareholders would pay nothing and yet have complete
ownership. 23 In ordinary life, that would be called robbery. Aside from getting an
22

Reinforcing this claim is the CPUC filing by Cal Am on October 26, 2012, opposing public ownership of a
desalination plant, reported in The Monterey County Herald, November 11, 2012, front page.
23
Accountants may have a different view of this transaction if it takes the form of a so-called Mirror CWIP
(Construction Work in Process): During construction, ratepayers pay costs treated as debt matched by equity
earning shareholder profits used to pay ratepayers back in the form of relatively reduced bills following

17

92

430

435

early start on rate increases to avoid skyrocketing-rate shock later on, which
payback on a partial-project loan could also do, the only excuse for the surcharge
is that it would save ratepayers the cost of interest and some profits, a cost that
could be substantial. That is the excuse. The reason is something else: Cal Am is
unable to secure open-market financing on the beginning of a project that has
such an uncertain outcome. The surcharge may be the only money available for
the project to get going. Why else would Cal Am choose to forgo a large portion
of its possible profit on the project? At the same time, on the other side, why
should ratepayers take the risk? They already have lost between $30 million and
$40 million on Cal Ams failed regional project. 24 The CPUC must think long and
hard before it approves the surcharge.
Q. What about money from the state revolving fund?

440

445

450

A. That is a pie in the sky if ever there was one. Only public agencies or nonprofit organizations are eligible for legislatively-defined low-interest funding from
this source, and non-profits only when their projects are designed to eliminate at
least some non-point-source pollution. 25 The funding is also quite limited and
usually distributed in relatively small amounts. Since the desalination component
of Cal Ams project is not designed to eliminate non-point-source pollution, the
applicant for funding must be a public agency. Again, the mayors in their
commentary are unclear about the identity of this agency, and again a good bet is
the water management district, which has been working hand-and-glove with the
mayors. That being the case, what the mayors likely have in mind is funding for a
partial public contribution to the project, their first cost-reduction proposal. To
be effective, that might require public ownership, which the mayors have failed to
specify, Cal Am would resist, and the CPUC likely disapprove. 26
Q. And reduced electrical rates?
construction. Whatever the accounting treatment, however, ratepayers would bear all the risks and make all
actual payments while Cal Am owns the paid-for project components regardless of whether the entire project
reaches completion. This is of especial concern to Water Plus members, who believe the project is going to fail.
24
See Footnote 10.
25
This fund is administered by the state Water Resources Control Board under the federal Clean Water Act.
26
Without public ownership, Cal Am may have to consider the loan to be its debt that, matched by equity, would
render the public contribution ineffectual in reducing ratepayer bills.

18

93

455

A. Like a partial public contribution, a surcharge, and revolving-fund financing,


this is a cost-saving measure available at least as much to a public agency as to Cal
Am.27 This suggestion, like the previous one, amounts to no more than a publicrelations ploy.
Q. Do you have anything else to say about the financing proposals of the mayors?

460

465

A. Yes. The mayors base their entire financing argument on the capital cost of
Cal Ams project estimated by SPI, the consulting firm they engaged to compare
project costs. That estimate, around $200 million, is about half of Cal Ams own
estimate, which includes shareholder equity as well as debt. 28 To determine the
total cost to ratepayers of Cal Ams project, SPI correctly used a percentage
charged to ratepayers of between 8% and 9% but incorrectly applied it to its $200
million rather than Cal Ams $400 million estimate (approximate figures). 29 The
mayors fail to take this obvious discrepancy into account in their project
comparisons. This failure provides additional impetus to the suspicion that the
principal concern of the mayors is something other than cost to ratepayers and
that their cost-offset proposals amount to little, if anything, more than a smokescreen obscuring their principal concern.
Q. What do you believe this principal concern might be?

470

475

A. The mayors are politicians. The concern that appears most strongly to
motivate them is re-election. They have not even obtained the approval of their
city councils for their cost-offset proposals, to say nothing of their endorsement
of Cal Ams project. The Monterey City Council recently voted unanimously in
favor of public ownership, 30 and yet the mayor of Monterey voted on the
authority board to endorse Cal Am, a private owner. The Pacific Grove mayor did
likewise though his city council has voted to work on the acquisition of one of the

27

Both of the two alternative projects, in fact, involve the use of solar energy to help offset the cost of electricity.
See Footnote 20.
29
See Footnote 12 for reference to the SPI report.
30
The Monterey City Council adopted that resolution at its January 2, 2013, meeting as a contingency in the event
that Cal Ams currently proposed project fails. The resolution did not give the mayor permission to vote for the Cal
Am project on the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority board.
28

19

94

480

two alternative projects as a public owner. 31 The mayors support of Cal Am


hardly has any demonstrable support in the public other than among politically
active no-growth groups like the League of Women Voters. 32 As laudable as the
goals of these groups might be, they do not include the best interests of
ratepayers, particularly with respect to the size of their monthly water bills.
IX. The Pending Deal between Cal Am and the Monterey Peninsula
Mayors Costing Ratepayers Hundreds of Millions of Dollars Stands on a
Shaky Legal Foundation.

485

Q. Why would the Monterey Peninsula mayors make a deal with Cal Am that
could cost local ratepayers hundreds of millions of dollars? Surely the mayors
must realize that their making a deal like that could eventually have an adverse
political effect on them.
490

495

A. The cease-and-desist-order deadline is just over the horizon, December 31,


2016, 33 and local political leaders are getting jittery about it. In contrast to the
local proponents of the alternative projects, the mayors perceive Cal Am as part
of a national megalith having the strong financial assets needed to go forward
with its project. The mayors fear taking a risk on a local project. That fear
dominates any concern they may have over costs.
Q. What does that fear have to do with a deal between the mayors and Cal Am?
A. That fear is compounded by another one that strengthens the cost-benefit
mindset of the mayors favoring the Cal Am project despite its cost to ratepayers.
Q. What is this other fear?

500

A. Five of the six mayors comprising the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water
Authority or their representatives also sit on the Monterey Regional Water
Pollution Control Agency board. These five have voted on the agency board to
31

The Pacific Grove City Council took that action at its meeting on April 18, 2012.
See Footnote 13.
33
California Water Resources Control Board Order WR 2009-0060, based on WR 95-10
32

20

95

505

510

515

spend sewer ratepayer money on plans for converting sewer to drinking water for
Cal Am water ratepayers, a possible misappropriation of funds in violation of
Proposition 218. In 2008, the agencys attorney admonished the agency to
terminate that expenditure of funds, then amounting to $700,000. 34 Now,
despite that admonition, the expenditure has risen to over $2 million. 35 The
mayors support of the deal with Cal Am depends on the acceptance by Cal Am of
the governance structure proposed by the mayors that gives them the authority
to decide whether to include the conversion of sewer to drinking water in Cal
Ams project, an inclusion that would allow the agency to recover the
misappropriated funds. 36 In this exploitation of their authority in one agency to
favor another on whose board they also sit, the mayors may be in violation of a
Section 1099 conflict of interest. That is in addition to their possible Proposition
218 violation.
Q. What is Cal Ams position on this deal?

520

525

A. The deal that Cal Am made with Monterey County, which involves the
forgiveness of county debt to Cal Am in exchange for the exemption of Cal Am
from the countys desalination ordinance, also prohibits the county from
supporting public ownership in opposition to Cal Am. 37 The deal between Cal Am
and the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority makes the same
prohibition.38 These deals are good for Cal Am, Monterey County, and the
mayors water authority, as well as no-growth special-interest groups.
Unfortunately, they are not good for Monterey Peninsula ratepayers who, as
indicated earlier, may lose hundreds of millions of dollars because of them.
Q. Is that the end of your testimony?
34

Letter from attorney Rob Wellington to Keith Israel, general manager of the pollution control agency, dated
January 22, 2008.
35
This information comes from an agency table titled Urban Reclamation Projects: Summery of Total Costs and
dated March 31, 2011.
36
Two of the three voting members of the proposed governance committee that would have this explicit authority
are members of the mayors regional water authority. The third is a member of the water management district
board, which also seeks the inclusion of treated sewer water in Cal Ams project.
37
See Footnotes 3 and 4.
38
These prohibitions need not be explicit because the deals would make no sense without them.

21

96

530

535

A. Yes, with just one additional observation. On February 11, 2013, the Monterey
Regional Water Pollution Control Agency board voted to use up to $750,000 more
of sewer ratepayer funds to support a study of the conversion to drinking water
of not only sewer water but also Salinas agricultural and urban run-off water for
use by water ratepayers on the Monterey Peninsula. 39 Although the inclusion of
run-off water enabled members of the board opposed to the use of sewer water
to go along with the vote, the expenditure still may represent a violation of
Proposition 218. Conflict of interest may sully the current Cal Am project at least
as much as it did the previous one, toward the same ultimate fate. 40

February 22, 2013

Respectfully submitted,

Revision: March 21, 2012


WATER PLUS

By:
President, Water Plus

39

The addition of run-off to sewer water literally poisons the well because the resulting brew will contain
contaminants like DDT that cannot be removed to the extent required to make the treated water potable.
40
David Potter is another example of conflict of interest involved in the current project. The mayors proposed
governance committee consists of a single voting representative from each of three public agencies. Mr. Potter
sits on the boards of all three of these agencies and has been appointed to be the representative of one of them
on the committee.

22

97

FARM BUREAU
MONTEREY
May 3, 2013

R ECEIVE D
5-3-13

Mr. Paul Murphey


Division of Water Rights,
State Water Resources Control Board
P .O. Box 2000
Sacramento, CA 95812

SWRCB Hearing Unit

VIA: Email to Wr Hearing.Unit@waterboards.ca.gov

RE:

Comments on draft review of California American Water Company's


Peninsula Water Supply Project

Dear Mr. Murphey:


Monterey County Farm Bureau represents family farmers and ranchers in the interest
of protecting and promoting agriculture throughout our County. We strive to improve
the ability of those engaged in production agriculture to provide a reliable supply of
food and fiber through responsible stewardship of our local resources.
We appreciate the opportunity to make comments on the Draft Review document
('Draft Review') of the proposed water supply project for the Monterey Peninsula
('MPWSP') by California American Water Company ('Applicant').
Since the identification of seawater intrusion into the Salinas Valley groundwater
basin, farmers and ranchers have worked with each other to develop water projects
that have led to the slowing of further degradation of this basin. Specific projects (the
two reservoirs at the south end of the basin, the Castroville Seawater Intrusion
Project, the Salinas Valley Water Project, and the Salinas Valley Reclamation Project)
have been funded by the Salinas Valley landowners through self-assessments; present
day value for the costs of these projects is around $352 million. In addition, Monterey
County enacted an ordinance in 1992 prohibiting groundwater pumping the 180'
aquifer in the coastal area between Salinas and Castroville. Together, these measures
are working to slow, and hopefully halt, the advancement of seawater into the
groundwater basin.
Jeopardy for the Salinas Valley groundwater basin comes from the proposed MPWSP
due to the location of the source water intakes, which are currently placed directly

T: (831) 751-3100 F: (831) 751-3167 931 Blanco Circ le, Salinas, CA 93901 P.O. Box 1449, Salinas, CA 93902-1449
www.montereyctb.com

98

~FARM BUREAU
~ MONTEREY

over the western portion of the basin. As noted in your Draft Review, circumstances of
the exact impacts and harm to the basin are not fully understood or adequately
documented.
Further studies should be undertaken to determine the full extent of the shallow or
sand dunes aquifer for water quality and quantity. These studies should include a
determination of the thickness of the Salinas Valley groundwater basin aquitard in the
proposed source water project area. Specific hydro geologic investigations are required
to make these determinations and include geophysical studies of the immediate area
surrounding the source water intakes, as well as boreholes that sufficiently
characterize the subsurface formations.
The mechanics of salt water intrusion need to be fully understood before proceeding
forward with any project that will remove substantial amounts of source water from
the sand dunes aquifer. This requires the development of groundwater models that
will assess the long-term impacts to the groundwater basin and conductivity of any
waters between the water layers.
We fully support the assessment of hydrologist Tim Durbin and his suggestions for
additional hydro geological studies beyond the installation of a source water test well,
as proposed by the Applicant for this project. Timing is critical to make these
assessments prior to any development of reporting required under the CEQA process,
mainly the Environmental Impact Report. An accurate decision cannot be made about
impacts and harm to the Salinas Valley groundwater basin without results of these
additional tests; to issue an environmental assessment of this project without fully
testing these resources is not acceptable. We encourage the State Water Resources
Board to engage the Public Utilities Commission to allow a provision in their process
that will ensure that results of these additional studies can be included in the fully
realized Environmental Impact Report that will ultimately be considered for approval.
The Draft Review does not include any legal analysis of the prohibition against
exporting water from the Salinas Valley groundwater basin that is defined by law in
the Monterey County Water Resources Agency Act of 1947. This should b e considered
as one of the major hurdles that this project must overcome in order to adequately
obtain source water for the Applicant's desalination plant. We interpret this to include
any brackish water incidentally included in the source water extracted, as that is not
true seawater by content. Specific water rights held within this Agency Act must be
paramount when considering all exportation issues.
An alternative site north of the Salinas River, along Potrero Road, is noted for possible
source water intake. This location is also over the Salinas Valley groundwater basin
and would have the same constraints, study requirements, and legal issues with

99

~FARM BUREAU

JIB

MONTEREY

exportation of water as the primary site. If this is indeed a serious alternative site, we
would suggest that these same studies and analysis be conducted in parallel with the
primary site, to provide consistency and economies of scale. We believe that the best
possible uses of scientific information to guide these approvals are required for all
contingencies.
Monterey County Farm Bureau asserts that not enough hydro geological information
is known about how the Salinas Valley groundwater basin will respond to desalination
source water intakes as presently proposed; indeed, all causation of possible harm
and possible degradation must be investigated prior to approving the MPWSP in its
present iteration.
It is of greater concern that the prior constructed projects funded by farming

operations in the Salinas Valley could be at risk if further harm or degradation does
occur due to unintended consequences of the MPWSP.
Your consideration of these concerns is appreciated .

. Groot

100

Transmitted via Email


Mr. Paul Murphey
Division of Water Rights
State Water Resources Control Board
P. O. Box 2000
Sacramento, Ca 95812-2000

May 3, 2013

Re: Comments on MPWSP Draft Report (Draft Report)


Dear Mr. Murphey;

R ECEIVE D
5-3-13

SWRCB Hearing Unit

Salinas Valley Water Coalition (SVWC) has operated 20 years to specifically address
our local water issues. SVWC and its members have actively supported the development of
water projects within the Salinas Valley. Two reservoirs, the Castroville Seawater Intrusion
Project, the Salinas Valley Reclamation Project and the Salinas Valley Water Project (SVWP)
have all been approved and funded (over $352,000,000.00) by the Salinas Valley landowners
and ratepayers, in an effort to sustain and manage our basins water resources and to address
its overdraft problem and resultant seawater intrusion problem.
We have worked with our neighbors and other organizations to resolve our differences
so these projects could be successfully financed and implemented. We have made significant
progress on our basins water problems, but we are not finished we still have an overdrafted
basin and seawater intrusion continues to advance into the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin
(SVGB). The overdraft is stable; additional intrusion is substantially reduced. However, the
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP) as proposed threatens that stability and
the security of these water resources and water rights. The northern part of our SVGB still has
significant water resource problems and these needs must be addressed and not further
exacerbated.
The Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin is an overdrafted basin in which coastal farming
enterprises are already threatened by saltwater intrusion. There is no surplus of groundwater
available for appropriation by Cal-Am for the MPWSP, and pumping by Cal-Am from the 180foot aquifer for its proposed project would harm the overlying water users with superior claims.
It would export water from the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin for use elsewhere, in
contravention of both California groundwater law and Monterey County Water Resources
Legislative Act (California Water Code Chapter 52, Section 21).
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the SWRCBs Draft Report on the
MPWSP, and we appreciate your review of the issues and recognition of the potential harm this
project could have on the SVGB.
1
Mission Statement: The water resources of the Salinas
River Basin should be managed properly in a
manner that promotes fairness and equity to all landowners within the basin. The management of
these resources should have a scientific basis, comply with all laws and regulations, and promote the
accountability of the governing agencies.

101

Technical Comments:
A.
We agree with you that additional information is needed to accurately determine
MPWSP impacts on current and future Basin conditions regardless of whether the extraction
occurs from pumped or gravity wells.1
We also agree with you in that specific information is needed on the depth of the wells
and aquifer conditions; studies are needed to determine the extent of the Dune Sand Aquifer,
the water quality and quantity of the Dune Sand Aquifer, the extent and thickness of the SVA
and the extent of the 180-foot aquifer, and the effects/impacts of the proposed MPWSP on the
SVGB. The direct testimony of Mr. Timothy Durbin on behalf of the SVWC to the Public Utilities
Commission2 said that the uncertainty surrounding the MPWSP must be reduced by conducting
a thorough hydrologic investigation. He further stated that such an investigation would consist
of five parts as follows:

1. Additional site-specific work is needed to define the thickness and extent of the 180-foot
aquifer, overlying aquitard, and dune deposits. Especially important are identifying the
onshore and offshore extent, thickness, and continuity of the aquitard overlying the 180foot aquifer, and defining the hydraulic connections among the 180-foot aquifer,
overlying aquitard, and dune deposits. The hydrogeologic investigation will require the
compilation and analysis of existing hydrogeologic information, the construction of new
boreholes, and perhaps conducting geophysical surveys. The number of boreholes must
be sufficient to construct at least three hydrogeologic cross section perpendicular to the
Monterey Bay shore: through the project site, immediately north of the site, and
immediately south of the site. At least nine boreholes into the 180-foot aquifer would be
required. Whether the proposed pumping from the 180-foot aquifer or the dune deposits
will have adverse impacts will depend largely on the details of the actual hydrogeologic
setting.
2. An understanding of the seawater-intrusion mechanisms must be developed. Historical
seawater intrusion has occurred by some combination of the mobilization of naturally
occurring seawater within the groundwater system, pumping-induced vertical leakage
from Monterey Bay into the groundwater system, extrusion of naturally occurring
seawater within the aquitards deposited as lagoonal sediments, and other mechanisms.
The collection and analysis of geochemical and other information will be required to
identify details of the seawater-intrusion processes. Whether the proposed pumping from
the 180-foot aquifer or the dune deposits will have adverse impacts may depend
significantly on the actual processes that will be activated by the proposed pumping.
3. Large-scale aquifer tests will be needed to supplement the hydrogeologic and seawaterintrusion investigations. As long as wells in both the dune deposits and 180-foot aquifer
are considered as primary or contingency water supplies, separate tests must be
conducted with pumping from the 180-foot aquifer and the dune deposits. The tests
need to include monitoring wells within the 180-foot aquifer, the overlying aquitard, and
the dune deposits. The pumping rates and test durations must be sufficient to identify
processes that will be activated by the full implementation of the proposed water-supply
1
2

SWRCB Draft Review of MPWSP, dated April 3, 2013, pg 42


PUC Evidentiary Hearings, SVWC Exhibit SV-3: Technical Memorandum No. 2 by Timothy Durbin, February 21, 2013.

2
Mission Statement: The water resources of the Salinas
River Basin should be managed properly in a
manner that promotes fairness and equity to all landowners within the basin. The management of
these resources should have a scientific basis, comply with all laws and regulations, and promote the
accountability of the governing agencies.

102

pumping. This could involve pumping for a year or more. However, a shorter duration
might be sufficient for pumping from the dune deposits. The tests should be designed
with respect to pumping rates, observation-well placement, and test duration using a
groundwater model to predict the expected response of the groundwater system during
the test and to evaluate the identifiability of critical hydraulic characteristics of the
groundwater system.
4. A local groundwater model must be developed that represents the essential elements of
the groundwater system onshore and offshore along Monterey Bay. The model must
simulate both groundwater flow and solute transport. The model must represent the
hydrologic setting, including the thickness and extents of the dune deposits, 180-foot
aquifer, 400-foot aquifer, and deep aquifer, and the intervening aquitards. The model
must represent the hydraulic characteristics of the groundwater system, and it must
represent the seawater-intrusion process active within the groundwater system. The
development of an adequate model may require simulating the effects of water density
on the hydrodynamics of the groundwater system. The boundary and initial conditions
for the local model should be derived from SVIGSM. However, the simulation run on the
SVIGSM must represent a realistic representation of baseline conditions. The
appropriate baseline condition is for the continued operation of the CSIP project without
additional acreage. An expansion of CSIP is not in place or envisioned at this time, and it
is not an appropriate or realistic depiction of baseline conditions for analyzing the
potential impacts of the CalAm proposal. The proposed CalAm pumping must be
simulated for a finite period, and an extended post-project period must be simulated.
5. The modeling results for both the primary and contingency proposal must be subjected
to a thorough sensitivity analysis. The modeling results will unavoidably always contain
uncertainty, even though the objective of the modeling exercise and supporting
investigations described above will be to minimize the uncertainty. The sensitivity
analysis will quantify how the modeling results might change with different assumptions
about the hydrogeologic setting, seawater intrusion processes, and the hydraulic
characterization of groundwater system.
We believe your recommendation in the Draft Report is consistent with these proposed five
steps. During his cross-examination, Mr. Durbin also discussed a proposed work plan and
schedule for completing the investigations, as shown below:

3
Mission Statement: The water resources of the Salinas
River Basin should be managed properly in a
manner that promotes fairness and equity to all landowners within the basin. The management of
these resources should have a scientific basis, comply with all laws and regulations, and promote the
accountability of the governing agencies.

103

These studies must be completed to provide a thorough analysis of the potential impacts
to the SVGB, its landowners and ratepayers. These studies must be completed regardless of
where in the SVGB the proposed wells will be located and whether the extraction will be from
pumped or gravity wells. This issue is a fatal flaw for the MPWSP and must be identified as
quickly and efficiently as possible.
Cal-Am has proposed some alternatives, such as the Potrero Road site, should their
proposed location at the Cemex site not work. The Potrero Road site is still within the SVGB
and therefore, the same level and extent of hydrologelogic investigation discussed above must
be completed in order to show the level of potential impact to the SVGB.
B. Legal Comments:
We support your legal conclusion that the burden is on Cal-Am to show no injury to
other users.3 However, we believe the discussion pertaining to your legal conclusions fails to
adequately consider two key legislative enactments specific to the Salinas Valley Groundwater
Basin. These must be considered when determining any impacts to current and future Basin
conditions and users. In order for Cal-Am to prove no injury to current and future users, these
enactments must be included in that evaluation:
1. MCWRA Agency Act, Water Code Chapter 52, Section 21.
Sec. 21. Legislative findings; Salinas River groundwater basin extraction and recharge.
The Legislature finds and determines that the Agency is developing a project which will
establish a substantial balance between extraction and recharge within the Salinas River
Groundwater Basin. For the purpose of preserving that balance, no groundwater from
that basin may be exported for any use outside the basin, except that use of water from
the basin on any part of Fort Ord shall not be deemed such an export. If any export of
water from the basin is attempted, the Agency may obtain from the superior court, and
the court shall grant, injunctive relief prohibiting that exportation of groundwater.
This legislation was established to give Monterey County and particularly the Salinas
Valley tools and resources to address water resource issues; most particularly the chronic
problem of salt water intrusion in the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin that was and continues
to be a decades-long issue of major local, regional and statewide concern. This legislation
specifically prohibits the export of ANY groundwater from the Salinas Valley. This legislative act
and expression of protection for the SVGB underscores the need that any proposed
action/project must be consistent with protection of the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin
AND must show that there is no exportation of groundwater from the SVGB.
2. Monterey County Water Resources Agency Ordinance No. 37094.
This Ordinance, which is attached for your convenient reference, was adopted by
MCWRA on September 14, 1993. The ordinance prohibits the extraction of groundwater
from groundwater extraction facilities that have perforations between zero feet mean sea level
and -250 feet and are located within the territory between the City of Salinas and Castroville. It
also prohibits the drilling of any new wells with perforations between zero feet mean sea level
and -250 feet in the portion of the pressure Area north of Harris Road to the Pacific Ocean.
3
4

SWRCB Draft Review of MPWSP, dated April 3, 2013, pg ii


Attachment #4

4
Mission Statement: The water resources of the Salinas
River Basin should be managed properly in a
manner that promotes fairness and equity to all landowners within the basin. The management of
these resources should have a scientific basis, comply with all laws and regulations, and promote the
accountability of the governing agencies.

104

This Ordinance remains in place today and is known as the ordinance that prohibits
pumping in the 180 foot aquifer. This is an important piece of information for the SWRCBs
record and for the public to understand, as it shows that no well in the northern part of the
SVGB can legally pump water from the 180 foot aquifer, and demonstrates the existing public
policy of protecting Salinas Valleys 180 foot aquifer. And yet, this is potentially what Cal-Am is
proposing to do something that is prohibited to legal overlying landowners.
The ordinance includes the attached map delineating the boundary of the territories
subject to the prohibition. It should be noted that the Ordinance was adopted in 1993, three
years prior to the annexation of certain lands that have subsequently been recognized as part of
the SVGB and are now included as such as part of Zone 2C.
Zone 2C was defined based on geological conditions and hydrologic factors, which
defined and limited the benefits derived from the reservoirs and the proposed changes to the
operations, storage, and release of water from the reservoirs. As the Map5 shows, Zone 2C is
essentially the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin (SVGB) extending from the most southern
Monterey County border up to the Monterey Bay. It also includes all of the former Ft. Ord area
and up to the Elkhorn Slough in Moss Landing.
This area is critical to any hydrological analysis and consideration of the potential
impacts to the SVGB, and proof of no injury to water users within the Basin. Cal-Ams proposed
slant well sites are located just adjacent to the southern and northern coastal boundary just on
the other side of the line. Their proposed well sites may not technically be subject to this
Ordinance, but they remain within the SVGB and Zone 2C, and have the potential to affect
them.
As your Draft Report notes, Basin conditions may change in the future so that the
seawater intrusion front moves seaward. If this occurs the MPWSP may then be extracting a
higher proportion of freshwater from its wells. Any legal or technical analysis must also consider
this potential future impact to the SVGB and its water users, including impacts to landowners
ability to utilize their overlying groundwater rights.
---------------------------The Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin is an overdrafted basin in which coastal farming
enterprises are already threatened by saltwater intrusion. There is no surplus of groundwater
available for appropriation by Cal-Am, and pumping by Cal-Am from the 180-foot aquifer for its
proposed project would harm the overlying water users with superior claims. It would export
water from the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin for use elsewhere, in contravention of both
California groundwater law and Monterey County Water Resources Legislative Act (California
Water Code Chapter 52, Section 21).
SVWC wants the Peninsula to be successful in securing its water needs. But those
needs cannot be met at the expense of degradation to the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin.
Those who steward the SVGB--water right holders, users and ratepayerswill diligently work to
assure that the basins resources are conserved. The communities and ratepayers of the
Salinas Valley have spent over $352,000,000.00 to build two reservoirs as well as the
5

Attachment #5 Map as shown in Engineers Report To Support an Assessment for The Salinas Valley Water
Project of the Monterey County Water Resources Agency, RMC, January 2003
5
Mission Statement: The water resources of the Salinas
River Basin should be managed properly in a

manner that promotes fairness and equity to all landowners within the basin. The management of
these resources should have a scientific basis, comply with all laws and regulations, and promote the
accountability of the governing agencies.

105

Castroville Seawater Intrusion Project, the Salinas Valley Reclamation Project and the Salinas
Valley Water Project to solve the basins water problems. Stakeholders have worked as
neighbors to resolve their differences so these projects could be successfully financed and
implemented.
Cal-Ams proposed project for the Monterey Peninsula puts a straw into the Salinas
Valley Basin and potentially in the 180-foot aquifer, which is the aquifer most vulnerable to
seawater intrusion. They should not be allowed to put the stability and security of these water
resources and water rights at risk. We ask the State Water Resources Control Board to
acknowledge the validity of our concerns and to support our request that Cal-Am move its
pumping out of the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin.
We thank you for your consideration of our concerns.

Sincerely,

President, Salinas Valley Water Coalition


W/ Attachments

6
Mission Statement: The water resources of the Salinas
River Basin should be managed properly in a
manner that promotes fairness and equity to all landowners within the basin. The management of
these resources should have a scientific basis, comply with all laws and regulations, and promote the
accountability of the governing agencies.

106

Attachment #4

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

Attachment #5

114

LAW OFFICES OF

MICHAEL W. STAMP
Michael W. Stamp
Molly Erickson
Olga Mikheeva
Jennifer McNary

479 Pacific Street, Suite One


Monterey, California 93940

May 3, 2013
Via Email Wr_Hearing.Unit@waterboards.ca.gov
Paul Murphey
Division of Water Rights
State Water Resources Control Board
P.O. Box 2000
Sacramento, CA 95812-2000

Telephone (831) 373-1214


Facsimile (831) 373-0242

R ECEIVE D
5-3-13

SWRCB Hearing Unit

Subject: SWRCB staff document entitled Draft Review of California American


Water Companys Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project
Notice of Opportunity for Public Comment dated April 3, 2013
Dear Mr. Murphey:
We represent Ag Land Trust, which makes the following comments on the Draft
Review of California American Water Companys Monterey Peninsula Water Supply
Project.
Interest of Ag Land Trust
Ag Land Trust is a not-for profit public benefit corporation. Its mission is the
preservation of agricultural land in the Salinas Valley. Ag Land Trust has preserved
more than 25,000 acres of farmland in Monterey County. Ag Land Trust owns prime
agricultural land, as defined by the California Department of Conservation, in the area
known as Armstrong Ranch. This productive agricultural property is adjacent to the
proposed slant well site for the new Cal-Am project. Ag Land Trust has water rights in
the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin arising from its ownership of the prime
agricultural land.
Over the last decade, the Ag Land Trust has commented repeatedly to the
California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) raising concerns about water rights and
water quality. From the Draft Review, it appears that the SWRCB staff may not have
received all the relevant documents in the CPUCs possession. We attach some of the
Ag Land Trusts written comments to the CPUC, starting in 2006.
In Superior Court, Ag Land Trust challenged the reliance upon the EIR called the
Coastal Water Project Environmental Impact Report. The Superior Court found in
favor of Ag Land Trust, and found that the EIR was flawed in seven material ways,
including an inadequate water rights analysis. We attach the judgment of the Superior
Court.

115

Paul Murphey, Division of Water Rights


State Water Resources Control Board
May 3, 2013
Page 2
SWRCB authority in this matter
The SWRCB has no authority over percolating groundwater that is being put to
beneficial use. (Water Code, 1200 et seq.) The Courts of the State of California
have jurisdiction over nonadjudicated percolated groundwater basins in the state. (Los
Angeles v. Pomeroy (1899) 124 Cal. 597; Katz v. Walkinshaw (1903) 141 Cal. 116.)
The Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin is a percolated groundwater basin. The
unadjudicated basin is in overdraft.
The SWRCBs Notice of Opportunity for Public Comment states that The
[California Public Utilities] Commission requested an assessment from the State Water
Board on whether Cal-Am has the legal right to extract groundwater for the Project.
Under the circumstances, including the SWRCBs lack of authority, the lack of reliable
information provided to the SWRCB, and the highly controversial nature of the issues,
Ag Land Trust wonders why the SWRCB would want to extend an opinion on whether
Cal-Am has the legal right to extract groundwater for the Project.
For that reason, any assessment by the SWRCB is an opinion. If the SWRCB
pursues this effort, any SWRCB assessment should include a description of the
SWRCBs authority and limitations. To date, the CPUCs many years of environmental
and review of the Cal-Am projects have failed to adequately account for Salinas Valley
water rights. Cal-Am has sought to build additional projects because of its lack of
adequate water rights in the Carmel Valley (SWRCB Order 95-10) and the recently
adjudicated Seaside groundwater basin. The SWRCB should reject any effort by the
CPUC to set up the SWRCB for blame if this project fails, as prior Cal-Am projects have
failed.
Comments on the Draft Review
For ease of review, we provide excerpts of the SWRCB staff Draft Review
document in indented quotes, followed by our comments.
Cal-Am proposes several approaches that it claims would
legally allow it to extract water from the Salinas Valley
Groundwater Basin (SVGB or Basin) near or beneath
Monterey Bay without violating groundwater rights or injuring
other groundwater users in the Basin. (p. i.)
In an overdrafted, percolated groundwater basin, California groundwater law
holds that the doctrine of correlative overlying water rights applies (Katz v. Walkinshaw
(1903) 141 Cal. 116), whereby no surplus water is available for new groundwater
appropriators, except by prescription. In an overdrafted basin, as a junior appropriator,
there is no water available for Cal-Am to appropriate. (Pasadena v. Alhambra (1949)

116

Paul Murphey, Division of Water Rights


State Water Resources Control Board
May 3, 2013
Page 3
33 Cal.2d 908.) Any groundwater extraction by Cal-Am would constitute a violation of
the groundwater rights of existing water rights holders.
The conditions in the aquifer where MPWSP feedwater
would be extracted could be either confined or unconfined
however; there is currently not enough information to
determine what type of conditions exist at the location of the
MPWSP wells. (p. i.)
Ag Land Trust agrees with this statement. The statement emphasizes the need
to have a comprehensive and reliable model of the basin, including the projects that
have been implemented in the basin to slow or halt seawater intrusion. The model
should be completed and provided for public review and analysis prior to any drilling or
pumping of a test well.
Effects from confined aquifer pumping would be observed
over a larger area than if extraction occurred from an
unconfined aquifer. Previous studies done in the one of [sic]
proposed MPWSP well locations indicate that there would
be an approximate 2-mile radius zone-of-influence if
groundwater was pumped from an unconfined aquifer. It is
unknown what the effects would be if water was pumped
from a confined aquifer with different hydrogeologic
conditions. (p. i.)
The community of Castroville is within a 2-mile radius of the proposed well site.
Castroville has a largely minority and underprivileged population. Cal-Am is proposing
to pursue a project that would cause harm to the users of the potable aquifer. There is
transference from the 180 to the 400 aquifer, which is why the County of Monterey has
adopted well closure ordinances. The County of Monterey and the local farmers have
deliberately refrained from pumping from the coastal 180-aquifer, in order to try to
prevent further harm to the aquifer. Now Cal-Am is proposing to implement the same
detrimental conduct that the farmers and the County have largely ceased. The
environmental justice issues here are significant, and State policies prohibit the
disproportionate effect upon the underprivileged populations.
The aquifers underlying the proposed extraction locations
have been intruded with seawater since at least the 1940's.
The impairment means that there is little or no beneficial use
of the water in the intruded area. (p. i.)
This is not accurate. Ag Land Trust is actively using water from its onsite well.
Within 100 feet of the Cemex property, the Ag Land Trust is currently using its well and
well water from and on the Armstrong Ranch to grow vetch grass, rye grass, and native

117

Paul Murphey, Division of Water Rights


State Water Resources Control Board
May 3, 2013
Page 4
dune poppy crops for the production and development of native seed stock for Ag Land
Trusts dune stabilization and recovery program. The well water is pumped from the
recovering aquifer.
More than one acre of Ag Land Trust property has been planted and is being
irrigated with groundwater from the Ag Land Trust well. This is an existing and on-going
"beneficial use" of Ag Land Trusts existing potable groundwater rights that will be
directly and permanently compromised by Cal-Am's intentional contamination of the
180 foot aquifer from the proposed project. The SWRCB staff conclusion that the
aquifers near the proposed Cal-Am wells are irretrievably contaminated and not usable
is conclusory and unsupported. Ag Land Trust reports that from 2004 to 2010, the
CPUC staff did not contact local landowners, and did not provide notice as mandated
by CEQA to landowners affected by the original Cal-Am project The SWRCB staff
opinion apparently relies upon an EIR that was overturned by the Superior Court in
early 2012. Existing use of the groundwater for existing and recognized beneficial uses
by overlying landowners has been ignored by Cal-Am, the CPUC and the nowdiscredited EIR.
The existing beneficial use of the groundwater by Ag Land Trust means that the
projects reduction in the quantity of available fresh water would be felt immediately on
in-Basin groundwater users, contrary to the conclusory statements in the Draft Review
(e.g., pp. 27-28, 37).
To appropriate groundwater from the Basin, the burden is
on Cal-Am to show injury to other users. Key facts will be
the following: (1) how much fresh water Cal-Am is extracting
as a proportion of the told pumped amount, to determine the
amount of treated water considered as desalinated sea
water, available for export as developed water . . . (p. ii.)
The statement is not accurate. The burden is on Cal-Am to prove there will not
be any injury to other users. Ag Land Trust has asserted since 2004 that the proposed
wells would cause injury to Ag Land Trust and to other water rights holders in the basin.
(3) how Cal-Am should return any fresh water it extracts to
the Basin to prevent injury to others . . . (p. ii.)
The injury of illegal appropriation occurs at extraction. The injury cannot be
repaired. By virtue of taking the water out without legal right, Cal-Am would cause
injury to holders of existing water rights. The extraction of fresh water from beneath an
overlying property owner by a junior appropriator in an overdrafted basin would violate
the law.

118

Paul Murphey, Division of Water Rights


State Water Resources Control Board
May 3, 2013
Page 5
Both near and long-term, a physical solution that protects
legal users in the Basin from harm would permit Cal-Am to
extract groundwater. Even if overdraft conditions continued
in the Basin following imposition of the solution, Cal-Am
could legally continue pumping brackish water so long as the
quantity and method of extraction are not detrimental to the
conditions in the Basin and other Basin users rights, taking
into account replacement water provided as part of the
project. (p. ii.)
The statements are not accurate. Physical solutions to slow or halt seawater
intrusion in the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin have been approved by public
elections of the voters, and have been constructed expressly for the purposes of
slowing or halting seawater intrusion. Ag Land Trust and hundreds of its neighbors
have paid, and continue to pay, many millions of dollars for assessments for multiple
Monterey County public projects to address seawater intrusion. Perhaps the CPUC has
failed to inform the SWRCB of the expenditure of the public monies and the
construction and ongoing operation of the publicly owned facilities for the benefit of the
public. This has created the current situation that Cal-Am hopes to exploit. Cal-Am has
not paid into these public facilities.
Cal-Am should have the opportunity to show any
desalinated water it produces is surplus to the current needs
of the Basin, replacement water methods are effective and
feasible, and the MPWSP can operate without injury to other
users. (p. ii.)
There is no basis in case law for this conclusion, absent adjudication of the
Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin. If SWRCB staff intends to recommend adjudication,
which is implied by the Draft Reviews lengthy discussion in section 6.3 Physical
Solution Discussion at pages 33 to 38, SWRCB staff should do so publicly and as early
as possible in the process.
Studies are needed to determine the extent of the Dune
Sand Aquifer, the water quality and quantity of the Dune
Sand Aquifer, the extent and thickness of the Salinas Valley
Aquitard and the extent of the 180-Foot Aquifer. (p. iii.)
Ag Land Trust agrees. These studies, using a comprehensive hydrologic model,
are needed before any test wells are drilled and the aquifers are further intruded with
seawater thereby causing harm to overlying landowners.
Specifically, a series of test boring/wells would be needed
to assess the hydrogeologic conditions at the site. Aquifer

119

Paul Murphey, Division of Water Rights


State Water Resources Control Board
May 3, 2013
Page 6
testing would also be needed to establish accurate baseline
conditions to determine the pumping effects on both the
Dune Sand Aquifer and the underlying 180-Foot Aquifer.
Aquifer tests should mimic proposed pumping rates. (p. iii.)
The proposed test wells will cause irreparable harm to the groundwater supply
and groundwater rights of the Ag Land Trust. The proposed test wells are
approximately 400 feet from Ag Land Trust property. The proposed test wells would
fulfill Cal-Ams desire to deliberately pollute the aquifer. The pollution would be
detrimental to in-basin overlying land owners and water rights holders.
The studies will form the basis for a plan that avoids injury
to other groundwater users and protects beneficial uses in
the Basin. (p. iii.)
See above comments regarding adjudication. This statement presumes that it is
possible to avoid injury. Under Pasadena v. Alhambra, supra, there is a presumption
that appropriation of groundwater from an overdrafted basin by a junior appropriator
with no existing rights will cause injury to senior groundwater users and existing
beneficial uses in the basin.
In a letter dated September 26, 2012, the California Public
Utilities Commission (Commission) asked the State Water
Resources Control Board (State Water Board) whether the
California American Water Company (Cal-Am) has the legal
right to extract desalination feedwater for the proposed
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP). The
Commission stated it is not asking for a determination of
water rights, but is instead requesting an opinion as to
whether Cal-Am has a credible legal claim to extract
feedwater for the proposed MPWSP, in order to inform the
Commissions determination regarding the legal feasibility of
the MPWSP. (p. 1.)
The SWRCB has no jurisdiction over percolated groundwater basins. More
troubling is the fact that the CPUC apparently failed to disclose to the SWRCB ten
years of correspondence from senior water rights holders in the Salinas Valley advising
the CPUC that Cal-Am has no groundwater rights and cannot acquire groundwater
rights absent deliberate contamination of the groundwater or pursuing adjudication of
the groundwater basin. (E.g., see attached correspondence from Ag Land Trust.)
This paper will (1) examine the readily available technical
information and that provided by the Commission (p. 1.)

120

Paul Murphey, Division of Water Rights


State Water Resources Control Board
May 3, 2013
Page 7
The term readily available technical information is not defined. It raises serious
concerns as to the adequacy of the information that will be considered. The SWRCB
should clearly state what information the SWRCB staff considers to be readily
available. The SWRCB should investigate and pursue all needed information.
The Monterey County Water Resources Agency is not a reliable source of
information, because under a 2012 settlement agreement with Cal-Am the Agency is
prohibited from speaking freely about the current Cal-Am project. This settlement was
made to resolve a lawsuit filed by Cal-Am against Monterey County Water Resources
Agency. The lawsuit and settlement agreement are public records.
In January 2009, the Commission issued a Draft
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Coastal Water
Project and two project alternatives the North Marina
Project and the Monterey Regional Water Supply Project
(Regional Project). In October 2009, the Commission issued
the Final EIR (FEIR) and in December 2009, it certified the
FEIR. In December 2010, the Commission approved
implementation of the Regional Project. (p. 2.)
State Water Board staff analyzed the NOP and how closely
the new description matched the alternatives in the
December 2009 FEIR completed for the Coastal Water
Project. (p.3.)
Of the two project alternatives in the FEIR, the North Marina
Project more closely resembled the proposed MPWSP
described in the NOP. For this reason, State W ater Board
staff assumed most of the information, including the slant
well construction and operation as described in the FEIR
North Marina Project Alternative, was applicable to the
proposed MPWSP. (p. 3.)
Reliance on the EIR is not merited. The EIR was found to be inadequate by the
Monterey County Superior Court. The EIR may have relied on information from the
former chairman of the Monterey County Water Resources Agency board of directors,
who resigned and is facing more than 30 felony counts, including two counts for
conflicts of interest violations arising from his work for the Regional Desalination Project
while on the Water Resources Agency board. The other counts allegedly arise from his
work for one of the coastal agricultural interests.
The new information provided to the State Water Board
includes: an updated project description, changes in the
location and configuration of the extraction well system, new

121

Paul Murphey, Division of Water Rights


State Water Resources Control Board
May 3, 2013
Page 8
information about the nature of the 180-Foot Aquifer, timing
of implementation for certain mitigation measures, and
supplemental testimony from Richard Svindland of Cal-Am.
(p. 3.)
Please state who provided the new information. It appears to have come solely
from Cal-Am and/or the CPUC. There has not been an opportunity for landowners to
meet with SWRCB staff and express their concerns regarding the proposed project.
The preferred alternative would consist of 7 to 9 slant wells
that would draw water from under the ocean floor by way of
gravity for delivery to the desalination plant. (p. 4.)
Due to cones of depression, Cal-Am would be taking fresh water. Pumping from
beneath the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary would violate the 1992
Memorandum of Agreement to which the SWRCB is a signatory through the California
Environmental Protection Agency. Such pumping would violate the Sanctuary rules
regarding removal and exploitation of Public Trust resources within the Sanctuary,
including fresh water seeps.
A near-surface water-bearing zone comprised of dune
sands, commonly referred to as the Dune Sand Aquifer,
also exists but is considered a minor source of water due to
its poor quality. The Dune Sand Aquifer is not regionally
extensive and is not a recognized subbasin within the
SVGB. The amount of groundwater in storage in the Dune
Sand Aquifer is unknown. (p. 8.)
There is no current pumping from the so-called Dunes aquifer. To the limited
extent the aquifer exists, its sources of recharge are solely rainfall and irrigation water.
The amount of storage is highly variable based on recharge. The aquifer is currently
largely fresh water because it has not been pumped for years due to efforts by land
owners to reverse seawater intrusion and the County prohibition on wells in the coastal
area in question. The SWRCB staff conclusion that the so-called aquifer is a
contaminated water source does not change the fact that the proposed project would
wrongfully allow Cal-Am to intentionally induce seawater into a recovering potable water
formation and compromise many years of efforts of local land owners to reverse
seawater intrusion in the Salinas Valley.
At pages 8 and 18, the draft SWRCB staff document refers to the "Deep
Aquifer." The SWRCB staff may not be aware that the preferred reference is to the
"Deep Aquifers" because there are more than one. The Deep Aquifers provide the sole
potable water supply for the City of Marina and most of the former Fort Ord. The
technical studies report that the volume of storage in the Deep Aquifers is small, the

122

Paul Murphey, Division of Water Rights


State Water Resources Control Board
May 3, 2013
Page 9
Deep Aquifers are not sustainable, and the recharge to the Deep Aquifers is
insignificant.
The 180-Foot Aquifer is generally confined by the overlying
Salinas Valley Aquitard (SVA). The SVA is a well-defined
clay formation with low permeability that retards the vertical
movement of water to the underlying 180-Foot Aquifer. (p.
9.)
The draft report fails to acknowledge the existence of old, largely hand-dug wells
into the shallow aquifer, which were closed some fifty or more years ago. The wells
were closed with dirt, instead of with a solid impermeable material like concrete. The
dirt allows seawater-intruded water in the shallow aquifer to flow down the well casing to
the 180-foot aquifer. There is transference between the shallow aquifer and the 180foot aquifer and the 400-foot aquifer. To the extent that the proposed Cal-Am wells will
cause further seawater intrusion of the shallow aquifer, seawater will exacerbate
seawater intrusion into the 180-foot aquifer. The 180-foot aquifer is currently widely
used for potable and agricultural uses.
Based on information from logs of two wells located
approximately mile south and mile northeast from the
proposed MPWSP slant wells, the top of the SVA is between
150 to 180 feet below msl. The well logs show the top of the
underlying 180-Foot Aquifer at approximately 190 to 220
feet below msl. (p. 9.)
Please reveal the sources of the information, so the public can comment
meaningfully. To the extent that the SWRCB staff is relying on information provided by
Cal-Am or in the EIR, those sources may not be accurate. The SWRCB staff should
consider all necessary information. The presence of old wells and gaps in the aquitard
would affect the analysis.
Studies have shown that in some areas the SVA thins
enough to create unconfined conditions in the 180-Foot
Aquifer. It is unknown if these unconfined conditions exist in
the proposed MPWSP well area. Determination of the
existence of the SVA, and thus the conditions of the aquifer
at the location of the proposed MPWSP wells will be very
important in determining the area of impact of the project as
discussed at greater length in Section 5 of this report. (p.9.)
The amount of 500 mg/L chloride water that enters the
Basin was reported to be as high as 14,000 acre-feet per
annum (afa) or 4.5 billion gallons. (p. 13.)

123

Paul Murphey, Division of Water Rights


State Water Resources Control Board
May 3, 2013
Page 10
These claims further demonstrate that comprehensive modeling must be
performed to provide accurate information.
The MRWRA and the Central Coast Regional Water Quality
Control Board show impairment to the water in the intruded
area for drinking and agricultural uses. Since this
groundwater is impaired, it is unlikely that this water is or will
be put to beneficial use. (p. 14.)
The conclusion is not accurate. One example of this is the beneficial use to
which Ag Land Trust is putting groundwater from and on its Armstrong Ranch site,
adjacent to the Cemex site. Separately, we are not familiar with an agency called
MRWRA. Please clarify if the State means MCWRA, which is the Monterey County
Water Resources Agency.
Local agencies have taken steps to reduce the rate of
seawater intrusion and enhance groundwater recharge in
the SVGB. To address the seawater intrusion problem, the
MCWRA passed and adopted Ordinance No. 3709 in
September 1993. (p. 14.)
Cal-Ams proposed project would violate both state statutes and the mandates of
the California Constitution, and unlawfully interfere with and compromise the express
intent, purpose, and financing of the Salinas Valley Water Project (including the Rubber
Dam) that was voted upon by land owners of the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin
over a decade ago. The multi-million dollar Rubber Dam project and its voterapproved assessment district were proposed and placed on the ballot in Monterey
County for the purpose of reversing and curing the seawater intrusion issues in the
basin. This assessment district for this public funded capital project was placed on the
ballot pursuant to article XIIID of the California Constitution (Prop. 218). The purpose of
the project (the property related service) was and remains the provision of potable
water, in part, to reverse seawater intrusion and restore the damaged but still viable
potable aquifers near the coast and throughout the lower basin.
Article XIIID, section 6(b)(1), requires that Revenues derived from the fee or
charge shall not exceed the funds required to provide the property related service.
Article XIIID section 6(b)(4) prohibits a fee or charge except where the property related
service is actually used by the parcel owner. The SVWP Rubber Dam is a publicly
owned and publicly funded capital project to which Cal-Am has contributed nothing.
Cal-Am has no right or entitlement to water from the overdrafted Salinas aquifers and
the SVWP Rubber Dam. The assessments levied only upon in-basin property owners
and overlying water rights holders are expressly for the benefit of overlying properties
(and the beneficial uses of water thereon) that receive the paid-for service of that
project. Neither the SWRCB nor the CPUC has demonstrated the authority or right to

124

Paul Murphey, Division of Water Rights


State Water Resources Control Board
May 3, 2013
Page 11
interfere with that provision of these constitutionally mandated services, nor may they
support any action that would undermine or interfere with the repayment of the public
funding sources (certificates of participation and loans) that have been used to
construct these publicly owned capital facilities. Cal-Ams project would directly interfere
with this multi-million dollar project intended to restore the aquifers that Cal-Am wants to
pollute and exploit in violation of the SWRCB Non-Degradation Policy. The CPUC and
Cal-Am have ignored this insurmountable impediment to Cal-Ams intention to illegally
and wrongfully take water from the overdrafted Salinas basin to which Cal-Am has no
claim of right.
The CPUC and Cal-Am have failed to explain how they also intend to ignore or
circumvent the MCWRA statutory prohibition on the export of any groundwater from
the Salinas Valley basin. The offer to somehow return the fresh groundwater" that CalAm would be illegally and wrongfully taking through their slant wells ignores the injury
and is legally insufficient.
In spite of repeated objections and a lawsuit by the Ag Land Trust, the CPUC
and Cal-Am have failed to address how they can whitewash Cal-Ams proposed illegal
taking of water from the aquifers of the Salinas Valley so as to cure Cal-Ams illegal
taking of underflow from the Carmel River.
The CSIP is a program operated by the Monterey County
Water Pollution Control Agency that reduces groundwater
pumping from seawater intruded areas and distributes
recycled water to agricultural users within the SVGB.
The program provides a form of groundwater recharge by
effectively reducing groundwater extraction in those areas of
the Basin that are part of the CSIP area. (p. 14.)
Using funds of the local farmers, the CSIP has recharged the Sand Dune
Aquifer. Cal-Am was not the intended beneficiary of that action.
Despite these and other efforts, seawater intrusion
continues its inland trend into the Basin. (p. 14.)
The SWRCB staff conclusion is inconsistent with the position taken by the
MCWRA and its legal counsel. The MCWRA position, affirmed recently, is that
seawater intrusion has not worsened. Please respond, clearly state the SWRCB
position, and address the inconsistency with the MCWRA position.
Additionally the past data provides insight into future
conditions which could be expected absent the MPWSP.
(p. 14.)

125

Paul Murphey, Division of Water Rights


State Water Resources Control Board
May 3, 2013
Page 12
The conclusion is not supported. As one example, past data does not include
the results of the Salinas Valley Water Project, a Proposition 218 project funded by
Salinas Valley property owners. MCWRA is the project sponsor. All components of the
Salinas Valley Water Project (SVWP) only recently became operable. The MCWRA
has repeatedly stated that it will take at least ten years after full operations began
before results of the SVWP can start to be known. The SVWP may significantly
change future conditions.
Groundwater recharge in the lower portion of the Salinas
Valley is largely by infiltration along the channel of the
Salinas River and its tributaries. This accounts for
approximately 50 percent of the total recharge within the
SVGB. Approximately 40 percent of the total recharge is
from irrigation return water with the remaining 10 percent
due to precipitation, subsurface inflow and seawater
intrusion. (p. 16.)
The Salinas Valley Water Project may materially affect the unsupported
groundwater recharge conclusions made by SWRCB staff. A comprehensive
hydrologic model is needed, and would include the Salinas Valley Water Project
operations.
Based on the occurrence of large pumping depressions in
inland areas, it can be reasonably assumed that there is a
strong landward gradient (slope) of groundwater flow, at
least within the 180-Foot Aquifer. However, because the
degree of confinement of the 180-Foot Aquifer and the
degree of connection between this aquifer and the overlying
Dune Sand Aquifer are not known it is not possible to
accurately predict what the effects of the landward gradient
of groundwater flow will be for various extraction scenarios.
(p. 17.)
These statements are largely speculation. They fail to adequately account for
recharge from the operation of the dams (Nacimiento and San Antonio) and publicly
funded projects (Castroville Seawater Intrusion Program and Salinas Valley Water
Project). The conclusions are based on outdated inf ormation that was produced prior
to the Salinas Valley Water Project.
A groundwater model that accurately reflects the
hydrogeologic characteristics of the Basin is critical in
providing insight to the effects the MPWSP would have on
the Basin. As part of the FEIR for the Coastal Water
Project, a local groundwater flow and solute transport model

126

Paul Murphey, Division of Water Rights


State Water Resources Control Board
May 3, 2013
Page 13
(Model) was developed to determine the effects that
pumping would have on groundwater levels and seawater
intrusion in the area. (p. 18.)
The EIR was found to be inadequate by the Superior Court. Among the issues
raised by Ag Land Trust were assumptions made about the EIR model, including the
effects of pumping, the nature of pumping, and the percentage of seawater in the water
to be pumped. Ag Land Trust pointed out material inconsistencies in the EIR analysis.
Ag Land Trust also raised concerns about the inconsistencies between the EIR model
and the known causes of seawater intrusion.
The gravity well design is a new alternative presented to the
State Water Board for evaluation at the CEMEX owned
property. State Water Board staff previously evaluated a
pumping well alternative at the CEMEX site and found that
the pumped wells would have an impact to groundwater
users within a 2mile radius of the wells. Since modeling
has not been done for the gravity well alternative, State
Water Board staff is unable to accurately predict impact to
existing users from the gravity wells. (p. 20.)
What can be accurately predicted is that the well would result in permanent
contamination of Ag Land Trusts well, the loss of groundwater rights, and the
permanent loss of potable water supply.
The potential impacts from the pumping wells at this site
cannot be yet be determined since groundwater modeling
has not been done. Until an accurate groundwater model is
developed for this area, State Water Board staff is unable to
determine the extent of impacts to existing water users.
(pp. 20-21.)
Ag Land Trust agrees that the full severity of impacts cannot be predicted without
an accurate and comprehensive groundwater model. Ag Land Trusts position is that
the proposed wells would cause the permanent contamination of the Ag Land Trust well
and groundwater on Ag Land Trust property adjacent to the Cemex site, and that injury
can be accurately predicted now, at this stage. New slant wells being pumped
continuously by Cal-Am predictably will reverse progress made toward protecting and
improving the water quality of the Salinas Valley aquifers.
The Draft Review relies extensively on vague references to the EIR documents,
including modeling done for the EIR, which is largely unsupported by reference to any
document and page (e.g., Draft Review, p. 35). For example, the Draft Review section
5.3 Groundwater Capture Zone Delineation (pp. 21-22) is unsupported by any

127

Paul Murphey, Division of Water Rights


State Water Resources Control Board
May 3, 2013
Page 14
reference to specific documents and pages. The sole reference in the text is a general
reference to the FEIR groundwater modeling studies without any specific citation. The
studies were prepared by the applicant, and have not been adequately peer reviewed.
The Ag Land Trust litigation challenged assumptions made in the EIR modeling,
including assumptions of continuous pumping for 56 years, and the percentages of
seawater and fresh water that would be in the groundwater. The Superior Court
overturned the EIR and ordered that the environmental analysis be redone. Before the
SWRCB relies on the FEIR or any studies done by the applicant, the SWRCB first
should require expert peer review and provide the results to the public. Separately, as
the Draft Review acknowledges, the EIR modeling did not explore some proposed
scenarios. (E.g., p. 27 [Modeling in the FEIR did not predict the effects of pumping
from a confined condition, so there are no estimates on the extent of potential
impacts.].) The proposed conclusions are unsupported and inconsistent w ith
hydrogeologic evidence and with the actions of local agencies. To the extent that the
conclusions are predicated on a continuing increase of the cone of depression, they are
unsupported.
To the extent that Section 5.3 assumes certain gradients and what the proposed
wells will or will not capture (e.g., p. 21), those assumptions are unproven and
unsupported, and contradict many years of hydrologic research.
The Draft Review section 5.4 Extraction Scenarios (pp. 22-27) is conclusory
and unsupported. The section is speculative, and it fails to acknowledge the limited
authority of the SWRCB in these matters. The section lacks citation to evidence,
except for a couple of references to the discredited EIR, and a couple of references to a
general groundwater treatise that is not helpful in light of the facts here, which include a
well in an overdrafted basin immediately adjacent to an ocean, where the pressure from
the ocean water exceeds the pressure from the inland fresh groundwater. This section
is another example of inappropriate reliance on the discredited EIR.
The lowering of groundwater levels approximately 2 miles
from the slant wells likely would be negligible. (p. 24)
The conclusion is not accurate or supported. The proposed pumping of some
25,000 AFA would remove a very large volume of groundwater from the aquifer. That
would cause a change in the water quality and water levels. The EIR models did not
adequately take the volume of water into account.
According to information from the State Water Boards
GAMA database, approximately 14 wells are within 2 miles
of the proposed MPWSP (Figure SWRCB 8). All of these
wells are within the seawater-intruded portion of the Basin.
The MPWSP drawdown would change the groundwater

128

Paul Murphey, Division of Water Rights


State Water Resources Control Board
May 3, 2013
Page 15
gradient within the zone of influence causing a radial flow of
groundwater toward the extraction wells. Currently, the
predominant groundwater flow direction in the 180-Foot
Aquifer is toward the northeast. Project pumping would
likely change the flow direction to more of a southwest to
westerly direction within the zone of influence. Outside the
zone of influence there would be little if any change to
groundwater flow direction; however, the rate of flow in the
original direction (northeast) would be reduced. Therefore,
the MPWSP would slow the rate of seawater intrusion in a
landward direction from the wells. (p. 24)
The Draft Reviews conclusion that pumping the slant wells would slow the rate
seawater intrusion in a landward direction is inconsistent with the fact that pumping is
what has caused seawater intrusion. It is not clear why the Draft Review thinks the CalAm wells would have a different result from what has been proven to be true in the
Salinas Valley and elsewhere.
As a separate problem, the Draft Review does not identify the depth of the wells
within a 2-mile radius. The conclusion that All of these wells are within the seawaterintruded portion of the Basin is not supported. Some of the wells may be in nonintruded aquifers.
As a separate problem, the Draft Reviews conclusions are inconsistent with the
Monterey County Board of Supervisors recent adoption of revised General Plan policy
PS-3.1 which provides the assumption that all development within Zone 2C has a long
term sustainable water supply. Zone 2C includes much of the Salinas Valley floor,
including the coastal areas that would be affected by the proposed wells. In other
words, Monterey County has taken the position that the aquifers provide potable and
usable water. Monterey County made that conclusion on the basis of the new Salinas
Valley Water Project. Zone 2C is an assessment district to which landowners are
paying millions of dollars. Zone 2C assessments fund the SVWP which is purportedly a
remedy for seawater intrusion now and in the future.
While a portion of the water flowing to the well does come
from the less saline water on the shoreward side, the relative
percentage of water drawn from the shoreward side of the
wells will depend on various factors, including the gradient of
groundwater flow toward inland pumping depressions. (p.
26.)
Cal-Am does not have a right to this groundwater. The Draft Reviews reliance
on a 87% seawater/13% fresh water proportion is not appropriate. The unreliable EIR
data is from the 180-aquifer, and showed that the proportion changed over time to 60%

129

Paul Murphey, Division of Water Rights


State Water Resources Control Board
May 3, 2013
Page 16
seawater/40% fresh water. The mention of 3,250 AFA of fresh water (assumed to be
13%) improperly minimizes the impact of that pumping. It would be a huge illegal
appropriation.
It is unlikely that pumping from an unconfined aquifer would
extract fresh groundwater since the seawater intrusion front
is approximately 5 miles landward from the proposed
pumps. (p. 26.)
The Draft Reviews implied conclusion that the unconfined Dunes aquifer is
intruded is not supported. Other than Cemex, it is believed that the local landowners
have refrained from pumping the Dunes Aquifer. The SWRCB should research the
facts on the ground.
the inland groundwater users may experience a reduction in
groundwater levels in their wells, with associated increases
in pumping costs. (p. 27.)
The first paragraph of section 5.5 shows that there would be an illegal taking of
groundwater. The paragraph fails to acknowledge that increased coastal pumping
causes increased seawater intrusion.
This effect would not be felt immediately and would depend
on a variety of factors. Since the capture zone for the
extraction well system will likely be limited to areas already
heavily impacted by seawater intrusion, it would not be
appropriate to inject or percolate desalinated water in this
intruded area, as the water would essentially be wasted.
(pp. 27-28.)
The statements are inaccurate. The effects would be felt immediately by the
nearby Ag Land Trust well, from which water is being used for overlying beneficial uses.
The Ag Land Trust groundwater would be impacted, the Ag Land Trust water rights
would be taken, and the Ag Land Trust storage would be taken. The Draft Review has
not cited to proof that the Dunes Aquifer is heavily impacted. The increased pumping
foreseeably could counteract or eliminate any benefits from the SVWP (Rubber Dam)
for the assessed property owners who are paying for the SVWP. Injected water would
not be wasted unless the overlying landowners had been deprived of their groundwater
rights by adjudication.
The reduction in the availability of fresh water would not be
felt immediately. (p. 28)

130

Paul Murphey, Division of Water Rights


State Water Resources Control Board
May 3, 2013
Page 17
The statement is inaccurate. The effects would be felt immediately by the
nearby Ag Land Trust well, from which water is being used for overlying beneficial uses.
the proposed MPWSP could extract some fresh water from
within the Basin. (p. 28.)
It is misleading to say could when the whole point of the Cal-Am wells is to
extract fresh water. The SWRCB should say will extract instead of could extract.
To appropriate groundwater from the Basin, Cal-Am will
have to demonstrate that the MPWSP will extract water that
is surplus to the needs of groundwater users in the Basin
and injury to those users will not result. Because the Basin
is in a condition of overdraft, to appropriate water for
non-overlying uses, any fresh water that Cal-Am pumps will
have to be replaced. (p. 28; similar comments at p. 33.)
The second sentence has no support, and is inconsistent w ith California law. As
stated above, in an overdrafted basin, there is no water available for Cal-Am, as a junior
appropriator, to appropriate. (Pasadena v. Alhambra (1949) 33 Cal.2d 908.) Any
groundwater extraction by Cal-Am would constitute a violation of the groundwater rights
of existing water rights holders. There is no law that allows Cal-Am to pump water
illegally, and then to remedy that violation by replacing the water, in a post-injury effort
to make other users whole (p. 33). Further, the sentence in question makes a
distinction between groundwater and fresh water. The distinction is not appropriate and
it not supported. Under the circumstances, withdrawal of water from the groundwater
basin will cause further seawater intrusion that harms existing users. Replacement of
only the fresh water portion of the withdrawn volume of water would not reverse the
harm. Exportation of groundwater from the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin is
prohibited under State legislation (the MCWRA Act) and case law.
An appropriative groundwater right is not necessary to
recover water injected or otherwise used to recharge the
aquifer, where the water used for recharge would not
recharge the aquifer naturally. (p. 28, fn. 31.)
The claim is not supported by citation. The claim is not accurate unless the
basin is adjudicated.
No permit is required by the State Water Board to acquire
or utilize appropriative groundwater rights. (p. 29.)
The statement is misleading. The State Water Resources Control Board has no
right to require any permit for an appropriative right.

131

Paul Murphey, Division of Water Rights


State Water Resources Control Board
May 3, 2013
Page 18
Cal-Ams proposed MPWSP would pump brackish water.
(p. 30.)
The statement is misleading. The water would only be brackish because the
pumping will illegally take fresh water supplies.
Estimates based on the North Marina Project description
are that 13 percent of the total water pumped through the
proposed wells could be attributed to the landward portion of
the Basin and 87 percent could come from the seaward
direction relative to the pump locations. (p. 30.)
These estimates were challenged by the Ag Land Trust, because the EIR
technical appendices showed that up to 40% of the water would be fresh water, which
is more than three times the claimed 13%. The EIR that relied on the 13% estimate
was rejected by the Superior Court.
It is unknown whether seawater has intruded the Dune
Sand Aquifer, but the reported poor water quality of the
Dune Sand Aquifer likely limits beneficial uses of its water.
(p. 30.)
The statement is inconsistent with the statements elsewhere in the Draft Review
that the water to be pumped by Cal-Am is brackish (see, e.g, p. 30). If the Dunes
Aquifer is not intruded, then the proposed pumping would deliberately cause intrusion.
The Draft Review should state who reported the poor quality, when, and exactly what
was reported. The term poor quality should be clarified. Poor quality is not the
same as marginally degraded, recovering, or unusable.
Water an appropriator pumps that was not previously
available to other legal users can be classified as developed
or salvaged water. (p. 31.)
There is no salvage water here, and the doctrines of salvage and developed
water have no place here. Groundwater is being used for beneficial purposes by Ag
Land Trust on the property adjacent to the proposed well site.
if water would never reach or be used by others there can
be no injury. (pp. 31-32.)
Water is being pumped and put to beneficial use by Ag Land Trust on the
property adjacent to the proposed well site. The proposed project would injure Ag Land
Trust in multiple ways.

132

Paul Murphey, Division of Water Rights


State Water Resources Control Board
May 3, 2013
Page 19
If Cal-Am can show all users are uninjured because they
are made whole by the replacement water supply and
method of replacement, export of the desalinated source
water would be permissible and qualify as developed water.
(p. 33.)
The statement is not accurate. Exportation of groundwater is prohibited by state
law and case law. There is no provision for this replacement and export scheme
absent adjudication.
This could require implementation of a physical solution.
(p. 33.)
There is no physical solution necessary if Cal-Am does not take Salinas Valley
groundwater.
A physical solution is one that assures all water right
holders have their rights protected (p. 34.)
This is misleading. Cal-Am does not hold any water rights. There are no
available groundwater rights to be appropriated in an overdrafted basin. (Katz v.
Walkinshaw (1902) 141 Cal. 116.) A judicially imposed resolution of conflicting claims
(p. 34) requires adjudication.
One important characteristic of a physical solution is that it
may not adversely impact a partys existing water right.
(Mojave, supra, 23 Cal.4th 1224, 1251.) (p. 34.)
This is correct. Cal-Ams project would adversely affect the water rights held by
Ag Land Trust. Ag Land Trust is using its groundwater for beneficial uses on the prime
agricultural land adjacent to the proposed well site.
Under the physical solution doctrine, although the Basin
continues to be in a condition of overdraft, to maximize
beneficial use of the states waters Cal-Am may be allowed
to pump a mixture of seawater and fresh water and export
the desalinated water to non-overlying parcels. To avoid
injury to other users and protect beneficial uses of the
Basins waters, Cal-Am would be required to return its fresh
water component to the Basin in such a way that existing
users are not harmed and foreseeable uses of the Basin
water are protected. (p. 35.)

133

Paul Murphey, Division of Water Rights


State Water Resources Control Board
May 3, 2013
Page 20
The suggested approach would require adjudication of the Basin. The first
sentence is not accurate and is not supported by reference to legal authority. Please
state who would require Cal-Am to return fresh water, who would enforce the
requirement, and who would pay for Cal-Ams production of fresh water that would be
returned to the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin.
According to information from the State Water Boards
GAMA database, approximately 14 wells are within 2 miles
of the proposed MPWSP (Figure SWRCB 8). (p. 24.)
Figure SWRCB 8 (p. 25) does not appear to be accurate or com plete. As one
example, Figure SWRCB 8 does not show the 14 wells that Draft Review claims are
within a 2-mile radius of the proposed wells. Only one well is shown within the 2-mile
radius. The SWRCB should show or otherwise identify the 14 wells that the SWRCB
claims are within the 2-mile radius. Without that information, the public cannot
meaningfully comment on the figure or SWRCBs discussion of the data. Ag Land
Trust reports that at least three wells in the 2-mile radius, including the Ag Land Trust
well, are not shown on Figure SWRCB 8. There are likely other inaccuracies in the
figure. To the extent that the Geotracker GAMA database has lim itations and
infirmities, those should be disclosed. Similarly, the water well information in the EIR
(see, e.g., p. 38 of the Draft Review) may also be materially unreliable.
To the extent that the Draft Review attempts to rely on seawater intrusion data
from the MCWRA, as the Draft Review currently does throughout the document, the
SWRCB should diligently research the location of the monitoring wells from which the
MCWRA data is gathered, because that information affects the reliability of the claims
about the intrusion in general and as to this project in particular.
The Draft Reviews reference to the parties (e.g., p. 36) is unclear. Please
identify which parties the SWRCB is referring to, and in what context. The SWRCB
does not have a proceeding for this Cal-Am project.
If pumping within the Basin remains unchanged, it is
projected that the MPWSP would not pump fresh water
within a 56-year period if pumping occurred in an unconfined
aquifer. (p. 36.)
The statement is not accurate. The premise of the proposed project is that the
wells would pump groundwater that includes fresh water. The overturned EIR stated
that up to 40% fresh water would be pumped. The EIR assumptions including the
assumption that pumping would last for 56 years continuously, without stopping are
deeply flawed, and render the studies unreliable.

134

Paul Murphey, Division of Water Rights


State Water Resources Control Board
May 3, 2013
Page 21
but-for the MPWSP, new fresh water would not be available
in the Basin, (p. 36.)
This possible scenario contradicts the premise of the Salinas Valley Water
Project Rubber Dam component, which is to make new fresh water available in the
Basin. The SWRCB Draft Reviews discussion of this and other scenarios shows that
the SWRCB is arguing for Cal-Am and its project, despite inadequate information and
inadequate investigation of the issues.
Based on historical uses of water in the Basin and despite
efforts to reduce groundwater pumping in seawater intruded
areas through enactment of Ordinance 3709 and efforts to
increase recharge through the CSIP, there is no evidence to
suggest that Basin conditions will improve independent of
the MPWSP without a comprehensive solution to the
overdraft conditions. (p. 37)
The statement is not supported. The SWRCB staff lacks information on existing
uses and activities in the Basin. This statement fails to consider the Salinas Valley
Water Project (SVWP), which had as its purpose the halting of seawater intrusion. The
SVWP was a Proposition 218 project funded by Salinas Valley property owners. The
SVWP EIR stated that the SVW P would not have effect until all components of the
SVWP were fully operational. That was achieved in approximately 2012.
Both near- and long-term, a physical solution could ensure
an adequate water supply for all legal water users in the
Basin and provide an assured supply of groundwater to the
Basins users. (p. 39.)
How? Please explain a physical solution that meets that description.
a conclusive showing that there is no water available for
export does not appear to be the case here. (p. 39, f n. 41)
Please provide the evidence that there is water available for export. Please
explain whether it is the SWRCBs position that intruded groundwater can be exported
from the Basin in violation of the State legislation (MCWRA Act). Please explain what
water the SWRCB considers currently unusable (p. 39, fn. 41).
As to various comments in the Draft Review about the impacts of the proposed
extraction, the SWRCB may not be aware of the North County Land Use Plan, which
contains policies that affect and protect the water quality and water supply. This project
is within the boundaries of the North County Land Use Plan. The North County Land
Use Plan is part of the Local Coastal Program certified by the California Coastal

135

Paul Murphey, Division of Water Rights


State Water Resources Control Board

May 3, 2013
Page 22
Commission. The SWRCB should honor and consider the state-certified plan if the

SWRCB seeks to proceed with the CPUC-requested "assessment."


The proposed project violates several policies of that plan. The plan designates
the land use of the local property, including Ag Land Trust property, as Agricultural
Preservation. Under the plan policies, such land shall be preserved for agricultural use

to the fullest extent possible. Development of Agricultural Preservation lands is limited


to accessory buildings for farm uses and other uses required for agricultural activities
on that parcel. The lack of water rights for the proposed project may threaten the
agricultural viability of the protected agricultural lands. Further, the project violates
Land Use Plan policies on water supply and water quality, including policies 2.5.3.A.1
though 2.5.3.A.3, and policy 2.5.3.B.6. For example, by using coastal groundwater
supplies for uses other than coastal priority agricultural uses, the project would violate

policy 2.5.3.A.1. The County has failed to determine the long term safe yield of the area
aquifers. We urge you to review the Coastal Commission comments on the draft EIR.
Conclusion

Foreach and every of the reasons described above, the "assessment" requested

by the CPUC would be premature at this stage. At the very least, if the SWRCB staff
chooses to pursue its effort to provide the CPUC with a document, the SWRCB staff
should revisit the approach used in the Draft Review, and make a diligent investigation
of the current facts. The EIR should not be relied upon. The Draft Review should be

rewritten with more complete information due to the factual inaccuracies. The revised
document should be circulated for public comment for at least 30 days.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the Draft Review.
Request

Please put this Office on the distribution list for future reports, letters, and notices
for this project. For email distribution, please send materials to me at
Erickson@stamplaw.us.
Very truly yours,
LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL W. STAMP

y Erickspn

136

Paul Murphey, Division of Water Rights


State Water Resources Control Board
May 3, 2013
Page 23
Exhibits:
A.
B.
C.

Ag Land Trust letters to CPUC (November 6, 2006 and April 15, 2009).
Herald Article (February 4, 2012).
Final Judgment in Ag Land Trust v. Marina Coast Water District (Monterey
Superior Court Case No. M105019).

137

EXHIBIT A
138

VMONTEREY COUNTY AGRICULTURAL AND HISTORICAL


LAND CONSERVANCY
P.O. Box 1731, Salinas CA 93902

November 6,2006

Jensen Uehida
c/o California Public Utilities Commission

Energy nnd Water Division


505 Van Ness Avenue, Room 4A

San Francisco, Cfl. 94102


FAX 415-703-2200
JMU@CPUC.ca.gQv

SUBJECT; California-American Water Company's Coastal Water Project EIR

Dear Mr. Uchlda:


I am writing to you on behalf ofthe Monterey County Agricultural and Historic Lands
Conservancy (MCAHLC), a farmland preservation trust located in Monterey County,

California, Our Conservancy, which was formed in 1984 with the assistance of funds
from the California Department of Conservation, owns over 15,000 acres ofprime
farmlands and agricultural conservation easements, including our overlying groundwater
rights, in the Salinas Valley. "We have large holdings in the Moss
Landing/Castroville/Marina areas. Many of these acres of land and easements, and their

attendant overlying groundwater rights, have been acquired with grant funds from the
State of California as part of the state's long-term program to permanently preserve our
state's productive agricultural lands.
We understand that the California-American Water Company is proposing to build a
desalination plant somewhere (the location is unclear) in the vicinity of Moss Landing or
Marina as a proposed remedy for their illegal over-drafting of the Carmel River. On

behalf of our Conservancy and the farmers and agricultural interests that we represent, 1
wish to express our grave concerns and objections regarding the proposal by the
California-American Water Company to install and pump beach wells for the purposes of
exporting groundwater from our Salinas Valley groundwater aquifers to the Monterey
Peninsula, which is outside our over-drafted groundwater basin. This proposal will
adversely affect and damage our groundwater rights and supplies, and worsen seawater

intrusion beneath our protected farmlands. We object to any action by the California
Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to allow, authorize, or approve the use of such

beach v/ells to take groundwater from beneath our lands and out of our basin, as this

139

Exhibit A, p. 1 of 4

would be on "ultra-vires" act by the CPUC because the CPUC is not authorized by any
taw or statute to grant water rights, and because this -would constitute the -wrongful

approval and authorization ofthe illegal taking of our groundwaterand overlying


groundwater rights. Further, we are distressed that, since this project directly and
adversely affects our property rights, the CPUC failed to mail actual notice to us, and all
other superior water rights holders in the Salinas Valley that will be affected, as is
required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The CPUC must provide
such actual mailed notice of the project and the preparation of the E1R to all affected
water rights holders because California-American has no witter rights in our basin.
Any EIR. that is prepared by the CPUC on the proposed Cal-Am project must included a
full analysis of the legal rights to Salinas Valley groundwater that Cal-Am claims. The
Salinas Valley percolated groundwater basin has been in overdraft for over five decades
according to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the California Department of Water
Resources. Cal-Am, by definition m California law, is an appropriator of water. No water
is available to new appropriators from overdrafted groundwater basins. The law on this
issue in California was established over 100 years ago in the case ofKatzv. Walkinshaw
(HI Calif. 11 f>\ it-was repeated in Pasadena v. Alhambra (33 Calif.2nd 908), and
reaffirmed in the Baratow v. Moiave Water Agency case in 2000. Cal-Am has no
groundwater rights in our basin and the CPUC has no authority to grant approval of a
project that relies on water that belongs to the overlying landowners of the
Marina/Castroville/Moss Landing areas.

Further, the EIR must fully and completely evaluate in detail each of the following issues,
or it will be flawed and subject to successful challenge:
1. Complete and detailed hydrology and hydrogeologic analyses of the impacts of
"beach well" pumping on groundwater wells on adjacent farmlands and
properties. This must include the installation ofmonitoring wells on the
potentially affected lands to evaluate well "drawdown", loss of groundwater
storage capacity, loss of groundwater quality, loss of farmland and coastal
agricultural resources that are protected by the California Coastal Act, and the
potential for increased and potentially irreversible seawater intrusion.
2. A full analysis of potential land subsidence on adjacent properties due to
increased (365 days per year) pumping of groundwater for Cal-Am's

3.

desalination plant.

A Alii, detailed, and complete environmental analysis of all other proposed

desalination projects in Moss Landing.

On behalf of MCAHLC, I request that the CPUC include and fully address in detail all of
the issues and adverse impacts raised in this letter in the proposed Cal-Am EIR.
Moreover, I request that before the EIR process is initiated that the CPUC mail actual
notice to all of the potentially overlying gtoundwater rights holders and property owners

in the areas that will be affected by Cal-Am's proposed pumping and the cones of
depression that will be permanently created by Cal-Am's wells. Tbe CPXIC has an
absolute obligation to property owners and the public to fully evaluate every

140

Exhibit A, p. 2 of 4

reasonable alternative to identify the environmentally superior alternative that does


not result in an illegal taking of third party groundwater rights. We oak that the
CPUC satisfy its obligation.

Respect&lly,

Brian Rianda, Managing Director

141

Exhibit A, p. 3 of 4

142

Exhibit A, p. 4 of 4

EXHIBIT B
143

SAT

S E B I N 6 THE

MONTEREY

PENINSULA

AND

SAUNAS

VALL

Monterey
County ftheUmito
<r

a :3MediaWewsGroup newspaper

Saturday, February 4, 2012

uiu/ui mnntopouhopQlrl mm

Review failed to consider


water rights, judge rules

Desal EIR
dealt blow
By JIM JOHNSON
HeraldStaffWrite-

in an amended ruling, a Monterey County

Superior Court judge found Ihe environmen

tal review for the failed regional desalination

project neglected to properly consider a


number of issues, including
water rights.

Water from
the sea

%-----

-.-

The revised ruling, which


amends a tentative decision
issued byJudge Lydia Villarreal in December, deals a
severe blow to any thoughts
California American Water
m;,y haw had alum! using

the project's environmental

impact report on an alternative desal project.

Itcould raise questions about whether the


EIR is adequate under the California l.nvi-

ronmental Quality Act for Cal Am to go


ahead with its portion ofthe regional project.
The revision was released Thursday,
about six weeks after Villarreal ruled Marina
Coast Water District should have prepared
Please sec Desal page A9

144

Exhibit B, p. 1 of 2

Desal

overdrafted Salinas Valley


groundwater basin," she said.
Cal Am spokeswoman

From page A1

Catherine Bowie said com

the EIR as the lead agency

pany officials hadn't seen the


ruling and couldn't comment

under

on it.

state

environmental

applicable to an alternative

contingency

desal project.
Late last month, at a PUC
conference,
Cal
Am

assumption

announced its intention to

submit an application for an


water supply
alternative

project within 90 days. The


company indicated it would

plan,
of

the

constant

pumping, tlie exportation of


groundwater from the Sali

nas Valley basin, brine


impacts, effects on adjacent
properties and water quality.
Jim Heitzman, general

law. The revision did not

She said the exact nature

change that stance.


Ag Land Trust sued
Marina Coast in March 2010,
arguing Marina Coast should

of an alternative water supply

have been the lead agency


on the project instead of the

Am's bid to construct its part


of the regional project willbe

state
Public
Commission.

Utilities

decided by the PUC. and the

Attorney Molly Erickson,

company will rely on the


commission to decide how to

representing Ag Land Trust,

comply with state environ

said VFHarreafs amended rul

mental law.

address issues surrounding

ing found in favor of all of tlie

When Cal Am announced


last month that it was with

availability of groundwater
for the desal project and the

drawing support from the


regional project, it (Minted to
a lack of progress on the
work because of unresolved

potential
environmental
impact, especially after the
county Water Resources
Agency admitted it still

issues, including conflict of


interest charges and permit

ter rights for the project.

ting and financing challeng


es. Villarreal's tentative ruling

The EIR's assumption that


Uiose rights didn't need to be

than five years, tlie Marina

on the EIR was considered a

Coast Water District and the

Monterey County Water


Resources Agency ignored

source of delay.
The company must find a
replacement source of water

addressed, because they


would be "perfected" in the
future, was impermissible

county's outside legal coun

because it did not meet the

Ag Land Trust. In tlie end,

for the Peninsula by 2016

sel, Dan Carroll, cited the

goal of allowing full public

tlie rule of law was more

because of a state order to

at tlie PUC conference that

Despite its complaints, Cal


Am suggested that "a lot of

review of potential conse


quences, according to the
ruling.
The ruling found that
Marina Coast, as lead agency

regional project proposed to

valuable work" was accom

on tlie EIR, would need to

atjjohnson@monterey

pump

plished

address

herald.com or 753-6753.

organization's environmental

claims, in particular its argu


ment the EIR contained an

inadequate

discussion

of

water rights.
"Ag Land Trust has been
raising the issue of water
rights since at least 2006,"
Erickson said. "For more

project, and any environmen


tal review, has yet to be
determined.

She

said

Cal

powerful than the backroom

reduce pumping from tlie

deals.

Carmel River.

"This issue is particularly


important

because

water

from

the
the

that

could

be

145

seek a modification of the

manager of tlie Marina Coast


Water District, did not return

regional project permit to

capitalize on the efforts so


far, presumably including the

Herald.

completion
and
PUC
approval of the environmen
tal impact report.

In her revised ruling, Villarreal found the EIR failed to

needed to acquire groundwa

water

rights,

phone call from The


But the district's outside

legal counsel, Mark Fogelman, argued at die PL'C con


ference last month that Vil

larreal's tentative ruling in


December did not represent
a major impediment to mov

ing forward with tlie regional


project. He urged the com
mission to order Cal Am to

meet its obligations under


tlie project agreements.

Fogelman said the district


would appeal if the final rul
ing remained unchanged
from tlie tentative decision.

County Counsel Charles


McKee said he hadn't seen

die

amended ruling

and

couldn't comment, but the

December ruling In arguing


the project was subject to
considerable uncertainty.
Jim Johnson can be reached

Exhibit B, p. 2 of 2

_|_

EXHIBIT C
146

Michael W. Stamp, State Bar No. 72785


Molly E. Erickson, State Bar No. 253198
LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL W. STAMP

FILED

479 Pacific Street, Suite One


3
4

Monterey, California 93940


Telephone: (831)373-1214
Facsimile:
(831)373-0242

APR 1 7 2012
CONNIE MAZZEI

CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COUR7


^.^..
DEPUTY

Attorneys for Petitioner and Plaintiff


Ag Land Trust

CARMEN 8. 0RO7rr

6
7

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF MONTEREY

AG LAND TRUST,

Case No. M105019

Filed April 5, 2010


First Amended Petition and Complaint
filed April 6, 2010

10

Petitioner and Plaintiff,


11

CEQA Hearing: October 27, 2011

v.

Intended Decision: December 19, 2011


Amended Intended Decision: February 2,

12
13

MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT,


and DOES 1 to 100,

14

Respondents and Defendants.

2012

[PROP03CD]
JUDGMENT GRANTING FIRST
AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF

15

MANDATE (CALIFORNIA

16

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT)


AND ORDERING ISSUANCE OF
PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE

17

18

Dept: 15

19

Judge: Hon. Lydia M. Villarreal

/
20
21

The First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate (California Environmental Quality

22

Act) came on regularly for hearing on October 27, 2011, in Department 15 of this Court,

23

located at 1200 Aguajito Road, Monterey, California 93940. Michael W. Stamp and

24

Molly Erickson appeared on behalf of petitioner Ag Land Trust. Mark Fogelman and

25

Ruth Muzzin appeared on behalf of respondent Marina Coast Water District.

26

The Court has reviewed and considered the record of proceedings in this matter,

27

the briefs submitted by the parties, the arguments of counsel, and the post-hearing

28

briefs of the parties. The First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate (California
1
Ag Land Trust v. Marina Coast Water District

PROPQSgD]
Judgment Granting First Amended Petition

Case No. M105019

147

Exhibit C, p. 1 of 42

1 Environmental Quality Act) was submitted for decision on October 27, 2011. On
2

December 19, 2011, the Court issued its Intended Decision. On February 2, 2012, the

Court issued its Amended Intended Decision. On February 29, 2012, the Court issued

its Order denying Marina Coast Water District's objections and adopting the Amended

Intended Decision as the Statement of Decision, final for all purposes.

IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that:

1.

The First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate (California Environmental

Quality Act) brought by petitioner Ag Land Trust against respondent Marina Coast

9 Water District is GRANTED in favor of Ag Land Trust and against Marina Coast Water
10

11

District.

2.

A peremptory writ of mandate directed to respondent shall issue under

12

seal of this Court, in the form specified in Exhibit A. The Court FINDS AND

13

DETERMINES that Marina Coast Water District prejudicially abused its discretion and

14

failed to proceed in the manner required by law in making its approvals of the Regional

15

Desalination Project on March 16, 2010 and April 5, 2010, by proceeding as a

16 responsible agency rather than as a lead agency, by failing to properly analyze the
17 environmental impact report as a lead agency under CEQA, and by failing to properly
18 and adequately identify, discuss, and address the environmental impacts of the project,
19

including but not limited to water rights, contingency plan, assumption of constant

20

pumping, exportation of groundwater from the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin, brine

21

impacts, impacts on overlying and adjacent properties, and water quality, as required

22

here for a lead agency under CEQA.

23
24

25

3.

The Court's final statement of decision (the Amended Intended Decision)

is attached hereto as Exhibit B and is incorporated herein.

4.

Respondent Marina Coast Water District shall set aside its approvals of

26

the Regional Desalination Project, and is restrained from taking further actions to

27

approve the project until respondent fully complies with CEQA.

28

AG LAND TRUST V. MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT


Case No. M105019

148

{rROPOOCD]
Judgment Granting First Amended Petition

Exhibit C, p. 2 of 42

5.

The Court reserves jurisdiction over Ag Land Trust's claim for an award of

private attorney general fees and costs pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section

1021.5. Any motion for said fees and costs shall be filed and served within 60 days of

the filing of the notice of entry of this Judgment.

6.

Petitioner is awarded its costs of suit.

Dated- m 17 2012

LYDIAM.VILLAR&EAL

8
9

Hon. Lydia M. Villarreal


Judge of the Superior Court

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

19
20

21
22
23
24

25

26
27
28

Ag Land Trust v. Marina Coast Water District


Case No. M105019

149

[Proposed]
Judgment Granting First Amended Petition

Exhibit C, p. 3 of 42

EXHIBIT A

150

Exhibit C, p. 4 of 42

/0$%\

1
2

/SSIIlv

Michael W. Stamp, State Bar No. 72785


Molly E. Erickson, State Bar No. 253198
LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL W. STAMP

479 Pacific Street, Suite One


3
4
5

Monterey, California 93940


Telephone: (831)373-1214
Facsimile:
(831)373-0242
Attorneys for Petitioner and Plaintiff
Ag Land Trust

6
7

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF MONTEREY

AG LAND TRUST,

Case No. M105019


Filed April 5, 2010

10

Petitioner and Plaintiff,


v.

First Amended Petition and Complaint


filed April 6, 2010
CEQA Hearing: October 27, 2011

MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT,

Amended Intended Decision: February 2,

and DOES 1 to 100,

2012

11

Intended Decision: December 19, 2011

12
13
14

Respondents and Defendants.

[PROPOSED]
PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE

15
/

16

17

A Judgment Granting First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate (California


18

Environmental Quality Act) and Ordering Issuance of Peremptory Writ of Mandate


19

having been entered in this proceeding, ordering that a peremptory writ of mandate be
20

issued from this Court,


21

IT IS ORDERED that, immediately on service of this writ, respondent Marina


22
Coast Water District shall:
23

1.

Vacate and set aside its March 16, 2010 and April 5, 2010 approvals of

24

the Regional Desalination Project, and each step approved by respondent pursuant to
25

Public Resources Code section 21168.9, subdivision (a). Further action to approve the
26

project beyond setting aside and vacating these approvals by respondent shall not be
27

taken, except in accordance with the Judgment Granting First Amended Petition for
28

Ag Land Trust v. Marina Coast Water District


Case No. M105019

151

[Proposed]
PeremptoryWrit of Mandate

Exhibit C, p. 5 of 42

Writ of Mandate (California Environmental Quality Act) and Ordering Issuance of

Peremptory Writ of Mandate.

Having found in petitioner's favor on the issues raised in the first amended

3
4

petition, the Court finds that the following action is necessary under Public Resources

Code section 21168.9, subdivision (b) to comply with the provisions of CEQA:

respondent to set aside and vacate its approvals, and to prepare, circulate and consider

a legally adequate environmental impact report and otherwise to comply with the

California Environmental Quality Act in any subsequent action taken to consider

approval of the project and/or approve the project. Under Public Resources Code

10

section 21168.9, subdivision (c), this Court does not direct respondent to exercise its

11

lawful discretion in any particular way.

12

Under Public Resources Code section 21168.9, subdivision (b), this Court

13

retains jurisdiction over respondent's proceedings by way of a return to this peremptory

14

writ of mandate until the Court has determined that respondent has complied with the

15

provisions of CEQA.

The return date on the writ in this action shall be 60 days, subject to extension by

16
17

the Court for cause.

18
19
20

Dated:

Hon. Lydia M. Villarreal


Judge of the Superior Court

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Ag land Trust v. Marina Coast Water District


Case No. M105019

152

[Proposed]
Peremptory Writ of Mandate

Exhibit C, p. 6 of 42

EXHIBIT B

153

Exhibit C, p. 7 of 42

FILED
FEB 02 2012
1

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF MONTEREY

CONNIE MAZZEI
CLERKjOE.THESUPERIOI
bailV LOPez PI iPUTY

Plaintiff/Petitioner,

Case No.:

AG LAND TRUST,

M105019

Amended Intended Decision

vs.

MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT,

Defendant/Respondent

Ag Land Trust's (Ag Land) petition for a writ of mandamus came on for court trial on
10

October 27, 2011. All sides were represented through their respective attorneys. Thematter was argued
11

and taken under submission. Thisamended intended decision resolves factual and legal disputes, and
12

shall suffice as a statement of decision as to all matters contained herein.


13

Background
14

Ag Land's petitionchallenges respondent Marina Coast WaterDistrict's (Marina Coast) March


15

and April 2010 actions taken on behalf of theRegional Desalination Project (Regional Project).
16

California American WaterCompany pumps waterfrom the Carmel River and in 1995 was
17

ordered by the State Water Resources Control Boardto find an alternative source of water. In 2008, an
18

adjudication of water rights ordered California American Water Company to reduce its pumping from the
19

Seaside Basin.
20

California American WaterCompany applied to the California Public Utilities Commission (Cal
21

PUC) inFebruary 2003 fora certification of Public Convenience and Necessity for a desalination plant in
22

Moss Landing (Moss Landing Project or Coastal Water Project), and also concurrently proposed an
23

alternative project in an unincorporated area north of the City of Marina (North Marina Project), in
24

response to the 1995 order.


25

154

Exhibit C, p. 8 of 42

/P^\

The CalPUC decided thatit would bethe lead agency forthetwoprojects and would prepare an
1

environmental impact report (EIR) in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act
2

(CEQA). (Public Resources Code, 21000 et seq.) TheCal PUC released a Notice of Preparation foran
3

EIRin September 2006 for the two projects.


4

TheRegional Project was proposed in 2008 by Marina Coast andthe Monterey County Water
5

Resources Agency (WaterResources Agency). California American Water Company would distribute the
6

water from the Regional Project.


7

The Cal PUC thereafter included the Regional Project in the EIR and on December 17, 2009,
8

certified a Final EIR that looked at all three projects, but did not identify a preferred project.
9

Marina Coast issueda notice of intent to prepare an EIR in September 2009 to acquire and annex
10

theEast Armstrong Ranch (Ranch) property forthe siting of the Regional Project, andapproved and
11

annexedthe Ranch on March 16, 2010. Marina Coast filed a Notice of Determination on March 17, 2010.
12

(California Codeof Regulations, title 14, 15094 (Guidelines).)


13

On April 5, 2010, MarinaCoast approved the Regional Projectrelying on the Cal PUC Final EIR
14

and an addendum dated March24, 2010. Marina Coast's resolution included findings, a mitigation
15

monitoring program and a statementof overriding considerations.


16

Ag Land contends that (1) Marina Coast is the CEQA lead agency for the Regional Project; (2)
17

Marina Coast did not proceed in a manner required by law because (a) there is no discussion in the EIRof
18

the reliability of desalination plants; (b)the EIR did not include a contingency plan; (c) the discussion of
19

water rights is inadequate; (d) the assumption of constant pumping is unreasonable, (e) the Regional
20

Project will illegally exportgroundwater from the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin; (f) the EIR did not
21

adequately investigate anddisclose impacts to overlying and adjacent property, and (g) failed to
22

adequately investigate and disclose the project's violation of the State Water Resources Control Board's
23

Anti-Degradation Policy; and (3) the statement of overriding consideration is not supported by substantial
24

evidence.
25

155

Exhibit C, p. 9 of 42

J0^L

Administrative Record
1

The administrative record (AR) was admitted into evidence.


2

Judicial Notice
3

Marina Coastmakes reference in itsopposition briefto Marina Coast's request forjudicial notice
4

thatwas filed with a demurrer, and asks this Court to take judicial notice of multiple documents. The
5

Courtdenies the requestforjudicial notice of the duplicative, extra-record and irrelevant evidence. (Evid.
6

Code, 452, subd. (c), 459; CodeCiv. Proc, 909,1094.5, subd. (e);Sierra Club v. California
7

Coastal Com. (2005) 35 Cal^* 839, 863; Western States Petroleum Assn. v. Superior Court (1995) 9
8

Cal^* 559, 573, fh.4; In re Zeth S. (2003) 31 Cal.4* 396, 405.)


9

Discussion
10

(I). Lead agency issue


11

Ag Land contends that Marina Coast became the lead agency with the "principal responsibility
12

for carrying outor approving a project" when Marina Coast acted to approve the Regional Project. (Pub.
13

Resources Code, 21067; Guidelines, 15051; Citizens Task Force on Sohio v. Board ofHarbor
14

Commissioners (1979) 23 Cal.3d 812 (Sohio).)


15

Marina Coast argues thatthe Cal PUC is the lead agency because Cal PUC (1) determined it was
16

the lead agency; (2) prepared theFinal EIR; (3) isthe agency with the greatest responsibility for the
17

Regional Project; (4) wasthe first agency to act; and (5)thecriteria fora change in lead agency is not
18
met.

19

Guidelines section 15015 provides:


20

"Criteria for Identifying the Lead Agency[.] Where two or more public agencies will be involved
21

with a project, the determination of which agency will bethe lead agency shall be governed by
22

the following criteria:


23

(a) If the project will be carried out bya public agency, that agency shall be the lead agency even
24

if the project would be located within the jurisdiction of another public agency.
25

(b) If the project is to be carried out by a nongovernmental person or entity, the lead agency shall

156

Exhibit C, p. 10 of 42

bethe public agency with the greatest responsibility for supervising or approving the project as a
1

whole.
2

(1) The lead agency will normally be the agencywith general governmental powers, such as a
3

city or county, ratherthan an agency with a single or limited purpose such as an air pollution
4

control district or a district which will provide a publicservice or public utility to the project.
5

(2) Where a city prezones an area, the city will be the appropriate lead agency for any subsequent
6

annexation of the area and should prepare the appropriate environmental document at the time of
7

the prezoning. The local agency formation commission shall act as a responsible agency.
8

(c) Where more than one public agency equally meet the criteria in subdivision (b), the agency
9

which will act first on the project in question shall be the lead agency.
10

(d) Where the provisions of subdivisions (a), (b), and (c) leave two or more public agencies with
11

a substantial claim to be the lead agency, the public agencies may by agreement designate an
12

agency as the lead agency. An agreement may also provide for cooperative efforts by two or more
13

agencies by contract, joint exercise of powers, or similar devices."


14

(A). Marina Coast's April 5,2010 Resolution.


15

Marina Coast's April 5, 2010 Resolution No. 2010-20s purpose was to "conditionally" approve
16

Marina Coast's "participation in a Regional Desalination Projectthrough a Water Purchase Agreement by


17

and among" Marina Coast, the Water Resources Agency, and California American Water Company. The
18

Resolution also would approve a Settlement Agreement in Cal PUC proceeding A.04-09-019. (AR 1.)
19

"Under the Water Purchase Agreement, [the Water Resources Agency] would construct, own,
20

and operate a series of wells that would extract brackish water and a portion of a pipeline and appurtenant
21

facilities [] that would conveythe brackish water to a desalination plant and related facilities that would
22

be owned and operated by [Marina Coast]." (AR 2.)


23

"The [Marina Coast] Facilitieswould include a pipeline and connectionto discharge brine from
24

the desalination plant to connect the regional outfallfacilities owned and operated by the Monterey
25

157

Exhibit C, p. 11 of 42

/fSftwy

/^!\

Regional Water Pollution Control Agency[Pollution Control Agency] [], pursuantto an 'Outfall
1

Agreement' dated January 20, 2010, between [Marina Coast and the Pollution Control Agency]." (AR 2.)
2

"In Decision D.03-09-22, the [Cal PUC] designated itself as the lead agency for environmental
3

review of the Coastal Water Project under CEQA." (AR 4.)


4

"On January 30, 2009, the [Cal PUC], acting as Lead Agency under CEQA in A.04-09-019,
5

issued a Draft [EIR] [] analyzing the potential environmental impacts of projectdesignated the 'Coastal
6

WaterProject' and alternatives to it. The [Cal PUC] duly received and analyzed extensive public
7

commenton the [Draft EIR]. [Marina Coast, the Water Resources Agency, and California American
8

Water Company] provided comments on the [Draft EIR]." (AR 4.)


9

"On December 17, 2009, in Decision No. 09-12-017 which was issued in Application 04-09-019,
10

the [Cal PUC], as Lead Agency, duly certified a Final [EIR] which includes a descriptionand analyzes
11

the environmental impacts of an alternative projectvariously referred to in that Final [EIR] as the
12

'Regional Alternative' and the 'Regional Project' and 'Phase I of the Regional Project.' The principal
13

element of that alternative project is a regional desalination water supply project, with other smaller
14

elements." (AR 4.)


15

"On March 24, 2010, an addendum to the Final [EIR] [] was released, which responds to
16

comment lettersthat had been inadvertently omitted from the Final EIR and includes an errata to the Final
17

EIR. The term 'Final EIR' as used in this resolution includes the addendum." (AR 4.)
18

"The Final EIR designates [Marina Coast] as a responsible agency under CEQA." (AR 4.)
19

"The Directors [of Marina Coast] have reviewed and considered the Final EIR and Addendum in
20

their entirety and the entire record of proceedings before [Marina Coast], as defined in the Findings
21

attached hereto as Attachment A, and find that the Final EIR and Addendum are adequate for the purpose
22

of approving [Marina Coast's] approval and implementation of the Regional Desalination Project
23

pursuant to the Water Purchase Agreement and Settlement Agreement, and [Marina Coast] hereby relies
24

upon the contents of those documents and the CEQA process for its CEQA compliance." (AR4-5)
25

158

Exhibit C, p. 12 of 42

^^N

"[MarinaCoast] intends to conduct all future activities under the WaterPurchaseAgreement and
1

the Settlement Agreement in accordance withthe Final EIR; or alternatively,and if needed to comply
2

with CEQA, [Marina Coast] would amend, supplement or otherwise conduct newenvironmental review
3

priorto directly or indirectly committing to undertake any specific projector action involving a physical
4

change to the environment related to the implementation of the Regional Desalination Project pursuant to
5

the Water Purchase Agreement and the Settlement Agreement."(AR 5.)


6

"At the direction of the Directors, [Marina Coast] has made written findings for each significant
7

effect associated with the [Marina Coast] Facilities and prepared a Statement of Overriding
8

Considerations, which explains that the benefits of the [Regional] Project outweigh any significantand
9

unavoidable impactson the environment and has prepared a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
10

[Mitigation Plan], which includes all mitigation measures designed to substantially lessen or eliminatethe
11

adverse impacton the environment associated with construction and operation of the [MarinaCoast]
12

Facilities, as well as a plan for reportingobligations and procedures by partiesresponsible for


13

implementation of the mitigation measures. A copy of the Findings and Statement of Overriding
14

Considerations is attached to this resolution as Attachment A. A copy of the [Mitigation Plan] is attached
15

to the Findings." (Boldface omitted.) (AR 5.)


16

"By this resolution, the Directors makeand adopt appropriate Findings, Statementof Overriding
17

Considerations and a Mitigation Monitoringand Reporting Plan and conditionallyapprove [Marina


18

Coast's] participation in the Regional Desalination Project pursuant to a Water Purchase Agreement
19

between [Marina Coast, the Water Resources Agency, and California American Water Company], and a
20

Settlement Agreement between [Marina Coast, the Water Resources Agency, and California American
21

Water Company] and various other interested partiesto settle California Public Utilities Commission
22

Proceeding A.04-09-019, 'In the Matter of the Application of California American Water Company(U
23

210 W) for a Certificateof Public Convenience and Necessity to Construct and Operate its Coastal Water
24

Projectto Resolve the Long-Term Water SupplyDeficit in its Monterey District and to Recover All
25

Present and Future Costs in Connection Therewith in Rates.'" (AR 5-6.)

159

Exhibit C, p. 13 of 42

/Sf^<k

"NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors of the Marina


1

Coast Water District adoptthe foregoing findings; and

1. The Directors hereby certify, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15050(b) and 15096(f), that

they have reviewed and considered the Final EIR as certified by the [Cal PUC] onDecember 17,

2009 in Decision D.09-12-017 and the Addendum that was released on March 24, 2010.

2. The Directors hereby approve and adopt the Findings attached hereto as Attachment A, which

are incorporated herein, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15091 and 15096(h).

3. The Directors hereby approve and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan

identified in the Findings and attached to the Findings, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15096(g)

10

4. The Directors hereby conditionally approve [Marina Coast's] participation in the Regional

11

Desalination Projectpursuant to the Water Purchase Agreement and the Settlement Agreement,

12

contingenton final approval by the [Cal PUC].

13

5. The Directors hereby authorize the President and the General Manager and Secretary to

14

execute the Water Purchase Agreement and the Settlement Agreement pursuant to this resolution

15

andconditional approval substantially in the form presented to the Board at the April 5, 2010,

16

meeting, and direct the General Manager and staff to take all other actions that may be necessary

17

to effectuate and implement this resolution andConditional Project Approval.

18

PASSED AND ADOPTED on April 5, 2010, by the Board of Directors of the Marina

19

Coast Water District...." (AR 6.)

20

(B). Marina Coast's April 5,2010 Resolution Attachment A: Findings for Marina Coast
21

Facilities for Phase I of the Regional Project.


22

"As described in the Final EIR, Phase I of the Regional Project contemplates the development,
23

construction, and a regional desalination watersupply project. The Final EIR envisions that [Marina
24

Coast, the WaterResources Agency, and California American Water Company], would own and operate
25

various projectcomponents. [Marina Coast, the Water Resources Agency, and California American

160

Exhibit C, p. 14 of 42

>!ppft\

^$a$$\

WaterCompany], have negotiated terms and conditions, as set forth in a proposed 'Water Purchase
1

Agreement,' to implement the regional desalination projectelement of the project described and analyzed
2

as Phase I of the Regional Project in the Final EIR. The other elementsof Phase I, including recycled
3

water and aquifer storage and recovery, will be coordinated with the desalination element but are not part
4

of the Water Purchase Agreement. The project which is the subject of the Water PurchaseAgreement and
5

the focus of these findings is referred to as the 'Regional Desalination Project.' Under the Water Purchase
6

Agreement, [the Water Resources Agency] would design, construct, own and operate, in consultation
7

with [Marina Coast and California American WaterCompany], a series of wells ('Source Water Wells')
8

that would extract brackish source water for conveyance to the desalination plant and a portion of the
9

pipeline and appurtenant facilities (collectively, 'Intake Facilities') that would convey the brackish water
10

to a desalination plant that would be owned and operated by [Marina Coast]. [Marina Coast] would own
11

and operatethe Brackish Source Water Receipt Point Meter and a portion of the Brackish Source Water
12

Pipeline,the Desalination Plant, the [Marina Coast] Meter, the [California American Water Company]
13

Meter, the [Marina Coast] pipeline, the [MarinaCoast] Product Water Pipeline, the [Marina Coast]
14

Outfall Facilities [] and any related facilities. The components of the Regional Desalination Project that
15

would be owned and operated by [Marina Coast] are herein after referred to as the '[Marina Coast]
16

Facilities'. The remainder of the project components would be constructed by [California American
17

Water Company]." (AR 8-9.)


18

"The [Regional] Project Facilities includecomponents owned by three public agencies; [Marina
19

Coast, the Water Resources Agency, and the Pollution Control Agency]. In addition to the Project
20

Facilities,the [California American Water Company] facilities shall serve as distribution facilities to
21

serve the [California American Water Company] Service Area and be owned by [California American
22

Water Company]." (AR 12.)


23

"[Marina Coast]-Owned Facilities. The [Marina Coast]-Owned Facilities include the Brackish
24

Source Water Receipt Point Meter and a portion of the Brackish Source Water Pipeline, the Desalination
25

Plant, the [Water Resources Agency] Meter, the [California American Water Company] Meter, the

161

Exhibit C, p. 15 of 42

[Marina Coast] Product Water Pipeline,the [Marina Coast] Outfall Facilities, and any relatedfacilities."
1

(Underscoring omitted.) (AR 13.)


2

"[California American Water Company]-Owned Facilities. The [California American Water


3

Company] Facilities include the distributionsystem needed to convey the Product Water from the
4

Delivery Point downstream of the [California American WaterCompany] Meterto the [California
5

American WaterCompany] distribution system, plus other in-system improvements. None of the facilities
6

owned by [California American Water Company] and downstream of the [California American Water
7

Company] Meter are part of the Project Facilities."(Underscoring omitted.) (AR 16-17.)
8

"As a responsible agency under the Coastal Water Project Final EIR, [MarinaCoast] intends to
9

rely uponthe Final EIR in its decision whetheror not to approve a Settlement Agreement and certain
10

other agreements from the proceedings of the [CalPUC] considerationof Application A.04-09-019.
11

Pursuant to Section 15096 of the CEQA Guidelines,the process for a responsible agency does not require
12

certification of the Final EIR. [Marina Coast] has chosento rely on the Final EIR as the basis of the
13

findings, herein." (AR 17.)


14

"IX. Findings Regarding Alternatives [.] [Marina Coast] is a responsible agency and, as such,
15

only has approval authority over a portionof the [Regional] Project. [Marina Coast] does not have
16

approvalauthority over an aspect of the Moss LandingPower Plant or the North Marina Alternative.
17

Thus, these Findingsare limited to those aspects of the Project over which [Marina Cost] has approval
18

authority and do not evaluate the various alternatives indentified in the Final EIR." (Boldface and some
19

capitalization omitted.) (AR 83.)


20

(C). Marina Coast's April 5,2010 Resolution: Settlement Agreement


21

"On April 5, 2010, [Marina Coast], and on April 6, 2010, [Water Resources Agency], each acting
22

as a Responsible Agency under CEQA, and having fully considered all relevant environmental
23

documents, includingthe [Final] EIR, approved the regional desalination project that is described in the
24

Water Purchase Agreement ('WPA'), which is attached hereto as Attachment 1, subject to Commission
25

approval. That project is referred to as the 'Regional Desalination Project.'" (AR 119.)

162

Exhibit C, p. 16 of 42

"TheParties to this Settlement Agreement, subject to the Approval Condition Precedent


1

hereinafter discussed, have agreed to thedevelopment of the Regional Desalination Project. The Regional
2

Desalination Project will consist of three primary elements. [The Water Resources Agency] will own,
3

install, operate, and maintain wellsthrough which brackish source water will be extracted and transported
4

to a desalination plant. [Marina Coast] will own, construct and operate the desalination plant and transport
5

desalinated Product Waterto a delivery point, where some of the ProductWaterwill be received by
6

[California American WaterCompany] and some will be received by [Marina Coast]. [Marina Coast will
7

utilize the Product Water delivered to it for itsexisting customers, and in the future mayutilize some of
8

the Product Water to serve customersin the former Ford Ord. [California American WaterCompany] will
9

distribute its portion ofthe Product Waterthrough facilities it owns for which the Commission should
10

grant a CPCN. Operations of all project facilities shall be conducted so that all Legal Requirements are
11

met, including but not limitedto the requirements of the Agency Act. Greaterdetailregarding the design,
12

construction, andoperation of the Regional Desalination Project is found in two agreements, the [Water
13

Purchase Agreement] and the Outfall Agreement (together referred to as the 'Implementing Agreements')
14

discussed in Article 7 of this Settlement Agreement. Greater detail regarding the costand ratemaking
15

treatment of the Regional Desalination Project and the facilities that [California American Water
16

Company] will own in connection with the Regional Desalination Project is contained in this Settlement
17

Agreement and the Attachments hereto."(Underscoring omitted.) (AR 119.)


18

"The Parties to this Settlement Agreement believe that the development, construction, and
19

operation of the Regional Desalination Project does and will serve the presentand future public
20

convenience andnecessity, and that the Commission should grant [California American Water Company]
21

a CPCN [certificate of public convenience and necessity] to construct and operate the distribution pipeline
22

andaquifer storage and recovery facilities portion of the Regional Desalination Projectthat [California
23

American Water Company] proposes to own []." (AR 120.)


24

"The Parties acknowledge the legalrequirement that [CaliforniaAmerican Water Company]


25

customers be charged rates that are just and reasonable. In light of that acknowledgement, with respectto

10

163

Exhibit C, p. 17 of 42

/^if\

the ratemaking treatment for the [California American Water Company] Facilities set forth in Article 9 of
1

thisSettlement Agreement, the cost recovery mechanism set forth in Article 9 represents aneffort to
2

strike a balance between minimizing costs ofthe [California American Water Company] Facilities and
3

assuring [California American Water Company] ratepayers only pay for actual necessary expended
4

capital investment...." (AR 120.)


5

(D). Marina Coast's April 5,2010 Resolution: Water Purchase Agreement


6

"On January30, 2009, the [Cal PUC], acting as LeadAgency under CEQA, issued a Draft[EIR]
7

analyzing the potential environmental impacts of a project designated the 'Coastal WaterProject' and
8

alternatives to it. The [Cal PUC] duly received andanalyzed extensive public comment on the [Draft]
9

EIR. [Marina Coast, the Water Resources Agency, and California American WaterCompany] provided
10

comments on the [Draft] EIR." (AR 140-141.)


11

"On December 17,2009, in Decision No. 09-12-017 which was issued in Application 04-09-019,
12

the [Cal PUC], as Lead Agency, after considering all relevant environmental documents, duly certified a
13

Final [EIR]. TheFinal [EIR] described and studied three alternative projects which are being considered
14

for approval bythe Commission in the proceeding - the Moss Landing Project, the North Marina Project,
15

and a third alternative project variously referred to as the 'Regional Alternative' and the 'Regional
16

Project' and 'Phase I of the Regional Project.' Theprincipal element of that latteralternative project is a
17

regional desalination watersupply project, with other smaller elements. This Agreement does not
18

contemplate or address any elements other than 'PhaseI of the Regional Project.'" (AR 141.)
19

"On April 5, 2010, [Marina Coast], and on April 6, 2010, [Water Resources Agency], each acting
20

as a Responsible Agency under CEQA, and having fully considered all relevant environmental
21

documents, including the Final [EIR], approved this Agreement for a regional desalination project subject
22

to [Cal PUC] approval, as more specifically described in Article 3 (the 'Regional Desalination Project')."
23

(Underscoring omitted.) (AR 141.)


24

"The Regional Desalination Projectcontemplates the development, construction and operationof


25

a regional desalination water supply projectas described and analyzed in the [Final] EIR. (AR 141.)

11

164

Exhibit C, p. 18 of 42

/0$&\

/^^\

[Marina Coast, the Water ResourcesAgency, and California American Water Company],
1

individually andcollectively, have determined and found that the Regional Desalination Project is the
2

least costly of the proposed alternative projects, the most feasible of those projects, and is in the best
3

interests of the customers served by each of [Marina Coast and California American Water Company] and
4

that the Regional Desalination Project as implemented by this Agreement serves the public interest andis
5

consistent withthe Agency Act. The Parties have alsodetermined that the Regional Desalination Project
6

bestconserves and protects publictrust assets, resources and values impacted by providing a water
7

supply." (AR 141.)


8

[California American Water Company] has determined that purchasing Product Water from
9

[Marina Coast] will allow [California American Water Company] to provide its customers in [California
10

American WaterCompany's] Service Area withProduct Water at a significantly lowercost than by


11

means of any ofthe other proposed alternative projects described in the [Final] EIR." (AR 141.)
12

[MarinaCoast, the Water ResourcesAgency, and California American Water Company], as part
13

of a settlement of issues pending in Application 04-09-019, as set forth in that certain Settlement
14

Agreement to be filed with the [Cal PUC] in Application 04-09-019 (the 'Settlement Agreement'), have
15

negotiated this Agreement and certain otheragreements contemplated by the Settlement Agreement."
16

(Underscoring omitted.) (AR 141)


17

"The Parties intend that the development, construction and operation of the Regional Desalination
18

Projectoccur in accordance with the [Final] EIRand that [Marina Coast and the Water Resources
19

Agency] each act as a Responsible Agency in accordance with CEQA to implement the Regional
20

Desalination Project." (AR 141.)


21

(E). Notice of Determination Filed with County Clerk on March 17,2010


22

"ProjectTitle: Acquisition of 224-acres (+/-) of Armstrong Ranch Land and Appurtenant


23

Easementsrelying upon the California Public UtilitiesCommission, California American Water


24

Company, Coastal Water Project Final EIR (certified December 17, 2009) []." (Boldface omitted.) (AR
25

1083.)

-12

165

Exhibit C, p. 19 of 42

"Project Description: The project consists of the acquisition of the Siteby [Marina Coast],
1

pursuant to an agreement between [Marina Coast] and the Armstrong Familyentered intoin 1996 and
2

subsequently supplemented andamended (1996 Agreement). The 1996 Agreement limits use oftheSite
3

to the production, storage, or distribution of treated water (tertiary treatment or itsequivalent) or potable
4

water. The acquisition of the Site and appurtenant easements are intended to potentially allow
5

development of infrastructure for water production and treatment, storage and distribution in accordance
6

with the 1996 Agreement, and for future annexation ofthe Site to [Marina Coast]. Only theproperty
7

acquisition is proposed. Future projects at the Siteproposed by [Marina Coast] for water supply and other
8

public facility infrastructure are conditioned upon CEQA compliance. fl|] TheCalifornia Public Utilities
9

Commission certified a relevant Final EIRforthe California American Water Company, Coastal Water
10

Project on December 17, 2009; however, have (sic) not taken action on the Coastal WaterProject or
11

alternatives. [f| This notice is to advise that on March 16,2010, the Board of Directors of the [Marina
12

Coast] (Board) approved Resolution No. 2010-18 to Make CEQA Findings, Approve andAdopt
13

Addendum to the Final EIR and Approve the Acquisition of 224-acres (+/-) of Armstrong Ranch Land
14

andAppurtenant Easements. Resolution No.2010-18, including attachments, made the following


15

determinations regarding the Armstrong Ranch Property Acquisition and appurtenance Easements:"
16

(Boldface omitted.) (AR 1084.)


17

(F). Resolution No. 2010-18


18

"... [Marina Coast] desiresto own property in the areanorthof the City of Marina and south of
19

land owned bythe [Pollution Control Agency] (and theMonterey Regional Waste Management District []
20

to provide land for future construction, operation and maintenance of watersupply infrastructure to
21

produce, treat, store, and distribute water; and," (AR 1726.)


22

"WHEREAS, CEQA Guidelines Sections 15004 (b)(2)(A) provides that "agencies may designate
23

a preferred siteforCEQA review and may enter into land acquisition agreements when theagency has
24

conditioned theagency's future useof the site on CEQA compliance," and the California Supreme Court's
25

13

166

Exhibit C, p. 20 of 42

/ss^

decision in Save Tara v. City of West Hollywood (2008) 45 Cal^* 116, at 134, states that theGuidelines'
1

exception for land purchases is a reasonable interpretation of CEQA; and,


2

"WHEREAS, this Resolution conditions the District's future use of the Site on CEQA
3

compliance; and,
4

"WHEREAS, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15050(b) and 15096, [Marina Coast]
5

has reviewed, considered, and relies upon the information in two existing, certified EIRs, the [Cal PUC]
6

EIR and the [Regional Urban Water Augmentation Project] EIR as discussed in the [Cal PUC] EIR as
7

hereinafterdescribed, and related entitlements and approvals, to (1) thoroughly disclose and considerall
8

relevant publicly available information on potential future activities that could occur at the Site and that
9

may be indirectly enabled by the Acquisition, and (2) comprehensively identify all indirectenvironmental
10

impacts of the Acquisition, thereby, evaluating the 'whole of the action' and avoiding piece-mealing or
11

segmentingthe analysis; and" (AR 1728.)


12

" WHEREAS, the [Cal PUC] EIR identified significant impacts of the [CaliforniaAmerican
13

Water Company] Coastal Water Project alternatives and provided mitigation to reduce most of the
14

significant impacts to a less-than-significant level with several environmental impacts remaining


15

significant with mitigation, as summarized in the Executive Summary in Attachment A to this resolution;
16

and,
17

"WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15096, 15162, 15164 and 15063, and in
18

consultation with other affected agencies and entities, [Marina Coast], as a responsible agency for
19

approval of the Coastal Water Project alternatives, has preparedan Addendum to the [Cal PUC] EIR
20

supported by an Initial Study (the ArmstrongRanch PropertyAcquisition Addendum in AttachmentB)


21

and finds the following relatedto the required CEQA compliance for the Acquisition:
22

Acquisitionof the Site, in and of itself, is merelya property transfer that would not directlyhave
23

any significant effects on the environment,


24

25

14

167

Exhibit C, p. 21 of 42

Future potential projects with components proposed to be located atthe Site were described and
1

evaluated previously incertified EIRs and those projects would result insignificant
2

environmental effects, including significant but potentially mitigable impacts,


3

Although the decision to acquire the Site isnot approval of a project under CEQA, [Marina
4

Coast] is choosing to act as a responsible agency and to use a previously prepared and certified
5

EIR, specifically the [Cal PUC] EIR, to support acquisition of the Site; and,
6

"WHEREAS, the action under consideration is approval of the Acquisition of the Site, which
7

approval constitutes one of many actions necessary to implement the Coastal Water Project alternatives
8

and would not by itselfresult in anysignificant impacts as described inthe Armstrong Ranch Property
9

Acquisition Addendum (Attachment B to thisresolution); and,


10

"WHEREAS, the Directors have reviewed and considered the [Cal PUC] EIRand the Armstrong
11

Ranch Property Acquisition Addendum (Attachment B) intheir entirety and find that the [Cal PUC] EIR
12

and the Armstrong Ranch Property Acquisition Addendum are adequate for the purpose of approving the
13

[Marina Coast's] Acquisition of the Site, and [Marina Coast] hereby relies upon the contents of those
14

documents and theCEQA process for itsCEQA compliance; and,


15

"WHEREAS, [Marina Coast] intendsto conduct all future activities at the Site in accordance with
16

the [Cal PUC] EIR and with the [Regional Urban Water Augmentation Project] EIR as amended as
17

discussed in the [Cal PUC] EIR; or, alternatively, and if needed to comply with CEQA, [Marina Coast]
18

would amend, supplement or otherwise conduct new environmental review subsequent to approval of a
19

project and adoption of findings by the [Cal PUC] and prior to directly or indirectly committing to
20

undertake any specific project oraction involving a physical change to the environment related to the
21

Acquisition ofthe Site, including but not limited to aproject or action involving any element of Phase Iof
22

the [Moss Landing] Alternative orthe North Marina Alternative; and,


23

"WHEREAS, [Marina Coast's] General Manager, as [Marina Coast's] designated negotiator,


24

recommends that the Board approve the Acquisition for execution inthe form presented to the Board in
25

open session on March 16, 2010.

-15

168

Exhibit C, p. 22 of 42

/0^\

y*R%y

"NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors of the Marina Coast
1

Water District adopt the foregoing findings; and,


2

"BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors of the Marina Coast Water District
3

certify,pursuantto CEQA Guidelines 15050(b) and 15096(f), that they have reviewed and considered
4

the Final EIR as certified by the [Cal PUC] on December 17,2009 in Decision D.09-12-017; and,
5

"BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors of the Marina Coast Water District
6

approve and adoptthe Armstrong Ranch Property Acquisition Addendum to the [Cal PUC] EIR; and,
7

"BE IF FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors of the Marina Coast Water District
8

herebyapprove the Acquisition and authorize the General Managerand Secretary and the Presidentto
9

take the actions and execute the documents necessary or appropriate to exercise [Marina Coast's] right to
10

acquirethe Site in accordance with the 1996Agreement, as supplemented and amended, and this
11

Resolution, and to accept the Site; and,


12

"BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the General Manager is authorized and directed to prepare
13

and file an appropriate Notice of Determination for approval of the Acquisition; and,
14

"BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that [Marina Coast's] use of the Site after acquisition is
15

conditioned upon CEQA compliance and that [Marina Coast] by determining to acquire and acquiring the
16

Site does not foreclose analysis of any alternative or any mitigation measure in considering uses of the
17

Site.
18

"PASSED AND ADOPTED on March 16,2010, by the Board of Directors of the Marina Coast
19

Water District by the following roll call vote: ..." (AR 1731-1732.)
20

(G). Cal PUC EIR


21

"Both the Moss Landing and North Marina Projects are analyzed in Chapter 4 of the EIR.
22

[California American Water Company] would be the owner and operator of either of these two projects,
23

and the [Cal PUC], as the Lead Agency under [CEQA], will use this document to approve one of the two
24

projects to be implemented in the in the [Coastal Water Project]." (AR 2788-2789.)


25

16

169

Exhibit C, p. 23 of 42

"As proposed in the Regional Project, [Marina Coast] would be the owner of the regional
1

desalination facility and the surfacewatertreatment plant. In orderfor the Regional Project to be
2

implemented, it is assumed in this EIR that [Marina Coast] would use this EIR in considering approval of
3

some of the Regional Project facilities." (AR 2789.)


4

"The [Cal PUC] has no jurisdiction over [MarinaCoast]. Thus as discussed below, the [Cal PUC]
5

would not have authority over any elementof the [Coastal WaterProject] that ultimately is undertaken by
6

[Marina Coast]...." (AR 4532.)


7

"... [Marina Coast] would permit, construct, own and operate the regional desalination facility
8

and would sell water to [California American Water Company]; [California American Water Company]
9

would construct, own and operate the proposed storageand conveyancefacilities. Thus, for the Regional
10

Project, the [Cal PUC] would havejurisdiction over [California America Water Company's] portion, but
11

not [Marina Coast]." (AR 4534-4535.)


12

"For the Regional Project to be implemented, the EIR assumes that [Marina Coast] would rely on
13

the EIR in acting on the regional desalination facility overwhich it hasjurisdiction ... the [Cal PUC]
14

would rely on the EIR before approving a [Certificate of Public Convenienceand Necessity] for the
15

storage and conveyance facilities proposedby [Califomian American Water Company] and before
16

approving a rate increaseto allow [California American Water Company] to recover its costs." (AR
17

4335.)
18

"If the Phase 1 Regional Project is selected, [Marina Coast], as owner and operatorof the
19

desalination plant, would approve the plant itself(and any associated facilities that it would own) and
20

would apply the EIRto that decision, including adopting findings and imposing mitigation measures.
21

From a CEQA standpoint, it is immaterial which option is selected and which agency or agencies have
22

primary authority or act first since each body mustconsider the EIR priorto acting on the project, adopt
23

appropriate CEQA findings applyingthe EIRand impose relevant mitigation measures. Further, approval
24

of a desalinate option by any agency would not committhat agency or any other agency to approval of
25

any other component of the Phase 1 Regional Project, or of the Phase 2 Regional Project." (AR 4537.)

-17

170

Exhibit C, p. 24 of 42

/SfWN

/^%

"TheRegional Project examines a broad array of projects thatcould satisfy regional water supply
1

needs inthe near term and longer term. While this analysis will inform the [Cal PUC] decision-making
2

process with respect to a potential desalination plant and how such plant could function in concert with
3

other water supply components within the region, the [Cal PUC] would have jurisdiction over, andthus
4

formally acton, only elements of the desalination plant requiring a [Certificate of Public Convenience and
5

Necessity], andrate-making for [California American Water Company] actions. Thus, contrary to the
6

suggestion of some commenters, the [Cal PUC] will neither consider adoption of theRegional Project in
7

its entirety norconsider adoption of all projects composing the Phase 1 Regional Project. (AR45378

4538.)
9

(H). This Court's lead agency determination


10

Guidelines section 15051 subdivision (a): "If the project will be carried out by a public agency,
11

that agency shall bethe lead agency even ifthe project would be located within the jurisdiction of another
12

public agency."
13

From the evidence set forth above, Marina Coast choose to purchase property for sitingtheir
14

desalination plant, made CEQA findings concurrent with a statement of overriding considerations and
15

including mitigation measures to carry out the Regional Project.


16

Marina Coast's argument is thatthe2010 Regional Project decision was conditional, because it
17

was part of Resolution 2010-20 that included the Settlement Agreement and Water Purchase Agreement,
18

and Guidelines section 15051 is not applicable.


19

"Under CEQA, when a project involves two or more publicagencies, ordinarily only one agency
20

can serve as the lead agency. (Guidelines. 15050. 15051.) CEQA thus distinguishes lead agencies from
21

responsible agencies: whereas the lead agency has "principal responsibility" forthe project, a responsible
22

agency is "a publicagency, other than the lead agency, which has responsibility for carrying out or
23

approving a project." (Pub. Resources Code. 21067.21069.) Regarding thisdistinction, the CEQA
24

guidelines provide that when a project involves two or more public agencies, the agency "carr[ying] out"
25

the project "shall be the lead agency even if the project [is] located within the jurisdiction of another

18

171

Exhibit C, p. 25 of 42

/*^t\

public agency." (Guidelines. 15051. subd. (aY) ffl] Under these principles, courts have concluded that
1

the public agency that shoulders primary responsibility for creating and implementing a project is the lead
2

agency, even though other public agencies have a role in approving or realizing it. (Eller Media Co. v
3

Community Redevelopment Asencv (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 25.45-46 T133 Cal. Rptr. 2d 3241
4

[community agency charged with responsibility for redevelopment measures within designated area was
5

lead agency regarding billboard placement, even though city issued building permits for billboards];
6

Friends ofCuvamaca Valley v. Lake Cuvumaca Recreation &ParkDisl. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 419.
7

426-429 T33 Cal. Rptr. 2d 635] [state agency that determined duck hunting policy, rather than wildlife
8

district that enforced it, was lead agency regarding duck hunting policy]; C/7v ofSacramento v. State
9

Water Resources Control Bd. (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 960. 971-973 [3 Cal. Rptr. 2d 643] [state agency that
10

created pesticide pollution control plan, rather than water district that enforced it, was lead agency
11

regarding plan].)" (Planning and Conservation League v. Castaic Lake Water Agency (2009) 180
12

Cal.App.4,h210,239.)
13

Cal PUC was the lead agency for the Coastal Water Project. However, the Regional Project was
14

proposed by the various public entities and Marina Coast was the first to approve the Regional Project by
15

its actions of March 16 and 17, 2010, and April 5,2010, and Marina Coast became the lead agency for the
16

Regional Project. (Sohio, supra, 23 Cal.3d 812.)


17

"'Approval' means thedecision bya public agency which commits theagency to a definite
18

course ofaction in regard to a project intended to be carried out by any person." (Save Tara v. City of
19

West Hollywood(2008) 45 Cal.4,h 116, 129.)


20

The argument that Marina Coast could conditionally approve the Regional Project is belied by the
21

approval of the resolution, the findings of approval with mitigation measures, a statement of overriding
22

considerations, and the filing of a Notice of Determination. These actions clearly demonstrate that Marina
23

Coast isresponsible for carrying outthe project. (Pub. Resources Code, 21067; Guidelines, 15352.)
24

25

19

172

Exhibit C, p. 26 of 42

/^^\

The fact is, the Cal PUC could approve a different project, or none at all, and the Regional Project
1

could go forward with Cal PUC's limited approval ofa Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity
2

for California American Water Company's limited role in the Regional Project.
3

CEQA does not provide for a "conditional" Notice of Determination. IfAg Land had not
4

challenged Marina Coast's approvals, the 30-day limitations period tochallenge Marina Coast's Notice of
5

Determination would have foreclosed a challenge tothe Regional Project.


6

Any CEQA compliance byMarina Coast must be done under the auspices of its role asthe lead
7

agency.
8

AgLand contends thatthe EIRwas deficient in itsdiscussion of 1)water rights; 2) contingency


9

plan; 3)the assumption of constant pumping; 4) the exportation ofgroundwater from the Salinas Valley
10

Groundwater Basin; 5) brine impacts on the outfall; 6) impacts on overlying an adjacent properties; and 7)
11

water quality.
12

As noted inPlanning and Conservation League v. Department of Water Resources (2000) 83


13

Cal.App.4* 892, 920, once Marina Coast has been found to be the lead agency, this Court "need not...
14

address [all] the other alleged deficiencies in [the] EIR[] (Pub. Resources Code, 21005, subd. (c))[,
15

because Marina Coast] ... may choose to address those issues in a completely different and more
16

comprehensive manner."
17

(II). CEQA issues


18

Administrative mandamus is the appropriate avenue of review because the decision came aftera
19

hearing during which evidence was taken (Code Civ. Proc, 1095.5, subd. (a).) A trial court may issue a
20

writ ofadministrative mandate if: (1) theagency acted in excess ofits jurisdiction; (2)the petitioner was
21

denied a fair hearing; or (3)the agency prejudicially abused itsdiscretion. (Code Civ. Proc, 1094.5,
22

subd. (b).) "A prejudicial abuse of discretion is established ifthe agency has not proceeded in a manner
23

required by law, if itsdecision is notsupported byfindings, or if its findings are not supported by
24

substantial evidence in the record. [This Court] may neither substitute [its] views for thoseof the agency
25

whose determination is being reviewed, norreweigh conflicting evidence presented to that body." (San

20

173

Exhibit C, p. 27 of 42

Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City and County ofSan Francisco (2002) 102 Cal.App^*
656, 674, citations omitted.)

The "failure to comply with the law subverts the purposes ofCEQA ifitomits material necessary
3

to informed decisionmaking and informed public participation. Case law is clear that, in such cases, the
4

error is prejudicial." (Sunnyvale West Neighborhood Association v. City ofSunnyvale City Council (2012)
5

190 CaLApp^ 1351, 1392.)


6

(A). Water Rights


7

Ag Land argues that CEQA requires details ofwater rights, including ownership ifit affects the
8

water supply, and the EIR must address foreseeable impacts ofsupplying water to the project. (Vineyard
9

Area Citizensfor Responsible Growth v. City ofRancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4111412,421,431,434.j


10

Ag Land contends that the Salinas Valley basin is overdrafted and California groundwater law holds that
11

the doctrine ofcorrelative overlying water rights applies when no surplus water is available for new
12

appropriators except by prescription, and Marina Coast had to address this issue. (AR 2257.) Ag Land
13

states that Monterey County admitted that it does not have water rights for the wells that are projected to
14

be used for the Regional Project and it is possible that Monterey County may have to initiate groundwater
15

adjudication ofthe entire Salinas Valley. (AR 817-819.) Ag Land contends that the Cal PUC has no
16

authority over water rights or public water agencies and cannot grant or approve such rights and Marina
17

Coast was required to address the claims and issues under aCEQA analysis, including the extraction of
18

water from the basin.


19

Marina Coast argues that 1) Monterey County has never admitted itdoes not have water rights; 2)
20

Mr. Weeks, Monterey County Water Resources Agency, said that the Water Agency and the County are
21

organizations that can pump from the Salinas Basin and that every drop will stay in the Basin, and 3) as a
22

responsible agency, Marina Coast is not required to analyze water right claims over which Marina Coast
23

has no authority.
24

(B). Excerpts from Administrative Record regarding water rights


25

(1). Ag Land letter,in part, to Marina Coast dated April 5,2010.

-21

174

Exhibit C, p. 28 of 42

jjfUH

/^SK

"The Regional Project would require theuseof water rights which theproject proponents do not
1

own. The Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin is in veryserious overdraft, andhas been acknowledged to
2

be in serious overdraft since the 1950s. The proposed Salinas Valley Water Project [SVWP] isnot
3

operational. All ofthe various components ofthe Salinas Valley Water Project must befully operational
4

for years before it can be effective or before itsearly results are known with any reliability. The SVWP is
5

not operational. Even after its operations begin, it will take years before it would have any effectonthe
6

tens ofthousands of acre feet of annual overpumping intheSalinas Valley Groundwater Basin. Further,
7

even if inthefuture theBasin's recharge is ever in balance with the pumping from theBasin, which is
8

highlyin doubt and cannotbe accurately measured, the seawaterintrusion would remain. Technical
9

expertsagree that seawaterintrusion is generallynot reversed. Further, the SVWPunder construction is


10

significantly smaller than theproject evaluated intheSVWP EIR. The project was significantly
11

downsized after thecost projections from the original project came infarover budget. [%\ The County
12

Water Resources Agency does not measure or maintain accurate or detailed records of cumulative basin
13

pumping, cumulative basin water usage, or overpumping. At best, theAgency merely estimates amounts
14

of recharge, pumping and seawater intrusion. The Agency records are vague onthese important issues."
15

(AR 596-597.)
16

"Theenvironmental review to date does notinclude any consideration of the potential use of
17

eminent domain to acquire any property interests for the Regional Project. Such use is clearly
18

contemplated bythe project proponents, because, for example, theproponents do not own and have not
19

yet obtained water rights for the project or property rights for the proposed wells. The staffreport for the
20

Monterey County Water Resources Agency Board of Supervisors' meeting of April 6,2010, states that
21

project proponents 'will obtain, through purchase or other legal means, all easements or otherreal
22

property interests necessary to build, operate and maintain' the proposed wells. The contemplated use of
23

'other legal means' includes eminent domain, which is a project under CEQA and which must be
24

evaluated in the environmental review." (AR 601.)


25

-22

175

Exhibit C, p. 29 of 42

(2). November2,2009 letter, in part, from Ag Land to Marina Coast in response to the
1

Notice of Preparation of an EIR for the Armstrong Ranch acquisition and annexation.
2

"These comments are intended to help Marina Coast Water District determine the scope of the
3

EIR and ensure an appropriate level of environmental review. The Ag Land Trust asks the Water District
4

to review carefully thefollowing potential environmental issues and impacts inthe EIR.
5

The water rights on the project site and water rights anticipated to be used for future projects
6

involving the project site. Water rights are correctly researched at this EIR stage. (Save Our
7

Peninsula Committee v. County of Monterey (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99,131-134.) The project site
8

is in the overdrafted Salinas Valley groundwater basin.


9

The EIR should acknowledge that, under California law, no new groundwater may be
10

appropriated legally from the overdrafted Salinas basin, except byprescription. The EIRshould
11

include a discussion and analysis of thestatus of water rights inthe basin, and the specific water
12

rights held by [Marina Coast] and all other entities who could or would be involved in future
13

water supply projects.


14

As to each entity, the EIR should categorize the water rights as to type, identified as usedor
15

unused, theapplicable seniority of the rights, and thesupporting documentation for each claim
16

should be provided.
17

The EIRshould investigate the legal justification forany groundwater rights claimed by
18

[Marina Coast], because in an overdrafted basin new appropriative rights cannot be acquired
19

except through prescription, which has not occurred here.


20

The EIR should disregard any claimed groundwater rights held by[Monterey County Water
21

Resources Agency], because [Monterey County Water Resources Agency], does not havesuch
22

rights. If the EIRasserts otherwise, it should investigate and provide supporting documentation
23

for its assertion.


24

The water rights of the Monterey County Water Resources Agency (MCWRA) should be
25

carefully reviewed, because [Marina Coast] and the [Monterey County WaterResources

23

176

Exhibit C, p. 30 of 42

Agency], have MOUs in place that indicate that [Monterey County Water Resources Agency],
1

involvement on the project site for watersupply purposes is foreseeable. The impacts on
2

neighboring properties of the project andthe future projects thatwould be enabled by the project.
3

Forexample, the Ag Land Trust has large holdings in the areas of Moss Landing, Castroville, and
4

Marina which would be affected directly by the various proposed water projects and alternatives
5

of the proposed projects. Many of Ag Land Trust's acres of land and easements, and their
6

attendant overlying groundwater rights, have been acquired with grant funds from the State of
7

California as part of the State's long-term program to permanently preserve our state'sproductive
8

agricultural lands. The Ag LandTrust believes that the agricultural operations, the agricultural
9

potential, the water rights,the water systems, and the viability of its property in generalwould be
10

negatively impacted by the project(s) being evaluatedin the EIR." (AR 895-896.)
11

(3). Ag Land letter to Marina Coast dated March 16,2010, in relevant part:
12

"On November 6,2006, and again on April 15,2009,the Ag LandTrust notified the Public
13

Utilities Commission of certain key flaws in the Coastal Water Project EIR. Specifically, the first full
14

paragraph on pagetwo of the Trust's November 6,2006 letter(identified as 'G_AgLTr-3' in the FEIR)
15

states that Cal-Am, a water appropriator under California law, has no groundwater rights to appropriate
16

waterfrom the overdrafted Salinas Groundwater Basin. In an overdrafted, percolated groundwater basin,
17

California groundwater law clearlyand definitely holds that the doctrine of correlativeoverlyingwater
18

rights applies (Katz v. Walkinshaw (1903) 141 Cal. 116), wherebyno surplus water is available for new
19

groundwater appropriators.
20

"The FEIR responseclaimsthat an analysis of waterrights is not necessary because 'CalAm


21

claims no rightsto groundwater' and that 'no Salinas Valley groundwater will be exportedfrom the
22

Basin.' The FEIR attempts to bypassa central issue - the EIR's failure to analyze legal water rights - by
23

claiming that the issue does not exist. On the contrary, the issue of legal water rights exists and should be
24

analyzed.
25

24

177

Exhibit C, p. 31 of 42

"Because theextracted water would be composed of both saltwater and groundwater, Cal-Am
1

(under the North Marina project) orMonterey County (under the Regional Project) would be extracting
2

groundwater from the overdrafted Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin. Those actions would represent an
3

illegal appropriation ofwater. The EIR claims that water can be appropriated from under privately owned
4

land in the overdrafted basin, so long as it promises toreturn the same amount ofpumped groundwater to
5

the basin. That claim is not enforceable, not subject tooversight and does not change the fact that the
6

extraction of the water would bean illegal appropriation. In essence, the Cal Am North Marina
7

desalination project and the Regional Project would rely on illegal extraction and appropriation of
8

groundwater from the basin. The EIR does not analyze the significant impact ofan illegal taking of
9

groundwater from overlying landowners. Instead, the FEIR accepts as unquestionably true the flawed
10

rationale that a purported return ofa portion ofthe water somehow allows the illegal extraction of
11

groundwater from the overdrafted basin. This deficiency in the EIR must be addressed, andthe EIR
12

should identify mitigations for the adverse impacts and proposed illegal actions and takings.
13

"The principle is established that the water supply in a source may beaugmented byartificial
14

means. (See Pomona Land & Water Co. v. San Antonio Water Co. (1908) 152 Cal. 618.) Wedo not
15

question that general statement of law. However, when getting tothe specifics ofthe abilities and
16

limitations in regard tothe augmented ordeveloped water proposed for the Project, the EIR defaults on
17

the necessary discussion. Instead ofaddressing the entire doctrine ofwater rights applicable here, the
18

FEIR (14.1-94, n. 4) defers entirely to the MCWD's legal counsel for the discussion of theessential
19

factors. From page 14.1-94 to 14.1-96, MCWD's legal argument ispresented without critical analysis or
20

further comment asthe FEIR's discussion. There is no independent review orinvestigation ofthe legal
21

argument, as required under CEQA.


22

"California law on the ability ofan agency to claim the right to salvage any or all of any
23

developed water inthe circumstances here, and any limits on that claim, has not yet been defined by the
24

Courts. Thecitations intheFEIR overstate the situation, and do not point to any California court case
25

where theanalysis presented inthe FEIR has been upheld bythe Court. The two cases relied upon by the

25

178

Exhibit C, p. 32 of 42

MCWD's counsel (and therefore the FEIR) arecited in footnote 10 ofFEIR page 14.1-96: Pajaro Valley
1

Water Mgt. Agency v. Amrhein (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 1364, 1370 and Lanai Company, Inc. v. Land Use
2

Commission (S. Ct. Ha. 2004) 97 P.2d 372,376. The citations in both cases are to portions of the
3

introductory factual recitations in the cases, and not to Court holdings orlegal analysis, and thus are not
4

fairly considered precedents or statements of settled law. Other FEIR citations are to legal claims asserted
5

in a staff report bythe head of theMonterey County Water Resources Agency, who is notan attorney.
6

"Here, the CPUC's EIRdefined the project too narrowly. TheEIRnever evaluated the existence
7

or nonexistence of water rights on which the Regional Project would rely. Atthevery least, the FEIR was
8

required to evaluate theclaims of MCWD and MCWRA, testthem analytically, and provide the
9

decisionmakers and thepublic with the analysis. Without the reasoned good faith analysis, theEIR fails
10

as an informational document. (See, e.g., Santa Clarita Organizationfor Planning the Environment v.
11

County ofLos Angeles (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 715, 722.) 'It is not enough for the EIR simply to contain
12

information submitted bythe public and experts.' In particular, water 'is too important to receive such
13

cursory treatment.' (Id.) CEQA requires a detailed analysis of water rights issues when suchrights
14

reasonably affect theproject's supply. Assumptions about supply are simply notenough, (id., at p. 721;
15

Save Our Peninsula Committee v. County ofMonterey (2001) 87Cal.App.4th 99, 131- 134, 143 [EIR
16

inadequate when it fails to discuss pertinent water rights claims and overdraft impacts]; see also, Cadiz
17

Land Co. v. Rail Cycle (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 74, 94-95 [groundwater contamination issues].) The
18

reasoning of the Court in Cadiz would also apply to the proper analysis of the rights associated with the
19

overdraft here.
20

"At the veryleast, the determinations of safe yield, surplus, the rights of the MCWRA, and of
21

'persons with land in the zones of benefit for the projects' mustbe identified, discussed and analyzed. The
22

analysis must be independent, and cannot simply be 'extracted' (FEIR, p. 14.1-94, n. 4) from the
23

argument of the attorney for the MCWD, a proponent of theRegional Project and potential ownerof the
24

desalination plant component of that project. Whether the project may take salvaged or developed water
25

originating from onsitesupplies depends on whether injury will resultto existing lawful users or those

26

179

Exhibit C, p. 33 of 42

who hold vested rights. TheFEIR response to comments does notfairly consider or investigate the actual
1

on-the-ground issues.
2

"Neither the MCWD northe MCWRA has groundwater rights thatwould support the drilling of
3

the proposed intake wells for the Regional Project. On March 3,2010, this Officemade a California
4

Public Records Act request to the County of Monterey and Monterey County Water Resources Agency
5

seeking the records that supporta MCWRA claim that the MCWRA or the MCWD have water rights for
6

the proposed Regional Project. To date, the County has not provided anydocuments that support those
7

claims." (AR 1127-1129.)


8

(4). Salinas Valley Water Coalition letter dated April 15,2009 addressed to Mr. Barnsdale
9

regarding the Coastal Water Project.


10

The SalinasValley WaterCoalition asked aboutwaterrights for groundwater pumping and


11

surface diversion. (AR 4413.)


12

The EIR contains a response to these concerns. In part, the EIRrefers to MasterResponse 13.6
13

andstates that because "[i]t is CEQAs intent to identify andanalyze potential impacts of the project on
14

the environment; water rights are not consideredan environmental issue. Groundwater extracted for the
15

Coastal Water Projectwould be covered under the right held by the entitythat owns and operates the
16

wells ... Detailsof the waterrights is beyond the scope of CEQA because the acquisition of waterrights
17

does not determine the feasibilityof this project." (AR 4973,4974.)


18

Master Response 13.6 noted that some"comments asserted that the project could not legally
19

withdraw and export water from the [Salinas ValleyGroundwater Basin] to other areas on the Monterey
20

Peninsula." Master Response 13.6 was"intended to clarify and enhance information broughtto light in
21

the Draft EIR regarding the quantity, useof, andreplacement of water that would be drawn from the
22

[Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin] and used bythe proposed project." (AR 4547.) The Master Response
23

notes in passing that "hydrologic modeling analyses undertaken to date indicatethat extraction of
24

brackish water at the coast will cause no injury to the rights of overlying landowners or other water
25

users." (Footnote omitted.) (AR 4550.) The MasterResponse concludes that "the Regional Project would

27

180

Exhibit C, p. 34 of 42

extract intruded groundwater that would otherwise be ofno use tomunicipal oragricultural users and
1

would treat that water for potable uses. The source ofthis water is the 180-foot aquifer that has been
2

intruded by seawater since the 1940s. The proposed extraction wells would be located along the coast
3

and, depending on whether they are slant wells atthe coast orvertical wells slightly inland, both
4

configurations would withdraw ocean water with some lesser fraction ofintruded groundwater from
5

within the [Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin].... The fraction offeedwater determined to be [Salinas
6

Valley Groundwater Basin] water, which is extracted from the wells, would not be exported out ofthe
7

basin, rather, itwould be conveyed for agricultural proposes (North Marina Project) ordelivered to the
8

Marina Coast Water District for municipal supply (Regional Project)." (AR 4556-7.)
9

(5). The Open Monterey Project senta letterto Mr. Barnsdale on April 15,2009 with
10

comments on the Draft EIR.


11

The Open Monterey Project comments are very similar tothose made by Ag Land. In general,
12

The Open Monterey Project notes that specific water rights are not indentified ordiscussed, that using
13

water without water rights has an environmental impact, and provides at length and insome detail the
14

rational forthe questions about water rights. (AR4415.)


15

The response to these comments provided intheFinal EIR provides "refer to comment rezones
16

G_SVWC-10 and PSMCSD-2." (AR 4978.)


17

(6). Pajaro/Sunny MesaCommunity Services District sent a letter to the Cal PUC on April
18

15,2009 with comments on the Draft EIR.


19

Pajaro/Sunny Mesa Community Services Districtnoted that CaliforniaAmerican Water


20

Company, the Cal PUC, and any potential public agency partner lacked any appropriative percolated
21

groundwater rights inthe Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin and it would be illegal to take water, and the
22

Draft EIR's failure to acknowledge this deficiency must beaddressed. (AR 4125-4126.)
23

The specific issue of water rights isnever addressed inthe response to this comment. (AR 472924

4731.)
25

28

181

Exhibit C, p. 35 of 42

/*^%.

(7). Letter from David Kimbrough (Chief of Administrative Services, Finance Manager for
1

Monterey County) dated March 24,2010 to Ms. Molly Erickson.


2

In relevant part: "Further, [Monterey County Water Resources Agency] intends to acquire an
3

easement, including rights to ground water, from the necessary property owner(s)to install the
4

desalination wells. These rights have not been perfected todate, hence no records can be produced, ffl] As
5

to [Marina Coast Water District], it was previously annexed into Zones 2 & 2Aand as such has right to
6

ground water." (AR 817.)


7

(Q. Analysis
8

"It has been held that an EIR is inadequate if it fails to identify at least a potential source for
9

water. In Stanislaus Natural Heritage Project v. County ofStanislaus (1996) 48 Cal. App. 4th 182 [55
10

Cal. Rptr. 2d6251. for example, the failure to identify a source of water beyond the first five years of
11

development rendered the EIR inadequate, although the developer was pursuing several possible sources.
12

It also has been held that an EIR is inadequate ifthe project intends to use water from an existing source,
13

but it is not shown that the existing source has enough water toserve the project and the current users.
14

(Santiago County Water Dist. v. County ofOranee (1981) 118 Cal. App. 3d 818 [173 Cal. Rptr. 6021.)
15

On the other hand, it has been held that an EIR isnot required to engage in speculation inorder to analyze
16

a 'worst case scenario.' (Towards Responsibility in Planning v. City Council (1988) 200Cal. App. 3d671
17

f246Cal. Rptr. 3171 (hereafter TRIP).) In thatcase, thecourt held that an EIR was not required to analyze
18

the effects that would result from the construction ofa sewage treatment facility, when (1) all indications
19

suggested that the facility would never be needed, and (2) the facilityif it was constructed--would be
20

subjected to its own environmental review." (Napa CitizensforHonest Government v. Board of


21

Supervisors (2001) 92 Cal.App.4dl 342, 372-373.)


22

Not until the day of trial did Marina Coastassert thatthe EIR addressed the issue of water rights.
23

There is nodispute that the water that will be pumped from the wells will contain some
24

proportion of groundwater from the 180-foot aquifer.


25

29

182

Exhibit C, p. 36 of 42

As set forth above, the final EIR does not contain a discussion of the issues surroundingthe
1

availability of groundwater forthe Regional Project and the impacts on thephysical environment in light
2

of Monterey County Water Resources Agency's admission in March2012 that it "intends to acquire an
3

easement, including rights to ground water, from the necessary property owner(s)to install the
4

desalination wells [and t]hese rights have notbeen perfected to date."


5

The EIR assumes that groundwater rights will be perfected in the future and that such rights do
6

not need to be addressed in an EIR.


7

"Suchan assumption, however, is impermissible, as it is antithetical to the purpose of an EIR,


8

which is to reveal to the public 'the basis on which its responsible officials eitherapprove or reject
9

environmentally significant action,' so thatthe public, 'beingduly informed, can respond accordingly to
10

action with which it disagrees.' ( Laurel Heights, supra. 47 Cal.3d at p. 392.) As another court observed,
11

'[t]o beadequate, the EIR must include sufficient detail to enable those who did not participate in its
12

preparation to understand and 'meaningfully' consider the issues raised bythe proposed project.' (
13

SCOPE, supra. 106Cal.App.4that p. 721: see also Concerned Citizens ofCostaMesa. Inc. v. 32ndDist.
14

Agricultural Assn. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 929. 935 [231 Cal. Rptr. 748. 727 P.2d 10291 (Concerned Citizens)
15

['[t]o facilitate CEQA's informational role, the EIR must contain facts and analysis, notjust the agency's
16

bare conclusions or opinions'].)This standard is not metin the absence of a forthright discussion of a
17

significant factor that couldaffect water supplies. The EIR is devoid of any suchdiscussion." (California
18

Oak Foundation v. City ofSanta Clarita (2005) 133 Cal.App^ 1219, 1237.)
19

As the leadagency, Marina Coast will need to address this prejudicial abuseof discretion
20

including, but not limited to, 1)water rights; 2) contingency plan; 3) the assumption of constant pumping:
21

4) the exportation of groundwater from the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin; 5) brine impacts on the
22

outfall; 6) impacts on overlying an adjacent properties; and 7) water quality.


23

24

(HI). Marina Coast's defenses


25

30

183

Exhibit C, p. 37 of 42

Marina Coast raises a number of defenses that are predicated, inpart, on theissue of lead agency
1

which was resolved above.


2

Marina Coast contends that this Court is without jurisdiction because (1)the reliefsought by Ag
3

Land is preempted by the Public Utilities and Public Resources Codes; (2) the Petition isnot ripe; (3) Ag
4

Land has not exhausted its administrative remedies before the Cal PUC; and (4) Ag Land is precluded
5

from challenging Cal PUC's orders because ofres judicata. At trial, the Court permitted Marina Coast to
6

amend its answer to include anaffirmative defense offailure tojoin indispensible parties.
7

Marina Coast also argues that this Court lacks primary jurisdiction and must apply thethree-part
8

test setoutinSan Diego Gas &Electric Co. v. Superior Court (1996) 13 Cal^ 893 (Covalt).
9

(A). Preemption
10

There is no preemption issue. The issue is one ofjurisdiction and is addressed below.
11

(B). Ripeness
12

TheCourt hasfound thatthe Petition is ripe forreview to theextent that Marina Coast isthe lead
13

agency. (Security National Guaranty, Inc. v. California Coastal Com. (2008) 159 Cal.App^ 402, 418.)
14

The fact that the Cal PUC might or might not approve the Regional Project does not change the
15

fact that Marina Coast acted first and filed a Notice ofDetermination. Marina Coast must now comply
16

with CEQA in itsrole as the lead agency for the Regional Project.
17

(C). Exhaustion
18

The Cal PUC is not a party to this action and Ag Land raised the lead agency issue, amongst
19

others, in its letter with attached exhibits dated March 16, 2010 that was directed to Marina Coast. (AR
20

1106-1134.) Ag Land also sent a letter with numerous exhibits to Marina Coast on April 5, 2010, and
21

spoke at the April 5, 2010 public hearing. (AR 595-601, 591-592.) (Pub. Resources Code, 21177.)
22

Ag Land has exhausted its administrative remedies before Marina Coast.


23

24

25

11

184

Exhibit C, p. 38 of 42

/#itey

/^\

(D). Res judicata


1

There is no final litigated prior decision onthemerits regarding what public entity is thelead
2

agency for the Regional Project and resjudicata does not apply. (Mycogen Corp. v. Monsanto Co. (2002)
3

28 CaUth 888, 896-897.)


4

Res judicata applies if "(1)the decision intheprior proceeding isfinal and onthemerits; (2) the
5

present proceeding is on the same cause of action as the prior proceeding; and (3)the parties inthe
6

present proceeding or parties in privity with them were parties inthe prior proceeding." (Federation of
7

Hillside Canyon Assns. v. City ofLos Angeles (2004) 126 Cal.App.4th 1180, 1202.)
8

(E). Covalt - Jurisdiction


9

Public Utilities Codesection 1759provides: "Jurisdiction of courts to review ordersor decisions


10

ofcommission; Writ of mandamus[.] Of] (a) No court ofthis state, except the Supreme Court and the
11

Court of Appeal, to the extent specified in this article, shall have jurisdiction to review, reverse, correct,
12

orannul any order or decision of thecommission ortosuspend ordelay the execution or operation
13

thereof, orto enjoin, restrain, or interfere with the commission in the perfonnance of its official duties, as
14

provided by law and the rules ofcourt. [%\ (b) The writ of mandamus shall lie from the Supreme Court
15

and from the Court ofAppeal to the commission in all proper cases as prescribed in Section 1085 ofthe
16

Code of Civil Procedure."


17

The Covalt "decision setforth a three-part inquiry for determining whether the action would
18

interfere with the [Cal] PUC inthe performance ofits duties and thus was precluded by [Public Utilities
19

Code] section 1759(a): (1)whether the [Cal] PUC possessed theauthority to formulate a policy regarding
20

any public health risk related to electric and magnetic fields arising from the powerlines of regulated
21

utilities, or a policy regarding what actions, if any, the utilities should have taken to minimize any such
22

risk; (2) whether the [Cal] PUC had exercised that authority to adopt such policies; and (3) whether the
23

superior court action filed by private persons against the utility would hinder or interfere with those
24

policies." (People exrel. Orloffv. Pacific Bell (2003) 31 Cal.4* 1132, 1145.)
25

-32

185

Exhibit C, p. 39 of 42

/^^mK

Here, the Cal PUC has authority to regulate California American Water Company. Ithas no
1

authority to regulate ordictate to Marina Coast, or any other public agency, regarding the approval and
2

development ofthe Regional Project. This action does not hinder the Cal PUC's ability to regulate
3

California American Water Company, and this Court has jurisdiction.


4

(F). Indispensible parties


5

Marina Coast contends that Ag Land had toname the Water Resources Agency and California
6

American Water Company asreal parties ininterest because they were parties to the Water Purchase
7

Agreementand the Settlement Agreement.


8

The Water Purchase Agreement requires that the Water Resources Agency pump water that will
9

be delivered to the Regional Project and after desalination at the Marina Coastfacilities, the water will be
10

distributed by California American Water Company to its customers. The Settlement Agreement
11

determined the ownership ofcertain facilities, and the parties tothe Settlement Agreement agreed to
12

protect the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin.


13

This action and the Court's decision do not interfere with either agreement, and if it could be
14

construed thatthedecision touches on either agreement, the Court finds thatthe WaterResources Agency
15

and California American Water Company do not qualify as indispensable parties.


16

"The determination of whether a party is indispensable is governed by Code of Civil Procedure


17

section 389, which first sets out, in subdivision (a), a definition of persons who ought to bejoined [in an
18

action] if possible (sometimes referred to as 'necessary' parties). Then, subdivision (b) sets forth the
19

factors to follow if such a person cannot be made a party in order to determine whether in equity and good
20

conscience the action should proceed among the parties before it, or should be dismissed without
21

prejudice, the absent person being thus regarded as indispensable. [] Thesubdivision (b) factors are not
22

arranged in a hierarchical order, and no factor is determinative or necessarily more important than
23

another. (County ofSan Joaquin v. State Water Resources Control Bd. (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1144,
24

1149.) [%\ In a CEQA action like the one before us, Public Resources Code section 21167.6.5 provides
25

thatany recipient of an approval that is the subject of [the] action must be named as a real party in

33

186

Exhibit C, p. 40 of 42

/pwk

interest. (Pub. Resources Code, 21167.6.5, subd. (a) (section 21167.6.5(a)).) Thus, section
1

21167.6.5(a) makes anysuch recipient a necessary party in a CEQA action, just as those persons
2

described insubdivision (a) of Code of Civil Procedure section 389 arenecessary parties. Buta recipient
3

of anapproval, while a necessary party, is not necessarily an indispensable party, such thatthe CEQA
4

action must be dismissed in the absence of that party. Instead, if a courtfinds that unnamed parties
5

received approvals, [the court must] then consider whether under Code of Civil Procedure section 389,
6

subdivision (b) [the unnamed parties] qualify as indispensable parties, requiring dismissal of the action.
7

(County ofImperial v. Superior Court, supra, 152Cal.App.4th at p. 31.)." (Quantification Settlement


8

Agreement Cases (2011) 201 Cal.App^* 758, 848, some quotation marks omitted, italics inoriginal.)
9

The Court has found Marina Coast to be the lead agency and that finding does not "impair or
10

impede" the WaterResources Agencyor California American Water Company's ability to protect their
11

interests, nor will either entity suffer prejudice by the Court's lead agencydetermination and any
12

resolution of CEQA issues (see Section III below), thejudgmenthere is adequate, and Ag Landwould not
13

have an adequate remedy if the action were dismissed. (Code Civ. Proc, 389 subd. (a) and (b); Pub.
14

Res. Code, 21167.6.5 subd. (a).)


15

Disposition
16

Ag Land's request for reliefis granted as set forth above.1


17

18

19

Lydia M. Villarreal
20

21

22

DatedFEB 02 2012
HON. LYDIA M. VILLARREAL

Judge of the Superior Court

23

24

Marina Coast counsel has argued the importance and dire need of procuring a reliable water source for the
25

Monterey Peninsula. The Court wishes to point out to counsel that the Court's authority is limited to reviewing

compliance with CEQA by those agencies responsible for procuring a reliable water source.

-34

187

Exhibit C, p. 41 of 42

/pli^V

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

C.C.P. SEC. 1013A

Ido hereby certify that Iam not aparty to the within stated cause and that on pg Q2 Ofll?

I deposited true and correct copies of the following documents: ORDER in sealed envelopes with postage

thereon fully prepaid, inthe mail at Salinas, California, directed to each of the following named persons at

their respective addresses, as hereinafter set forth:

Michael Stamp, Esq.


479 Pacific Street Suite 1

Monterey, CA 93940

10

Mark Fogelman, Esq.


33 New Montgomery Street Suite 290

11

San Francisco, CA 94105

12

Michael Masuda, Esq.


P.O. Box 2510

13

Salinas, CA 93902-2510

14

15

Dated:

FEB 0 2 2012
16

17

CONNIE MAZZEI Clerk of the

18

Monterey County Superior Court

19

Sally Lopez
20

By.

, Deputy Clerk
21

22

23

24

25

-35

188

Exhibit C, p. 42 of 42

ELLISON, SCHNEIDER & HARRIS L.L.P.


ANNE J. SCHNEIDER
1947-2010
CHRISTOPHER T. ELLISON
JEFFERY D. HARRIS
DOUGLAS K. KERNER
ROBERT E. DONLAN
ANDREW B. BROWN
PETER J. KIEL
LYNN M. HAUG
CHRISTOPHER M. SANDERS
GREGGORY L. WHEATLAND
ELIZABETH P. EWENS

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
2600 CAPITOL A VENUE , S UITE 400
S ACRAMENTO , CALIFORNIA 95816
T ELEPHONE : (916) 447-2166
F ACSIMILE: (916) 447-3512
http://www.eslawfirm.com

May 3, 2013
Mr. Paul Murphey
Division of Water Rights
State Water Resources Control Board
P.O. Box 2000
Sacramento, CA 95812-2000
RE:

BRIAN S. BIERING
CRAIG A. CARNES, JR.
JEDEDIAH J. GIBSON
CHASE B. KAPPEL
SHANE E. C. McCOIN
SAMANTHA G. POTTENGER
OF COUNSEL:
RONALD LIEBERT

R ECEIVE D
5-3-13

SWRCB Hearing Unit

Comments on MPWSP Draft Report

Dear Mr. Murphey:


On behalf of the California American Water Company (Cal-Am), we would like to thank you
and your colleagues for preparing the detailed and thoughtful Draft Review of California
American Water Companys Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project, dated April 3, 2013
(Draft Review). Overall, the Draft Review is consistent with Cal-Ams water rights position
for the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (Project or MPWSP), and comports with
Cal-Ams understanding of the initial technical information concerning the potential effects of
the Project. Cal-Am agrees that additional technical information, to be developed through the
proposed test well and related study and monitoring program, is necessary to confirm and verify
existing analysis and increase the certainty that the slant wells are not likely to adversely impact
the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin (SVGB) or cause injury to SVGB pumpers. This letter
provides Cal-Ams comments on the Draft Review for your consideration. Our comments are
intended to amplify or clarify points raised in the Draft Review.
General Comments:

The primary recommendations in the Draft Review are for a robust study and monitoring
program to determine aquifer conditions in the vicinity of the MPWSP, aquifer testing and
hydrogeologic analysis, groundwater modeling, and monitoring. See Draft Review, pp. iii
and 42-43. Cal-Am is proposing to undertake all of these analyses and investigations, and is
currently in the process of obtaining permits and authorizations to complete this necessary
work. Cal-Am also has an agreement with the Monterey County Water Resources Agency to
implement and carry out a long-term monitoring plan associated with the MPWSP.

The Draft Review notes that the Dune Sand Aquifer is a near-surface water-bearing zone
that is not regionally extensive and is poor quality (due primarily to its direct influence

{00147049;1}

189

May 3, 2013
Page 2
from Monterey Bay). See Draft Review, p. 8. For these reasons, and in response to requests
from certain stakeholders, Cal-Am is evaluating the feasibility and cost of completing the
slant wells in the Dune Sand Aquifer, either partially or completely. This evaluation will be
performed as part of Cal-Ams testing and monitoring program.

The Draft Review (page 21) discusses the important distinction between the cone of
depression (or zone of influence) and the capture zone that contributes water to a pumping
well: not all the water in the cone of depression flows to the pumping well. In
particular, where significant boundary conditions exist such as horizontal flow from a
subsea aquifer outcropping and/or vertical leakage from the seabed the boundary condition
may provide an overriding factor relative to direction of groundwater flow in determining the
dimensions of a capture zone and source(s) of water flowing to a well. (See also, Draft
Review pp. 17-18). The recharge boundary conditions would also tend to affect (in this case,
significantly increase) the proportion of seawater flowing to the project wells under existing
landward gradients.

The Draft Review (page 24) makes the point that the MPWSP project would appear to have
the consequence of reducing the flow of seawater intrusion into the Salinas Valley. Related
to this point, the term capture zone may be more accurate than zone of influence in
describing the anticipated hydrogeologic effects of the MPWSP in the following sentence:
The MPWSP drawdown would change the groundwater gradient within the zone of
influence causing a radial flow of groundwater toward the extraction wells.

The Draft Review (page 26) does a good job of explaining one of the key and fundamental
hydrogeologic concepts pertaining to the proposed MPWSP: Because the ocean provides a
constant source of nearby recharge to the extraction wells, the zone of influence for the
extraction wells cannot expand much farther than the distance between the extraction wells
and the ocean, or in the case of confined aquifer conditions, the distance between the
extraction wells and the undersea outcrop of the confined aquifer.

The Draft Review (page 28) states: The reduction in the availability of fresh water would
not be felt immediately; thus, replacement water could be provided after the MPWSP has
been in operation and modeling information becomes available to evaluate the actual quantity
of fresh water that needs to be returned to the system. The above concept is further
discussed and developed on page 37 of the Draft Review. This is an important observation
and the concept informs Cal-Ams commitment to return to the SVGB, through the
Castroville Seawater Intrusion Project, any fresh water that is extracted by the MPWSP slant
wells. This concept will also inform the development of Cal-Ams testing and monitoring
plan.

The Draft Review (page 38) states with respect to existing groundwater wells that have been
identified in the general vicinity of the Project: it is unlikely the MPWSP would injure
users of these wells as the wells are within a zone where water quality is significantly

{00147049;1}

190

May 3, 2013
Page 3
impacted from seawater intrusion. This is another key observation in the Draft Review and
will help design the development of the study and monitoring plan and any mitigation
measures that may be required for the MPWSP.

The Draft Review mentions potential groundwater level impacts that may result from the
MPWSP: pumped wells would have an impact to groundwater users within a 2-mile
radius of the wells. (Draft Review, p. 20; see also, Draft Review, p. 24: Once the zone of
influence is estimated for each location and each pumping scenario then any wells within the
zone of influence would be affected by project pumping and possibly cause injury). The
groundwater level effect described in this section of the Draft Report refers to the modeled
drawdown estimates from the MPWSP; approximately 2.0 feet within one mile of the slant
wells, less than 0.5 feet 1.5 miles from the well, and negligible influence at 2.0 miles and
beyond. Elsewhere, the Draft Review acknowledges that the seawater intrusion front has
extended more than five miles inland in the 180 foot aquifer (e.g., Draft Review p. 13), and
that only 14 groundwater wells exist within a two mile radius of the proposed slant well
location. The Draft Review further states that all of these wells are located within the
seawater intruded zone, and on that basis concludes that it is unlikely that the MPWSP
would injure users of these wells. (Draft Review, p. 38) Thus, Cal-Am interprets the
Draft Review to conclude that groundwater level drawdown within the zone of influence
attributable to the MPWSP wells may affect wells within that zone of influence, but such
affects will not likely rise to the level of legal injury requiring remedial action or a physical
solution unless there is a substantial impact to the use of those wells for beneficial purposes.
See Lodi v. East Bay Municipal Utilities District (1936) 7 Cal.2d 316, 341. This is
particularly true as it relates to wells that may be completed in the long-existing seawater
intruded area of the SVGB.

The Draft Review makes use of several terms to describe the water quality characteristics of
the feed water that may be developed by the MPWSP, but does not provide precise
definitions of those terms. In particular, the Draft Review uses the terms seawater,
brackish water, and fresh water. Based on the context in which these terms are used in
the Draft Review, Cal-Am has discerned the following meanings:
o Seawater appears to mean water that originates from the Pacific Ocean and
Monterey Bay, and having the same general constituency of ocean waters found in
Monterey Bay. See, e.g., Draft Review p. 28.
o Fresh water appears to mean groundwater inland of the seawater intrusion front,
which the Monterey County Water Resources Agency defines as the upper limit of
the Secondary Drinking Water Standard, or 500 milligrams per liter (mg/L)
concentration for chloride.1 See, e.g., Draft Review, pp. 13-14 for definitional
guidance, and e.g., pp. 28, 30, and 36-37 for usage.

The Draft Review further cites to the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Boards Basin Plan, which
states that water for agricultural use shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in amounts adversely

{00147049;1}

191

May 3, 2013
Page 4
o Brackish water appears to mean (and include) all groundwater in the SVGB having
a chloride level higher than fresh water (i.e., >500 mg/L concentration for
chloride), and lower than the chloride and salinity levels in seawater.
Based on these inferred definitions, Cal-Am questions the accuracy of the first part of the
following statement on page 26 of the Draft Review (Cal-Am agrees with the second part of
the statement): Although this brackish water is of substantially better quality than seawater,
it is likely degraded to the point that it is not suitable for any beneficial use other than feed
water for desalination purposes. It is likely that brackish water in close enough proximity to
be drawn into the proposed MPWSP slant wells would have salinity and chloride levels very
similar to those levels found in seawater. See also, Geoscience, September, 2008,
attached. Conversely, brackish waters closer to the fresh water line in the SVGB are likely
to have constituencies more similar to fresh waters.

Page 38 of the Draft Review states: If the MPWSP wells are located where unconfined
aquifer conditions exist, project pumping likely would extract brackish groundwater. The
majority of the source water would be from within the seawater-intruded portion of the Basin
as the seawater intrusion front extends approximately 5 miles landward from the proposed
well locations. Cal-Am interprets this statement to mean that, if the MPWSP source wells
are located in an unconfined area of 180-foot aquifer of the SVGB, then the inland source
of water, if any (because the vast majority of water would be sourced from the ocean), is
likely to be brackish groundwater as opposed to fresh groundwater. Elsewhere the Draft
Review acknowledges that in an unconfined aquifer and Cal-Am submits the same would
be true in a semi-confined aquifer the vast majority of the source water to the proposed
MPWSP will come from Monterey Bay/seawater. See Draft Review, p. 26. Under these
conditions, [i]t is unlikely that pumping from an unconfined aquifer would extract fresh
groundwater since the seawater intrusion front is approximately 5 miles landward from the
proposed pumps. See Draft Review, p. 26.

Conversely, the Draft Review states that the inland groundwater level drawdown caused by
the MPWSP is likely to be greater in a confined aquifer. See Draft Review, pp. 26-27.
Cal-Am agrees with this basic hydrogeologic principle, but points out that even in a confined
aquifer, the zone of influence for the [slant] wells cannot expand much farther [inland] than
the distance betweenthe extraction wells and the undersea outcrop of the confined
aquifer. The distance between the undersea outcrop and the proposed MPWSP wells is 1.5
to 2 miles. See Draft Review, p. 26.

The Draft Review cites a July 2008 Geoscience Report for the proposition that 87% of the
water developed by the slant wells will come from the ocean side wells, and 13% from the
landward side. There is some uncertainty about the precise ratio of seawater that will be

affecting the agricultural beneficial use. This standard is interpreted to exclude irrigation waters with chloride levels
above 355 mg/L. (See Draft Review, pp. 13-14).

{00147049;1}

192

May 3, 2013
Page 5
extracted by the MPWSP, as compared to brackish water. For example, a subsequent
Geoscience report, dated September, 2008, concludes that approximately 96-97% of the
water developed by the slant wells is seawater, and only 3-4% brackish water (see attached
report, p. 23). The ratio of seawater vs. brackish water (vs. fresh water) that may be
extracted by the proposed MPWSP will be better understood through the proposed aquifer
testing and hydrogeologic analyses, groundwater modeling, and monitoring program that is
described herein.

Cal-Am believes that the MPWSP, as proposed, will not cause or result in injury to users of
groundwater from the SVGB. As noted above, Cal-Am is developing and will implement an
extensive study, testing, modeling and monitoring program for the proposed MPWSP wells,
as recommended in the Draft Review. This information, together with the information
developed by the California Public Utilities Commission in its comprehensive Environmental
Impact Report for the MPWSP, will address the anticipated effects of the MPWSP on
pumpers in the SVGB, and will provide substantial evidence to support the CPUCs approval
of the Project. Cal-Am fully expects that the results of these analyses will confirm no
significant unmitigated impact to the SVGB and SVGB pumpers; to the extent impacts may
result to legal users of the SVGB from the MPWSP, such impacts will be addressed
consistent with the physical solution principles discussed in the Draft Review. Any party
that might challenge the MPWSP on the basis of injury to water rights in the SVGB would
then have the burden of proving how such rights will be injured. See City of Lodi v. East Bay
Mun. Util. Dist. (1936) 7 Cal.2d 316, 339; Tulare Irr. Dist. v. Lindsay-Strathmore Irr. Dist.
(1935) 3 Cal.2d 489, 535.

Several parties have suggested that the MPWSP is inconsistent with Section 21 of the
Monterey County Water Resources Agency Act. These comments misinterpret the Agency
Act. The MPWSP has been proposed consistent with the Agency Act. The anti-export
language in Section 21 of the Agency Act is qualified by the statement for the purpose of
preserving [the] balance [in the SVGB resulting from the Agencys projects to balance
extraction and recharge]. The MPWSP would, in a worst case scenario, incidentally extract
relatively small quantities of contaminated brackish water from the SVGB without negatively
affecting the balance of recharge and extraction of basin groundwater (and possibly it will
improve that balance). To the extent the Project may in the future affect fresh groundwater
resources, Cal-Am has proposed to return such water to the SVGB through the Castroville
Seawater Intrusion Project, as noted in the Draft Review. Moreover, to the extent the statute
may apply to the Project, the Agency Act vests sole discretion in the Monterey County Water
Resources Agency to pursue appropriate remedies. Contrary to the assertions of several
parties, the statute does not operate as an affirmative bar to the export of SVGB groundwater
that may be enforced by third parties. Rather, the Agency would need to exercise its
judgment and discretion to bring an action for injunctive relief, and only if the conditions for
such injunction are present (i.e., a proposed export of groundwater upsetting the balance of
recharge and extraction resulting from the Agencys projects).

{00147049;1}

193

May 3, 2013
Page 6
Conclusion
On behalf of the California American Water Company, we thank the State Water Board for its
thorough and thoughtful review of the technical and legal considerations concerning the
proposed source water plan for the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project. As noted herein,
Cal-Am fundamentally agrees with the overall conclusions reached in this Draft Review, and
hopes that the above information assists the State Water Board in its efforts to finalize the Draft
Review report. We would be pleased to provide the State Water Board with additional
information, and certainly will keep the Board apprised of the development of the MPWSP.
Sincerely,
Robert E. Donlan
cc:

Felicia Marcus, Chair, SWRCB


Fran Spivey-Weber, Vice Chair, SWRCB
Tam Dudoc, SWRCB
Steven Moore, SWRCB
Dorene DAdamo, SWRCB
Tom Howard, Executive Director, SWRCB
Caren Trgovcich, Chief Deputy Director, SWRCB
Michael Lauffer, Chief Counsel, SWRCB
Paul Clanon, Executive Director, CPUC
Robert MacLean, President, California American Water
Anthony Cerasuolo, Vice-President, Legal, California American Water
Richard Svindland, Vice-President, Engineering, California American Water

{00147049;1}

194

Exhibit SV-6

North Marina Groundwater Model


Evaluation of Potential Projects

Prepared for: California American Water

September 26, 2008

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.


Tel: (909) 920-0707
Fax: (909) 920-0403
Mailing: P. O. Box 220, Claremont, CA 91711
1326 Monte Vista Ave., Suite 3, Upland, CA 91786
http://www.gssiwater.com

195

North Marina Groundwater Model


Evaluation of Potential Projects

26-Sep-08

NORTH MARINA GROUNDWATER MODEL


EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL PROJECTS

CONTENTS

1.0

INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1

2.0

PURPOSE AND SCOPE.....................................................................................................3

3.0

GEOHYDROLOGY............................................................................................................4
3.1 Groundwater Basin Boundaries......................................................................................4
3.2 Aquifer Systems .............................................................................................................4
3.3 Water Quality and Seawater Intrusion............................................................................6

4.0

POTENTIAL PROJECTS ..................................................................................................7


4.1 CAW Slant Well Desalination Feedwater Supply Project .............................................7
4.2 Monterey Regional Water Supply Project 3a .................................................................8
4.3 Monterey Regional Water Supply Project 4b.................................................................9

5.0

NORTH MARINA GROUNDWATER FLOW AND SOLUTE TRANSPORT


MODEL ............................................................................................................................10
5.1 General Description and Purpose of Model .................................................................10
5.2 Description of Model Codes.........................................................................................10
5.3 Use of the Salinas Valley Integrated Ground Water and Surface Water Model ..........11
5.4 Conceptual Model.........................................................................................................12
5.5 North Marina Model Grid and Boundary Conditions ..................................................13

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.

i
196

California American Water

North Marina Groundwater Model


Evaluation of Potential Projects

27-Aug-08

CONTENTS
(Continued)
5.6 Aquifer Parameters .......................................................................................................14
5.7 Recharge and Discharge ...............................................................................................15
5.8 Model Calibration.........................................................................................................16
5.8.1

Calibration Methodology............................................................................... 16

5.8.2

Initial Conditions ........................................................................................... 16

5.8.3

Calibration Results......................................................................................... 17

6.0

MODEL PREDICTIVE SCENARIOS............................................................................18

7.0

GROUNDWATER FLOW AND SOLUTE TRANSPORT MODEL RESULTS .......21


7.1 CAW Slant Well Desalination Feedwater Supply Project ...........................................21
7.2 Regional Project Scenario 3a........................................................................................25
7.3 Regional Project Scenario 4b .......................................................................................29

8.0

REFERENCES...................................................................................................................33

FIGURES

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.

ii
197

California American Water

North Marina Groundwater Model


Evaluation of Potential Projects

26-Sep-08

FIGURES

No.

Description

General Project Location

Potential Projects

Historical Seawater Intrusion 180-Foot and 400-Foot Aquifers

Slant Well Layout

North Marina Groundwater Model Boundary

Flow Model Calibration Hydrographs 180-Foot Aquifer

Flow Model Calibration Hydrographs 400-Foot Aquifer

Flow Model Calibration Hydrographs Deep Aquifer

Histogram of Groundwater Level Residuals Transient Model Calibration

10

Transport Model Calibration of Seawater Intrusion 180-Foot Aquifer

11

Transport Model Calibration of Seawater Intrusion 400-Foot Aquifer

12

180-Foot Aquifer Baseline vs. Slant Well Feedwater Supply Scenario (22 MGD)
Groundwater Elevations

13

180-Foot Aquifer Baseline vs. Slant Well Feedwater Supply Scenario (22 MGD)
Groundwater Elevations (Close-Up)

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.

iii
198

California American Water

North Marina Groundwater Model


Evaluation of Potential Projects

26-Sep-08

FIGURES

No.

Description

14

180-Foot Aquifer Slant Well Feedwater Supply Scenario (22 MGD) Hydrographs

15

180-Foot Aquifer Baseline vs. Slant Well Feedwater Supply Scenario (22 MGD)
Seawater Intrusion

16

Predicted TDS Concentrations from Regional Project Slant Wells

17

180-Foot Aquifer Baseline vs. Regional Project Scenario 3a Groundwater


Elevations

18

Regional Project Scenario 3a Hydrographs

19

180-Foot Aquifer Baseline vs. Regional Project Scenario 3a Seawater Intrusion

20

Predicted TDS Concentrations from Regional Project Scenario 3a Extraction


Wells

21

180-Foot Aquifer Baseline vs. Regional Project Scenario 4b Groundwater


Elevations

22

Regional Project Scenario 4b Hydrographs

23

180-Foot Aquifer Baseline vs. Regional Project Scenario 4b Seawater Intrusion

24

Predicted TDS Concentrations from Regional Project Scenario 4b Extraction


Wells

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.

iv
199

California American Water

North Marina Groundwater Model


Evaluation of Potential Projects

26-Sep-08

NORTH MARINA GROUNDWATER MODEL


EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL PROJECTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION
California American Water (CAW) faces a regulatory-driven need to replace most of its existing
water supply, in order to meet long-term water demands of its Monterey Peninsula customers.
The Monterey County Water Resources Agency (MCWRA) has a statutory obligation to reduce
seawater intrusion in the lower Salinas Valley (see Figure 1). Thus, in order to respond to these
water resource challenges, three potential projects have been proposed, the second and third of
which are being jointly evaluated by CAW, MCWRA, Marina Coast Water District and
Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency, as alternatives to be included in CAWs
Coastal Water Project (CWP) environmental impact report (EIR). The first CWP alternative is
CAWs North Marina slant-well seawater desalination project. The second alternative is the
Monterey Regional Water Supply Project Scenario 3a. The third alternative is the Monterey
Regional Water Supply Project Scenario 4b. As part of assessing the feasibility and potential
impacts of these three projects on groundwater levels and groundwater quality (i.e., seawater
intrusion), groundwater modeling has been conducted. GEOSCIENCE was contracted by CAW
to develop a groundwater flow and solute transport model to evaluate the various projects. The
results of the modeling work will provide technical input for the CWP environmental impact
report being prepared by ESA for the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), which is
scheduled to be completed by December 2008.
In summary, the three CWP alternative projects evaluated in this modeling analysis are:
1. CAWs Coastal Water Project (CWP) is a plan to develop new water supplies to replace
approximately three-fourths of its historical diversions from the Carmel River and
Seaside Groundwater Basin. A central feature of the CWP is a proposed desalination

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.

1
200

California American Water

North Marina Groundwater Model


Evaluation of Potential Projects

26-Sep-08

plant co-located at the Moss Landing electric power generation station that would use
reverse osmosis (RO) to convert seawater into potable water. Because the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that project alternatives be studied for
inclusion in EIRs, CAW has also proposed for CPUCs consideration a seawater
desalination facility with the feedwater intake system being six slant wells constructed at
the Marina Coast Water Districts former desalination well site on the north side of the
Marina State Beach (see Figure 2).
2. The Monterey Regional Water Supply Project Scenario 3a is proposed to meet CAWs
regulatory replacement and long-term regional water needs, improve seawater-intruded
Salinas Basin groundwater, and expand agricultural deliveries. One component of the
project would be a well field extraction system that pumps both saline and brackish water
from the 180-Foot aquifer. The saline water wells will be located in a line approximately
1,000 ft away from and parallel to the coast, with the brackish water wells located
approximately 2,600 ft inland of the saline water wells (see Figure 2).
3. The Monterey Regional Water Supply Project Scenario 4b is also proposed to meet
CAWs regulatory replacement and long-term regional water needs, improve seawaterintruded Salinas Basin groundwater, and expand agricultural deliveries. The Monterey
Regional Project Scenario 4b is a coastal well field extraction system (see Figure 2) as a
source of both saline and brackish water from the 180-Foot Aquifer of the Salinas Valley
Groundwater Basin for a regional desalination facility.

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.

2
201

California American Water

North Marina Groundwater Model


Evaluation of Potential Projects

26-Sep-08

2.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE


The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate impacts of potential water supply projects on
groundwater levels and groundwater quality (i.e., seawater intrusion) using a calibrated
groundwater flow and solute transport model.

The effort included integrating the aquifer

parameters, recharge and discharge terms, boundary conditions and predictive scenarios from the
regional Salinas Valley Integrated Ground Water and Surface Model (SVIGSM) with the
focused model. This method ensured that both regional impacts (using the SVIGSM) as well as
detailed impacts (using the North Marina Model) could be evaluated.
To accomplish this, GEOSCIENCE worked closely with Water Resources & Information
Management Engineering, Inc. (WRIME), RBF and RMC to ensure that the North Marina model
mirrored the SVIGSM and provided the same overall results. However, the focused model
included improved simulation of groundwater level changes (due to the finer model cell size),
and capability for solute transport modeling (i.e., modeling of seawater intrusion). Specifically,
the work included:

Development of a focused, 100 ft square cell size MODFLOW groundwater flow and
MT3D solute transport model based on inputs from the SVIGSM model;
Evaluation of impacts from pumping six low angled subsea slant wells as a desalination
feedwater intake supply as part of CAWs Coastal Water Project (CWP); and
Evaluation of impacts from the Monterey Regional Water Supply Project as source water
for a desalination plant at Armstrong Ranch.

The purpose of this report is to document the construction of the focused groundwater flow
model (North Marina model) which included input and compatibility with the SVIGSM, and to
present results of various predictive scenarios.

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.

3
202

California American Water

North Marina Groundwater Model


Evaluation of Potential Projects

26-Sep-08

3.0 GEOHYDROLOGY
The Salinas Valley is filled with Tertiary and Quaternary marine and terrestrial sediments that
include up to 2,000 ft of saturated alluvium (DWR, 2003). Groundwater recharge of the lower
Salinas Valley is primarily from underflow originating in the upper valley. This is due to the
existence of the Salinas Valley Aquitard which limits areal recharge of aquifers beneath.
Seawater intrusion is an additional and more recent source of recharge to the groundwater basin
(DWR, 2003).
Historically, groundwater flow was towards the ocean and discharged in the walls of the
Monterey Submarine Canyon (see Figure 2). With increased pumping in the groundwater basin
since the 1970s, groundwater flow is dominantly northeastwards (DWR, 2003). Overpumping
of the shallow aquifers, largely for agricultural use, has caused significant seawater intrusion.

3.1 Groundwater Basin Boundaries


The proposed projects are located at the northwestern boundary of the Salinas Valley
Groundwater Basin (see Figure 1).

The Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin extends

approximately 100 miles from headwaters in the southeast to Monterey Bay in the northwest.

3.2 Aquifer Systems


Water-bearing materials in the vicinity of North Marina from oldest to youngest consist of:

Pliocene marine Purisima Formation,

Plio-Pleistocene Paso Robles Formation,

Pleistocene Aromas Red Sands, and

Holocene Valley Fill materials (Green, 1970).

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.

4
203

California American Water

North Marina Groundwater Model


Evaluation of Potential Projects

26-Sep-08

In the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin, the Valley Fill, Aromas Sands, and Paso Robles
Formation comprise an upper aquifer system from 0 to 1,000 ft below ground level (bgs). The
Pliocene Purisima Formation contains a deep aquifer system from approximately 1,000 to
2,000 ft bgs (Hanson et. al., 2002).
180-Foot, 400-Foot and Deeper Aquifers
Aquifers in the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin have been named for the average depth at
which they occur. The 180-Foot Aquifer lies at an approximate depth of 50 to 250 ft, and has
a thickness of 50 to 150 ft (Green, 1970). The 180-Foot Aquifer may correlate in part with older
portions of Quaternary terrace deposits or the upper Aromas Red Sands, and underlies blue clay
confining layer known as the Salinas Aquitard (DWR, 2003). The Salinas Aquitard varies in
thickness from 25 ft to more than 100 ft thick near Nashua Road, 5 miles west of Salinas
(DWR, 1973, Montgomery Watson, 1994).

Zones of discontinuous aquifers and aquitards

approximately 10 to 70 ft thick underlie the 180-Foot Aquifer (DWR, 1973). The 400-Foot
Aquifer lies at an approximate depth of 270 to 470 ft bgs, has a thickness of 25 to 200 ft, and
may correlate with the Aromas Red Sands and the upper part of the Paso Robles Formation
(Green, 1970). The 400-Foot Aquifer is present as three beds near Castroville, two of which are
25 ft thick and one which is 100 ft thick (DWR, 1973). A deeper aquifer, also referred to as the
900-Foot Aquifer, is separated from the overlying 400-Foot Aquifer by a blue marine clay
aquitard (DWR, 2003).
Existing published reports contain geohydrologic cross sections of varying detail and
applicability to the proposed site such as those available in Green (1970), DWR (1973), DWR
(1977), Johnson (1983), Harding ESE (2001), Hanson (2003), Feeney and Rosenberg (2002),
and Kennedy/Jenks Consultants (2004).

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.

5
204

California American Water

North Marina Groundwater Model


Evaluation of Potential Projects

26-Sep-08

3.3 Water Quality and Seawater Intrusion


The 180-Foot aquifer, when not impacted by seawater, is a calcium sulfate to sodium bicarbonate
sulfate groundwater (DWR, 2003). Where the aquifer has been intruded by seawater it typically
changes to a sodium chloride to calcium chloride type water. Total dissolved solids (TDS)
values range from 223 to 1,103 mg/L, with an average of 478 mg/L (DWR, 2003). TDS
concentrations in the 400-Foot aquifer are generally lower than in the 180-Foot aquifer. The
aquifers below the 180-Foot, 400-Foot and deeper aquifers can have high salinity that may be
related to dissolution of salts from the saline marine clays (Hanson, et al., 2002).
In the North Marina area, seawater has intruded approximately 3 to 7 miles landward within
the 180-Foot Aquifer, and to 3 miles landward within the 400-Foot Aquifer (see Figure 3) 1 .
Seawater intrusion in the 180-Foot and 400-Foot Aquifers was estimated to be 8,900 acre-ft/yr in
1995 (MCWRA, 2001). It has been reported that between 1970 and 1992 the seawater intrusion
was 11,300 acre-ft/yr in the 180-Foot Aquifer, 4,600 acre-ft/yr in the 400-Foot Aquifer, and
800 acre-ft/yr in the Deep Aquifer (Montgomery Watson, 1994).
The main sources of seawater intrusion are subsea outcrops of the 180-Foot and 400-Foot
Aquifers on the bottom of Monterey Bay, discovered by the U.S. Geological Survey in 1970 (see
Figure 2). There are also areas of active erosion along the south wall of the Monterey Submarine
Canyon (see Figure 2) where the outcrops are located, representing new entrances for seawater
intrusion (DWR, 1973; Green, 1970).

http://www.mcwra.co.monterey.ca.us/SVWP/01swi180.pdf;
http://www.mcwra.co.monterey.ca.us/SVWP/01swi400.pdf , Accessed 6-Jun-08.

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.

6
205

California American Water

North Marina Groundwater Model


Evaluation of Potential Projects

26-Sep-08

4.0 POTENTIAL PROJECTS


The three potential projects that are the subject of this report include CAWs Coastal Water
Project (CWP) North Marina Alternative (NMA) seawater slant-wells project, and Monterey
Regional Water Supply Project (RWSP) Scenario 3a, and Regional Water Supply Project
Scenario 4b. The NMA and RWSP both involve extraction of saline water as feedwater for
desalination plants. These projects are described in more detail in the following sections.
Summary of Potential Projects
Potential Project

Project Purpose

Agency

Primary Project Facilities

Project Location

CAW Slant Well


Desalination
Feedwater Supply
Project

Develop new water


supplies to replace
historical diversions
from Carmel River

California
American
Water
Company

Desalination plant using


RO. Six slant wells to
provide a feedwater supply
of 22 mgd

Marina Coast Water


District Facility (north
end of Marina State
Beach)

Monterey Regional
Water Supply
Project Scenario 3a

Meet regional
needs, improve
salinated
groundwater and
expand agricultural
deliveries

Consortium
of Several
Agencies

Desalination plant at
Armstrong Ranch using ten
vertical wells extracting
both saline and brackish
water from the 180 ft
aquifer at a total rate of
23.4 mgd

North and south of the


Salinas River adjacent
to the coast

Monterey Regional
Water Supply
Project Scenario 4b

Meet regional
needs, improve
salinated
groundwater and
expand agricultural
deliveries

Consortium
of Several
Agencies

Desalination plant at
Armstrong Ranch using
five vertical wells
extracting both saline and
brackish water from the
180 ft aquifer at a total rate
of 17.8 mgd

North and south of the


Salinas River adjacent
to the coast

4.1 CAW Slant Well Desalination Feedwater Supply Project


CAWs NMA is a CWP alternative project proposed to develop new water supplies in order to
replace most of CAWs historical diversions from the Carmel River and Seaside Basin. A
central feature of the NMA is a proposed desalination plant that would use reverse osmosis (RO)
GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.

7
206

California American Water

North Marina Groundwater Model


Evaluation of Potential Projects

26-Sep-08

to convert seawater into potable water, with the feedwater intake system consisting of six slant
wells 2 (RBF, 2008). The slant wells would be constructed on the site of Marina Coast Water
Districts former desalination intake wells on the north side of Marina State Beach at
11 Reservation Road, Marina, CA (see Figure 2). RBFs design for the CAW slant well project
comprises six wells that would radiate out in three clusters of two wells per cluster towards and
beneath the ocean (see Figure 4). The layout described above is a later refinement of the slant
well layout that was modeled using the North Marina Model (see Section 6.0 for details of the
modeled layout). Modeling results and impacts will not be expected to be much different
between the two layouts. However, of the two layouts, the modeled layout represents a worstcase scenario due to shorter well lengths and steeper angle of the wells. The steeper angled wells
and shorter lengths result in less ocean water extraction due to the greater distance between the
ocean floor and screened interval. The combined amount of water that would be pumped by the
slant wells for each layout would be the same, i.e., 22 mgd.

4.2 Monterey Regional Water Supply Project 3a


The RWSP Scenario 3a is designed to meet regional water supply needs, improve seawater
intruded groundwater, and expand agricultural deliveries. There are a number of components
that comprise the project, with regional desalination being one of them.

Feedwater for a

desalination plant at Armstrong Ranch will be obtained from a vertical well field extraction
system that pumps both saline and brackish water from the 180-Foot aquifer. The saline water
wells will be located in a line approximately 1,000 ft away from and parallel to the coast, with
the brackish water wells located approximately 2,600 ft inland of the saline water wells (see
Figure 2).
Initially, twelve wells were considered and modeled as Scenario 2e. These wells had variable
pumping schedules that ranged from approximately 1.5 mgd to 3.1 mgd. Ultimately, based on
2

Each well will be 20 degrees below horizontal, 700 lineal feet and completed with 12-inch diameter casing
and perforated interval.

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.

8
207

California American Water

North Marina Groundwater Model


Evaluation of Potential Projects

26-Sep-08

regional modeling by WRIME, a most likely scenario (3a) was developed. Under scenario 3a,
the well field will produce saline water from five coastal or seaward wells, and brackish water
from five inland wells. The five seaward wells would each pump constantly at 1,549 gpm, and
the five inland wells each pump constantly at 1,697 gpm, for a combined total of 23.4 mgd

4.3 Monterey Regional Water Supply Project 4b


The RWSP Scenario 4b is also designed to meet regional water supply needs, improve seawater
intruded groundwater, and expand agricultural deliveries. There are a number of components
that comprise the project, with regional desalination being one of them.

Feedwater for a

desalination plant at Armstrong Ranch will be obtained from a vertical well field extraction
system that pumps both saline and brackish water from the 180-Foot aquifer. Under Scenario
4b, five desalination (i.e., extraction) wells would each pump constantly at approximately
2,480 gallons per minute (gpm), for a combined total of approximately 17.8 million gallons per
day (mgd).

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.

9
208

California American Water

North Marina Groundwater Model


Evaluation of Potential Projects

26-Sep-08

5.0 NORTH MARINA GROUNDWATER FLOW AND SOLUTE TRANSPORT MODEL


5.1 General Description and Purpose of Model
The purpose of the North Marina groundwater flow and solute transport model (North Marina
Model) was to evaluate impacts of various water supply projects on groundwater levels and
seawater intrusion. Due to the established use of the regional model (SVIGSM) for groundwater
management in the Salinas Valley, the focused North Marina Model was constructed by
integrating the SVIGSM aquifer parameters, recharge and discharge terms, boundary conditions
and predictive scenarios to ensure consistency between the two models. The North Marina
model developed to specifically focus on the North Marina area has a much finer cell size to
improve resolution in the vicinity of the proposed projects. It also includes a water quality
component that the SVIGSM does not have.

5.2 Description of Model Codes


MODFLOW and MT3DMS are the model computer codes used for the North Marina Model.
MODFLOW is a block-centered, three-dimensional, finite difference groundwater flow model
developed by the USGS for the purpose of modeling groundwater flow. MT3DMS is a modular
three-dimensional multispecies transport model for simulation of advection, dispersion, and
chemical reactions of contaminants in groundwater systems (Zheng and Wang, 1998). The
SEAWAT 3 program was also used to compare the results from the MODFLOW and MT3DMS.
In general, MODFLOW and MT3DMS yield a very similar result compared to the SEAWAT
with slight differences in water level elevation (approximately one foot).

The SEAWAT program was developed by the United States Geologic Survey (Guo and Langevin, 2002) to simulate threedimensional, variable density, groundwater flow and solute transport in porous media. The source code for SEAWAT was
developed by combining MODFLOW and MT3DMS into a single program that solves the coupled flow and solute transport
equations.

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.

10
209

California American Water

North Marina Groundwater Model


Evaluation of Potential Projects

26-Sep-08

5.3 Use of the Salinas Valley Integrated Ground Water and Surface Water Model
The SVIGSM is a regional model encompassing the entire Salinas Valley (approximately
650 square miles). It is a finite element model, with an average element size of approximately
0.4 square miles (Montgomery Watson, 1994). The North Marina Model is a detailed model
with cell size of 200 ft by 200 ft covering an area of approximately 149 square miles (see Figure
5). Since the SVIGSM encompasses the entire North Marina Model, calibrated SVIGSM model
data including the aquifer parameters, recharge and discharge terms, and boundary conditions in
the North Marina model area were used to construct the North Marina Model. This procedure is
similar to the telescopic mesh refinement method (Anderson and Woessner, 1992).

The

SVIGSM with its coarse grid network is the Regional Model and is used to model a large
problem domain bounded by the physical limits of the aquifer system. The SVIGSM solution is
used to define the Local Model (i.e., North Marina Model) boundaries, which define the
smaller (focused) problem domain.
The pre-processing software Groundwater Vistas 4 was used to construct the MODFLOW
groundwater flow model based on SVIGSM groundwater model files, and MT3DMS solute
transport model. The recharge and discharge terms and water level data used for the boundary
conditions cover the period from October 1979 to September 1994 on a monthly basis. This
same period was used for the North Marina Model transient model calibration. For the model
predictive scenarios, the monthly data from the SVIGSM for the period from October 1948
through September 2004 was used for the North Marina Model predictive scenarios.

Environmental Simulations, Inc., 2005. Groundwater Vistas, Version 5.

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.

11
210

California American Water

North Marina Groundwater Model


Evaluation of Potential Projects

26-Sep-08

Comparison of Focused North Marina Groundwater Model


with Regional Groundwater Model
Groundwater
Model

Model Purpose

Type of Model

Focused North
Marina Model

Evaluate detailed
projects in the vicinity of
the North Marina coastal
area- groundwater levels
and quality

Flow and Solute


Transport
Finite Difference
MODFLOW 2000,
MT3DMS,
SEAWAT 2000

Regional
Groundwater
Model
(SVIGSM)

Evaluate regional
projects and impacts on
regional groundwater
levels in the entire
Salinas Valley

Finite Element
Groundwater Flow
Model
Groundwater and
Surface Water

Model
Area,
sq. mi.

Cell or
Element
Size

No of
Layers

Total Model
Layer
Thickness
(Average, ft)

149

Cell
Size =
200 ft x
200 ft

1,570

650

Element
Size =
0.4 sq.
mi.

1,570

5.4 Conceptual Model


The North Marina Model was developed for the upper approximately 1,000 ft of unconsolidated
to semi-consolidated sediments within the North Marina area of the Salinas Valley Groundwater
Basin. This conceptual model is the same as that used for the SVIGSM (Montgomery Watson,
1994). The groundwater model consists of six model layers as summarized in the table below.
Summary of North Marina and SVIGSM Model Layers

Model
Layer

North Marina Model

SVIGSM

Only active beneath the ocean and is assumed


to be 1 ft thick 5

Constant head boundary of Model Layer 1

180-Foot Aquifer

Model Layer 1

Aquitard

NA

400-Foot Aquifer

Model Layer 2

Aquitard

NA

Deep Aquifer

Model Layer 3

The sole purpose of Model Layer 1 is to allow vertical leakage from the ocean into underlying aquifers.

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.

12
211

California American Water

North Marina Groundwater Model


Evaluation of Potential Projects

26-Sep-08

Schematic Diagram Showing Focused and Regional Model Layers


Showing Average Layer Thickness
180-Foot Aquifer

Focused Model

Regional Model
1

5.5 NorthOcean
Marina Model Grid and Boundary Conditions

Layer 1
Sea Floor

1 ft

ft
The North150Marina
six-layer groundwater flow model grid covering an area of approximately

180-Foot Aquifer 2
Aquitard

90 ft

ft
149 square280miles
with a finite-difference grid consisting of 300 rows in the
northeast to
400-Foot Aquifer 4
3
150 ft
5
southwest
direction and 345 columns in the northwest to southeast direction for a total of

Aquitard

621,000 cells. The model cells are uniform throughout the entire model area and measure 200 ft
Deep Aquifer

900 ft

by 200 ft. See Figure 5 for the location and layout of the model grid.
By definition, a boundary condition is any external influence or effect that either acts as a source
or sink, adding to or removing water from the groundwater flow system.

The boundary

conditions used in the model are no-flow, constant head, river and general head boundary.
No-flow cells were assigned to the non-alluvial or bedrock portions and portions of the open
water of the Pacific Ocean of the model area. The constant head boundary of 0 ft above mean
sea level (amsl) and constant TDS concentration of 35,000 mg/L were specified only in Model
Layer 1 between the shoreline and the exposure of 180-Foot aquifer to allow vertical leakage
from the ocean into the 180-Foot Aquifer (Model Layer 2). Similarly, the River Package was
used to simulate the vertical leakage from the ocean into 400-Foot Aquifer (Model Layer 4).
The eastern, northern, and southern edges of the active model area represent subsurface
underflow and were simulated using the general head boundary package with a specified head
based on the model simulated groundwater elevation from the SVIGSM.

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.

13
212

California American Water

North Marina Groundwater Model


Evaluation of Potential Projects

26-Sep-08

5.6 Aquifer Parameters


The top and bottom elevations for Model Layer 2 through 6 were based on data from the SVIGSM.
The top elevations for Model Layer 1 were assumed to be 1 ft above the top elevation of Model
Layer 1 to allow vertical leakage from the ocean into the 180-Foot Aquifer (Model Layer 2).
Horizontal hydraulic conductivity for Model Layers 2 (180-Foot Aquifer), 4 (400-Foot Aquifer)
and 6 (Deep Aquifer) and vertical hydraulic conductivity for Model Layers 3 and 5 (aquiclude)
were obtained from SVIGSM. The vertical hydraulic conductivity for Model Layers 2, 4 and 6
was estimated assuming 1/20 of the horizontal hydraulic conductivity for Model Layers 2, 4 and
6 (i.e., ratio of horizontal hydraulic conductivity/vertical hydraulic conductivity = 20). The
horizontal hydraulic conductivity for Model Layers 3 and 5 was estimated assuming 500 of the
vertical hydraulic conductivity for Model Layers 3 and 5 (i.e., ratio of horizontal hydraulic
conductivity/vertical hydraulic conductivity = 500). Typically, the ratios of horizontal hydraulic
conductivity/vertical hydraulic conductivity fall in the range of 2 to 10 for alluvium and up to
100 or more occur where clay layers are present (Todd, 1980).

A horizontal hydraulic

conductivity of 500 ft/day and a vertical hydraulic conductivity of 25 ft/day was used for Model
Layer 1 based on model calibration results.
The specific storativity and effective porosity values for Model Layers 2 through 6 were based
on the SVIGSM. A specific yield (i.e., effective porosity) of 0.25 was used for Model Layer 1
based on the model calibration results. During the transport model calibration, in order to match
the observed seawater intrusion front, the effective porosity of 0.06 for Model Layer 4 was
increased to 0.1.
Longitudinal dispersivity was estimated initially from the relationship between longitudinal
dispersivity and scale of observation (Zheng and Bennett, 2002) and adjusted during model
calibration.

A longitudinal dispersivity of 20 ft results in a good match between model-

calculated and the observed seawater intrusion front.

The ratio of horizontal transverse

dispersivity to longitudinal dispersivity was assumed to be 0.1, while the ratio of vertical
transverse dispersivity to longitudinal dispersivity was assumed to be 0.01.

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.

14
213

California American Water

North Marina Groundwater Model


Evaluation of Potential Projects

26-Sep-08

The following table summarizes aquifer parameters used in the North Marina model.
Summary of Aquifer Parameters Used
in the North Marina Groundwater Model
Dispersivity
Horizontal
Vertical
LongituTransverse Transverse
dinal
[ft]
[ft]
[ft]

Model
Layer

Horizontal
Hydraulic
Conductivity
[ft/day]

Vertical
Hydraulic
Conductivity
[ft/day]

Specific
Storativity
[ft-1]

Specific
Yield
(Effective
Porosity)

500

25

0.25

20

0.2

25 to 250

1.25 to 12.5

0.000008 to
0.00006

0.08 to
0.16

20

0.2

0.02 to 6.8

0.00004 to
0.0136

0.0000001
to 0.00005

0.02

20

0.2

5 to 100

0.25 to 5

0.000001 to
0.00007

0.1

20

0.2

1.8

0.0036

0.00000006
to 0.00002

0.02

20

0.2

20 to 25

1 to 1.25

0.00000002
to 0.000005

0.06

20

0.2

2
(180-Foot
Aquifer)
3
(Aquiclude)
4
(400-Foot
Aquifer)
5
(Aquiclude)
6
(Deep
Aquifer)

5.7 Recharge and Discharge


Monthly data for deep percolation from precipitation and applied water (including return flow),
stream recharge and groundwater pumping in the North Marina Model area for the model
calibration period October 1979 to September 1994 were obtained from the SVIGSM.

In

addition, model simulated groundwater elevations during the same period of time in the north,
south and east North Marina Model boundaries were also obtained from the SVIGSM. This
allowed for calculation of subsurface inflow and outflow across the North Marina Model
boundaries using a General Head Boundary Package. Vertical leakage from the ocean into
Model Layer 2 (180-Foot Aquifer) and Model Layer 4 (400-Foot Aquifer) was simulated using a
constant head boundary in Model Layer 1 and a River Package in Model Layer 4, respectively.

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.

15
214

California American Water

North Marina Groundwater Model


Evaluation of Potential Projects

26-Sep-08

5.8 Model Calibration


5.8.1

Calibration Methodology

Model calibration was performed in order to compare model-simulated water levels and TDS
concentrations to field-measured values. The method of calibration used by the groundwater
model was the industry standard history matching technique. In this method, a transient
calibration period from October 1979 to September 1994 were used based on the data obtained
from the SVIGSM. The transient model calibration was simulated with a monthly stress period 6
for a total of 180 stress periods (i.e., 15 years).
Since the North Marina Model was developed based on the calibrated SVIGSM, the model
calibration mainly focused on matching the observed seawater intrusion front in the 180-Foot
Aquifer and 400-Foot Aquifer over time. The trial-and-error method was used to calibrate
aquifer parameters.

These aquifer parameters included horizontal hydraulic conductivity,

vertical hydraulic conductivity, effective porosity and dispersivity.

5.8.2

Initial Conditions

Initial conditions for the transient calibration of the North Marina Model include groundwater
elevations and TDS concentrations for October 1979. Groundwater elevation in October 1979
generated from the SVIGSM was provided by WRIME and was imported into the model using
Groundwater Vistas. The initial TDS concentrations were estimated based on the observed
seawater intrusion (500 mg/L chloride contour from Monterey County Water Resources Agency
maps) and measured TDS concentration in wells. TDS concentration of seawater was assumed
to be 35,000 mg/L.

An empirical relationship between chloride and TDS for seawater

(GEOSCIENCE, 1993) was used to convert estimated chloride contours to initial TDS contours.

Stress period is the time length used to change model parameters such as groundwater pumping and stream
recharge.

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.

16
215

California American Water

North Marina Groundwater Model


Evaluation of Potential Projects

5.8.3

26-Sep-08

Calibration Results

For the model calibration, historical groundwater level data for 14 wells within the North Marina
Model area were obtained from WRIME and compared with model-generated groundwater
levels. Of the 14 wells, two wells are screened in the 180-Foot Aquifer (Model Layer 2), eight
wells are screened in the 400-Foot Aquifer (Model Layer 4), and four wells are screened in the
Deep Aquifer (Model Layer 6). The same 14 wells were also used for the SVIGSM calibration.
Figures 6 through 8 show hydrographs of model-generated water levels compared to measured
levels for the wells screened in the 180-Foot Aquifer, 400-Foot Aquifer, and Deep Aquifer,
respectively. In general, the pattern of the model-generated and measured water levels are
similar in that the model appears to capture the long- and short-term temporal trends in
groundwater levels in most parts of the North Marina Model area.
A histogram of water level residuals (measured water level less model-generated water level) is
shown on Figure 9. The histogram shows a bell shape with most of the residual 7 water level
being in the range of +/- 10 ft (68% of 2,152 water level measurements), indicating an acceptable
model calibration.
In order to evaluate the solute transport model calibration, the model-generated seawater
intrusion front for the 180-Foot Aquifer and 400-Foot Aquifer in years 1985 and 1994 were
plotted and compared to the observed seawater intrusion front (see Figures 10 and 11). In
general, the model-generated seawater intrusion front matches the observed seawater intrusion
front. The model-generated migration rate of the seawater intrusion front agrees with the rate
estimated from observed data as can be seen by comparing the movement of the seawater
intrusion front between 1985 and 1994.

The residual is the difference between measured water levels and model-generated levels.

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.

17
216

California American Water

North Marina Groundwater Model


Evaluation of Potential Projects

26-Sep-08

6.0 MODEL PREDICTIVE SCENARIOS


Four model predictive scenarios were run for a 56-year period from October 1948 through
September 2004 with monthly stress periods.

This hydrologic period is also the model

calibration period for the SVIGSM and has been previously used for predictive scenarios for
purposes of basin management.
The three predictive scenarios that were run using the North Marina model included:

Baseline (developed by WRIME),

Slant Well Desalination Feedwater Supply,

Regional Project Scenario 3a (developed by WRIME), and

Regional Project Scenario 4b (developed by WRIME).

The Baseline and Regional Project scenarios 3a and 4b were developed and run using the
SVIGSM by WRIME. The recharge and discharge terms and model simulated water level
elevations from each of the SVIGSM predictive scenarios for the period from October 1948
through September 2004 were used for North Marina Model predictive scenarios.
Initial groundwater elevations for the model predictive scenarios were the same as the SVIGSM
and were provided by WRIME. The initial TDS concentrations were estimated based on the
observed seawater intrusion (500 mg/L chloride contour) and TDS concentrations in wells
measured in 2005.

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.

18
217

California American Water

North Marina Groundwater Model


Evaluation of Potential Projects

26-Sep-08

Summary of Groundwater Model Predictive Scenarios Run Using the North Marina Model
Predictive Scenario

Initial and Boundary


Conditions

Project Facilities

Baseline Scenario
(No Project)

Baseline Boundary
Conditions provided by
Regional Model

Land and water use reflect estimated 2030


conditions

Slant Well Desalination


Feedwater Supply

Baseline Boundary
Conditions provided by
Regional Model

Five slant wells producing 2,696 gpm ea. One


Test Well producing 1,797 gpm for a total
production of 22 mgd.

Regional Project 3a

Scenario 3a Boundary
Conditions provided by
Regional Model

Five seaward wells in the 180-Foot aquifer pump


at a constant rate of 1,549 gpm ea. Five inland
wells pump at constant rate of 1,697 gpm ea..
Total production from the 10 wells = 23.4 mgd

Regional Project 4b

Scenario 4b Boundary
Conditions provided by
Regional Model

Five seaward wells in the 180-Foot aquifer pump


at a constant rate of 2,480 gpm ea.
Total production from the 5 wells = 17.8 mgd

Assumptions made for each of the model scenarios are provided below:
1. Baseline

Boundary conditions were provided by WRIME,

Land use and water use indicative of 2030 conditions (WRIME, 2008), and

Refined version of the Future Conditions Baseline utilized by the EIR/EIS for the
Salinas Valley Water Project (WRIME, 2008).

2. CAW Slant Well Desalination Feedwater Supply Project

Boundary conditions were the same as those provided by WRIME for the Baseline,
Five slant wells are constructed at 22 degrees from horizontal with a length of
600 lineal ft, and one test well is constructed at 36 degrees from horizontal with a
length of 360 lineal ft. The wells do not extend deeper than 180 ft below sea level,

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.

19
218

California American Water

North Marina Groundwater Model


Evaluation of Potential Projects

26-Sep-08

Five full scale wells would produce approximately 2,696 gpm (3.88 mgd each), and
the one test well would produce approximately 1,797 gpm (2.59 mgd) for a total
production of 22 mgd, and
Given the angle of the slant wells from the land surface (22 degrees), the length of the
slant wells was limited so that they would be completed in the dune sand deposits and
would remain above the theoretical 180-Foot aquifer (i.e., above 180 ft below sea
level). However, in the vicinity of the slant wells, Model Layer 2 (180-Foot aquifer)
comprises both the dune sand deposit and the 180-Foot aquifer as there is no Salinas
Aquitard above the 180-Foot Aquifer (see Harding ESE cross-section D-D, Plate 6).
Although the slant wells are supposed to be pumping from above the theoretical
180-Foot aquifer, due to the vertical distribution of the model layers, lithology, and
cross-sections (WRIME, 1994), the model has the wells extracting water from both
the dune sand deposits and 180-Foot aquifer (i.e., Model Layer 2).

3. Regional Project Scenario 3a

Boundary conditions were provided by WRIME,

Five seaward wells each pump constantly at 1,549 gpm,

Five inland wells each pump constantly at 1,697 gpm,

The combined total production for the well field would be 23.4 mgd, and

Wells are screened completely in the 180-Foot aquifer. Note: as the 180-Foot aquifer
is one complete model layer, there is no discretization that would allow for
apportioning extraction from a specific portion of the aquifer, as such, the model
allows for an even distribution of pumping throughout the depth of the aquifer.

4. Regional Project Scenario 4b

Boundary conditions were provided by WRIME,

Five extraction wells each pump constantly at 2,480 gpm,

The combined total production for the well field would be 17.8 mgd, and

Wells are screened completely in the 180-Foot Aquifer.

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.

20
219

California American Water

North Marina Groundwater Model


Evaluation of Potential Projects

26-Sep-08

7.0 GROUNDWATER FLOW AND SOLUTE TRANSPORT MODEL RESULTS


7.1 CAW Slant Well Desalination Feedwater Supply Project
The Slant Well scenario shows that the six slant wells pumping continuously would cause a
slight change in groundwater flow directions and hydraulic gradients compared to Baseline (or
No Project) conditions. Figures 12 and 13 show the difference in groundwater levels between
Baseline (No Project) and the Slant Well Project. The general differences between scenarios are
summarized below:

In normal hydrologic years (precipitation is close to the long-term average), groundwater


flow caused by the Slant Well Project remains similar to if there was no project (southwest to
northeast), with the exception of the flattening out the northeastwards flow of groundwater
and the development of a localized cone of depression that is up to 15 ft below sea level in
close proximity to the slant wells.

Under wet hydrologic conditions (precipitation is well above average), the effects of the
Slant Well Project causes a slight steepening of the hydraulic gradient towards the slant
wells. However, flow directions generally remain the same as Baseline flow directions
outside of the slant well cone of depression 8 . Increased recharge to the 180-Foot aquifer
from infiltration of precipitation and streamflow percolation during wet years allows for
more groundwater outflow to the ocean.

In dry years (precipitation well below average), the groundwater elevations in the model area
for the Slant Well Project are very similar to Baseline (No Project) conditions. Flow is from
the west to the east, with a localized depression formed around the slant wells.

Due to complex spatial variations of the ground water elevation contours in the model area, a quantitative
description of the difference between scenarios cannot be provided. Figures 12 and 13, however, show a
direct comparison of contours for each scenario.

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.

21
220

California American Water

North Marina Groundwater Model


Evaluation of Potential Projects

26-Sep-08

After 56 years of operating the Slant Well Project, the inland groundwater elevations in the
180-Foot aquifer northeast of the slant wells would be slightly lower than under No Project
conditions. For example, there is an approximate 1 ft lowering of groundwater levels in
Marina Coast Water District Well 2 located one mile away from the slant wells after 56 years
(see Figure 14). Groundwater flow directions would be similar to normal hydrologic year
flow directions.

Selected hydrographs showing the Baseline (No Project) and Slant Well Project groundwater
elevations over the 56 years of the predictive model are provided on Figure 14. It is shown that
the decline in groundwater elevations at the slant well will be approximately 15 ft. The closest
production well, Marina Coast Water District Well 2 would have just less than a 2 ft decline in
levels due to the project (i.e., 5.3 ft amsl for baseline conditions less 3.4 ft amsl under project
conditions). At 1.5 miles to the north, the impacts of water levels will cause less than a 0.5 ft
decline (see location labeled 11 on Figure 14), with differences in water levels decreasing with
distance from the slant wells.
Figure 15 shows the 500 mg/L chloride limit of the seawater intrusion in the 180-Foot aquifer at
selected times over the 56 year model period. In general, the intrusion reduces at the same rate
as No Project conditions, with the exception of the area in close proximity to the slant wells
where the intrusion front reduces slightly slower than if the slant wells were not in operation.
The predicted TDS concentration for each of the six slant wells is shown on Figure 16. As can
be seen, with the exception of the southernmost slant well and test slant well, the wells are
extracting water with a concentration close to the assumed ocean water TDS of 35,000 mg/L.
The test slant well has a lower TDS due to its larger angle from horizontal (i.e., 36 degrees)
which results in more onshore groundwater being extracted because of its deeper depth below the
sea floor. The southernmost slant well also has a lower TDS which indicates that it intercepts
natural groundwater flow which moves from the southeast to the northwest (see Figure 12). In
effect, this southernmost slant well protects the other wells from being recharged by onshore
groundwater.
GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.

22
221

California American Water

North Marina Groundwater Model


Evaluation of Potential Projects

26-Sep-08

Over the 56 years, the blended TDS concentration of the feedwater extracted by the six slant
wells will average approximately 33,000 mg/L. The chart below shows the modeled TDS
concentrations over time.

Predicted Average Total Dissolved Solids Concentrations


Proposed Slant Well Feedwater Supply Scenario (22 MGD)
40,000

TDS Concentration, mg/L

35,000

30,000
Average TDS Concentration
(33,000 mg/L)
25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000
0

12

16

20

24
28
32
Years Since Start of Project

36

40

44

48

52

56

The predicted TDS concentration of 33,000 mg/L for the feedwater extracted by the six slant
wells is approximately 94 to 97 percent of the TDS concentration of seawater (34,000 to 35,000
mg/l). As the modeled layout represents a worse-case scenario (due to the steeper well angles),
the most recent layout (six 700 ft wells with a 20 degree angle proposed by RBF, 2008) would
most likely result in an even higher percentage of seawater in the extracted water.
The water budget presented in the table bellow shows all the model inflow and outflows as
calculated using the models cell-by-cell-budget. As can be seen in the table, operation of the
slant wells as feedwater for the desalination plant generally increases the amount of ocean water
GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.

23
222

California American Water

North Marina Groundwater Model


Evaluation of Potential Projects

26-Sep-08

flowing into the model and reduces the amount of groundwater flowing out into the ocean.
Along the inland model boundaries (second column of the table, i.e., general head boundary),
there will be a 762 acre-ft increase in the amount of water flowing into the model area from
inland areas. This amount represents approximately 1 percent of total inflow to the model area
(columns 2 through 4 in the table below), and as such would not have much of an impact on
surface or groundwater resources outside of the focused model area. The amount of 762 acre-ft
also represents only 3 percent of the project slant well pumping (column 6 in table below), which
supports the mass balance estimation of the amount of groundwater being extracted by the slant
wells.
Summary of Water Budget Baseline and Three Project Scenarios
Annual Average Values for Hydrologic Year 1949-2004
INFLOW

OUTFLOW

Northern,
Eastern and
Southern
Model
Boundary
(Underflow)

Stream
Recharge
and Deep
Percolation
from
Precipitation
and Applied
Water
(Irrigation)

Ocean
Inflow

Non-Project
Groundwater
Pumping

Project
Groundwater
Pumping

Stream
Discharge

Ocean
Outflow

[acre-ft/yr]

[acre-ft/yr]

[acreft/yr]

[acre-ft/yr]

[acre-ft/yr]

[acreft/yr]

[acreft/yr]

[acre-ft/yr]

12,398

36,783

4,032

35,850

1,971

15,220

172

Slant
Well
Project

13,160

36,783

23,938

35,850

24,631

1,971

11,643

-214

Regional
Project
Scenario
3a

11,809

34,958

22,363

27,643

26,200

1,676

13,429

182

Regional
Project
Scenario

11,005

34,033

19,302

27,779

20,000

2,270

13,976

315

Scenario

Baseline
(No
Project)

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.

24
223

Change in
Groundwater
Storage

California American Water

North Marina Groundwater Model


Evaluation of Potential Projects

26-Sep-08

7.2 Regional Project Scenario 3a


The Regional Project Scenario 3a shows that the ten seaward and inland wells pumping
continuously in the 180-Foot aquifer would create an extraction barrier or trough parallel to the
coast. This feature is formed as a result of seawater flowing inland towards the seawater wells
(the five wells closest to the ocean, see Figure 17), while brackish water from seawater intruded
groundwater flows seaward towards the five inland wells. Operating the wells continuously in
this manner will maintain a barrier that would prevent future seawater intrusion of the 180-Foot
aquifer.
Other changes in groundwater levels between Baseline (No Project) and the Regional Project
Scenario 3a within the focused model area are shown on Figure 17 and summarized below:

In normal hydrologic years (precipitation is close to the long-term average), groundwater


flow caused by the Regional Project Scenario 3a remains similar to if there was no project
(south west to northeast), with the exception of the pumping trough developed around the
Regional Project Scenario 3a desalination wells. This locally alters the groundwater flow by
drawing down groundwater by 10 ft more than would have occurred under No Project
conditions near the coast.

Under wet hydrologic condition (precipitation is well above average), the effects of the
Regional Project Scenario 3a are less than under normal hydrologic conditions. In general,
groundwater flow direction for No Project and Project conditions are quite similar, flowing
southwest to northeast with a component also flowing towards the ocean. Although the
pumping trough is still present, it has less of an effect south and east of the desalination wells
compared to No Project conditions.

Increased recharge to the 180-Foot aquifer from

infiltration of precipitation and streamflow percolation during wet years allows for more
groundwater outflow to the ocean.

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.

25
224

California American Water

North Marina Groundwater Model


Evaluation of Potential Projects

26-Sep-08

In dry years (precipitation well below average), the groundwater elevations east of the
Regional Project Scenario 3a wells are higher than under Baseline (No Project) conditions.
There is a strong component of groundwater flow from west to east (i.e., inland flow), which
is reversed from flow in wet conditions (i.e., towards the ocean). The pumping trough
developed by the Regional Project Scenario 3a in dry years will reduce the hydraulic gradient
towards the east compared to No Project conditions. In effect, the Regional Project Scenario
3a would reduce the rate of seawater intrusion which would normally be more prevalent
during dry years under No Project conditions.

After 56 years of operating the Regional Project Scenario 3a, the inland groundwater
elevations in the 180-Foot aquifer would be higher than under No Project conditions. The
area around the Project wells would have lower groundwater elevations due to the trough
developed by continuous pumping. Groundwater flow directions would be similar to normal
hydrologic year flow directions.

Selected hydrographs showing the Baseline (No Project) and Regional Project Scenario 3a
groundwater elevations over the 56 years of the predictive model are provided on Figure 18. In
general, the desalination wells of the Regional Project Scenario 3a show a decline in
groundwater levels of approximately 10 ft or less. Inland of the Project wells, differences in
groundwater levels between Baseline (No Project) and Project are minimal (less than 4 ft). This
includes wells completed in the 400-Foot aquifer and Deep Aquifer underlying the 180-Foot
aquifer. These deeper aquifers show almost no impacts from the Regional Project Scenario 3a
pumping in the 180-Foot aquifer.
Figure 19 shows the 500 mg/L chloride limit of the seawater intrusion in the 180-Foot aquifer at
selected times over the 56 year model period. In general, the intrusion is reduced at a faster rate
when the Regional Project Scenario 3a is operating compared to Baseline (No Project)
conditions. Only the area just south of the Salinas River mouth remains intruded longer than if

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.

26
225

California American Water

North Marina Groundwater Model


Evaluation of Potential Projects

26-Sep-08

there was no project. This is due to the trough that is designed to extract mostly seawater from
the seawater wells of the Regional Project Scenario 3a.
The predicted TDS concentration from the ten extraction wells is shown on Figure 20. As can be
seen, the seaward wells (1, 3, 4 and 5) all produce water with a TDS close to the assumed
seawater concentration of 35,000 mg/L. The southernmost seaward extraction well has more
fluctuating TDS concentrations, but still produces close to the 35,000 mg/L concentration. The
TDS concentration of the inland wells indicates that the wells are producing a mixture of
seawater and onshore groundwater. This suggests that the inland wells are effectively forming a
barrier to onshore groundwater flowing towards the ocean (i.e., they intercept before it gets to the
seaward wells). Thus, the seaward wells are able to extract more seawater than if the inland
wells were not there.
Over the 56 years, the blended TDS concentration of the feedwater extracted by the ten Regional
Project Scenario 3a wells will average approximately 25,000 mg/L. The chart below shows the
modeled TDS concentrations over time. The predicted TDS concentration of 25,000 mg/L for
the feedwater extracted by the ten Project wells is approximately 70 to 73 percent of the TDS
concentration of seawater (34,000 to 35,000 mg/L).

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.

27
226

California American Water

North Marina Groundwater Model


Evaluation of Potential Projects

26-Sep-08

Predicted Average Total Dissolved Solids Concentrations


Proposed Monterey Regional Water Supply Wells Scenario 3a
40,000

35,000

TDS Concentration, mg/L

Average TDS Concentration


(25,000 mg/L)
30,000

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000
0

12

16

20

24
28
32
Years Since Start of Project

36

40

44

48

52

56

The water budget (see Table in Section 7.1) for the Regional Project Scenario 3a shows that
similarly to the CAW slant well scenario, there will be increased ocean water inflow and
decreased outflow of onshore water to the ocean compared to the No Project (Baseline)
conditions. However, due to changes in regional pumping (non-project pumping) and use of
surface water for this scenario there would be a 589 acre-ft/yr decrease in the amount of water
flowing into the model from the northern, eastern and southern model boundary areas as
compared to No the Project (see column 2 of table in Section 7.1). This decrease in groundwater
inflow would have a beneficial impact on groundwater resources outside of the focused model
area (i.e. less impact on groundwater elevations). Inside the focused model area, the change in
groundwater storage for the Regional Project Scenario 3a would increase 10 acre-ft/yr as
compared to the No Project Scenario (see column 9 of table in Section 7.1). This would be a
beneficial impact to groundwater resources within the focused model area.

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.

28
227

California American Water

North Marina Groundwater Model


Evaluation of Potential Projects

26-Sep-08

7.3 Regional Project Scenario 4b


The Regional Project Scenario 4b shows that the five extraction wells pumping continuously in
the 180-Foot Aquifer would create an extraction barrier or trough parallel to the coast. This
feature is formed as the extraction wells pull in seawater (inland flow direction) and brackish
water from the seawater-intruded Salinas Valley aquifer (seaward flow direction) (see
Figure 21). Operating the wells continuously in this manner will maintain a barrier that would
prevent future seawater intrusion of the 180-Foot Aquifer.
Other changes in groundwater levels between Baseline (No Project) and the Regional Project
Scenario 4b within the focused model area are shown on Figure 21 and are summarized below:

In normal hydrologic years (precipitation is close to the long-term average), groundwater


flow caused by the Regional Project Scenario 4b remains similar to if there was no project
(southwest to northeast), with the exception of the pumping trough developed around the
Project extraction wells.

This locally alters the groundwater flow by drawing down

groundwater by 7 ft more than would have occurred under No Project conditions near the
coast.

Under wet hydrologic condition (precipitation is well above average), the effects of the
Regional Project Scenario 4b are less than under normal hydrologic conditions. In general,
groundwater flow direction for No Project and Project conditions are quite similar, flowing
northwest to northeast with a component also flowing towards the ocean. Although the
pumping trough is still present, it has less of an effect south and east of the desalination wells
compared to No Project conditions.

Increased recharge to the 180-Foot Aquifer from

infiltration of precipitation and streamflow percolation during wet years allows for more
groundwater outflow to the ocean.

In dry years (precipitation well below average), the groundwater elevations east of the
Project wells are higher than under Baseline (No Project) conditions. There is a strong

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.

29
228

California American Water

North Marina Groundwater Model


Evaluation of Potential Projects

26-Sep-08

component of groundwater flow from west to east (i.e., inland flow), which is reversed from
flow in wet conditions (i.e., towards the ocean). The pumping trough developed by the
Regional Project Scenario 4b in dry years will reduce the hydraulic gradient towards the east
compared to No Project conditions. In effect, Scenario 4b would reduce the rate of seawater
intrusion which would normally be more prevalent during dry years under No Project
conditions.

After 56 years of operating the Regional Project Scenario 4b, the inland groundwater
elevations in the 180-Foot Aquifer would be higher than under No Project conditions. For
example, there is an average 0.5 ft rising of groundwater levels in the Observation Well No.
9 located four miles east from the Project wells during the 56 years model simulation period
(see Figure 22). The area around the Project wells would have lower groundwater elevations
due to the trough developed by continuous pumping. Groundwater flow directions would be
similar to normal hydrologic year flow directions.

Selected hydrographs showing the Baseline (No Project) and Regional Project Scenario 4b
groundwater elevations over the 56 years of the predictive model are provided on Figure 22. In
general, the extraction wells of the Regional Project Scenario 4b show a decline in groundwater
levels of approximately 10 ft or less. Inland of the Project desalination wells, differences in
groundwater levels between Baseline (No Project) and Project are minimal (less than 7 ft). This
includes wells completed in the 400-Foot Aquifer and Deep Aquifer underlying the 180-Foot
Aquifer. Except for Observation Well 14, these deeper aquifers show almost no impacts from
the Regional Project Scenario 4b pumping in the 180-Foot Aquifer.
Figure 23 shows the 500 mg/L chloride limit of the seawater intrusion in the 180-Foot Aquifer at
selected times over the 56-year model period. In general, the intrusion is reduced at a faster rate
when the Regional Project Scenario 4b is operating under Scenario 4b compared to Baseline (No
Project) conditions. Only the area just south of the Salinas River mouth remains intruded longer

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.

30
229

California American Water

North Marina Groundwater Model


Evaluation of Potential Projects

26-Sep-08

than if there was no project. This is due to the trough that is designed to extract mostly seawater
from the desalination wells of the Regional Project Scenario 4b.
The predicted TDS concentration from the five extraction wells is shown on Figure 24. As can
be seen, the wells all produce water with fluctuating TDS concentrations (ranging from
approximately 22,000 milligrams per liter (mg/L) to 33,000 mg/L) throughout the 56-year
period. However, the TDS concentration is closer to the assumed seawater concentration of
35,000 mg/L during both normal and dry years than during wet years. The southernmost
extraction well (Well 11) has more fluctuating TDS concentrations, but at times still produces
close to the 35,000 mg/L concentration.

During wet years, the TDS concentration of the

extraction wells indicates that the wells are producing a mixture of seawater and onshore
groundwater.

This is due to the increase of groundwater, derived from infiltration of

precipitation and streamflow percolation, flowing towards the ocean.


Over the 56 years, the average TDS concentration of the desalination feedwater extracted by the
five Regional Project Scenario 4b wells will average approximately 29,000 mg/L. The chart
below shows the modeled TDS concentrations over time. The predicted TDS concentration of
29,000 mg/L for the feedwater extracted by the five Project wells is approximately 82 to 85
percent of the TDS concentration of seawater (34,000 to 35,000 mg/L).

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.

31
230

California American Water

North Marina Groundwater Model


Evaluation of Potential Projects

26-Sep-08

Predicted Average Total Dissolved Solids Concentrations


Proposed Monterey Regional Water Supply Wells Scenario 4b
40,000

TDS Concentration, mg/L

35,000

30,000
Average TDS Concentration
(29,000 mg/L)
25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000
00

1460
4

2920
8

4380
12

5840
16

7300
20

8760
24

10220
28

11680
32

13140
36

14600
40

16060
44

17520
48

18980
52

20440
56

Years Since Start of Project

The water budget (see Table in Section 7.1) for the Regional Project Scenario 4b shows that
similarly to the CAW slant well scenario, there will be increased ocean water inflow and
decreased outflow of onshore water to the ocean compared to the No Project (Baseline)
conditions. However, due to changes in regional pumping (non-project pumping) and use of
surface water for this scenario there would be a 1,393 acre-ft/yr decrease in the amount of water
flowing into the model from the northern, eastern and southern model boundary areas as
compared to No the Project (see column 2 of table in Section 7.1). This decrease in groundwater
inflow would have a beneficial impact on groundwater resources outside of the focused model
area (i.e. less impact on groundwater elevations). Inside the focused model area, the change in
groundwater storage for the Regional Project Scenario 4b would increase 143 acre-ft/yr as
compared to the No Project Scenario (see column 9 of table in Section 7.1). This would be a
beneficial impact to groundwater resources within the focused model area.

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.

32
231

California American Water

North Marina Groundwater Model


Evaluation of Potential Projects

26-Sep-08

8.0 REFERENCES
Anderson, Mary P., and Woessner, William W., 1992.

Applied Groundwater Modeling

Simulation of Flow and Advective Transport. New York: Academic Press, 1992.
California Department of Water Resources (DWR), 1973. Sea Water Intrusion Lower Salinas
Valley Monterey County. Dated July 1973.
California Department of Water Resources, 1977.

North Monterey Water Resources

Investigation. Prepared pursuant to cooperative agreement between Department of Water


Resources and Monterey County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, March
23, 1977.
California Department of Water Resources, 2003. Californias Groundwater - Bulletin 118,
Update 2003. Dated October, 1, 2003.
Feeney and Rosenberg, 2002. Deep Aquifer Investigation Hydrogeologic Data Inventory,
Review, Interpretation and Implications (TECHNICAL REVIEW DRAFT), Dated
23-Sep-02.
GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc., 1993. Ground Water Model of the Talbert Gap Area,
Orange County, California. Prepared for the Orange County Water District, July 9,
1993.
GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc., 2005. Feasibility of Using HDD Wells for Water Supply
and Brine Discharge for the Coastal Water Project Desalination Plant, North Marina
Site. Prepared for RBF Consulting / California American Water, May 9, 2005.
Green, H. Gary, 1970. Geology of Southern Monterey Bay and its Relationship to the Ground
Water Basin and Salt Water Intrusion. U.S.G.S. Open File Report, 1970.

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.

33
232

California American Water

North Marina Groundwater Model


Evaluation of Potential Projects

26-Sep-08

Guo, W., and Langevin, C.D., 2002. Users Guide to SEAWAT: A Computer Program for
Simulation of Three-Dimensional Variable-Density Ground-Water Flow.

U.S.

Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations 6-A7.


Hanson, R.T., R. Everett, M. Newhouse, S. Crawford, M.I. Pimental, and G. Smith, 2002.
Geohydrology of a Deep-Aquifer Monitoring-Well Site at Marina, Monterey County,
California.

U.S.G.S. Water-Resources Investigations Report 02-4003.

Prepared in

cooperation with Monterey County Water Resources Agency.


Hanson, R.T., 2003. Geohydrologic Framework of Recharge and Seawater Intrusion in the
Pajaro Valley, Santa Cruz and Monterey Counties, California.

U.S.G.S. Water-

Resources Investigations Report 03-4096. Prepared in cooperation with Pajaro Valley


Water Management Agency.
Harding ESE, 2001. Hydrogeologic Investigation of the Salinas Valley Basin in the Vicinity
of Fort Ord and Marina Salinas Valley, California. Prepared for Monterey County
Water Resources Agency. April 28, 2001.
Johnson, M., 1983. Ground Water in North Monterey County, California, 1980. U.S.G.S.
Water-Resources Investigations Report 83-4023.

Prepared in cooperation with the

Monterey County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. Dated July 1983.
Kennedy/Jenks consultant, 2004. Hydrostratigraphic Analysis of the Northern Salinas Valley.
Prepared for Monterey County Water Resources Agency. May 14, 2004.
Monterey County Water Resources Agency (MCWRA), 2001. Draft Environmental Impact
Report/Environmental Impact Statement for the Salinas Valley Water Project, Dated June
2001. Seawater intrusion is defined in the report as the average annual rate of subsurface
flow from the Monterey Bay into the 180-Foot and 400-Foot Aquifers in the Pressure
Subarea.

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.

34
233

California American Water

North Marina Groundwater Model


Evaluation of Potential Projects

26-Sep-08

Monterey County Water Resources Agency (MCWRA), 2005. Historic Seawater Intrusion
Maps

500

mg/L

Chloride

Areas

(pdf).

Dated

February

27,

2006.

http://www.mcwra.co.monterey.ca.us/SVWP/01swi180.pdf;
http://www.mcwra.co.monterey.ca.us/SVWP/01swi400.pdf Accessed 6-Jun-08.
Montgomery Watson, 1994. Salinas River Basin Water Resources Management Plan Task 1.09
Salinas Valley Ground Water Flow and Quality Model Report. Prepared for Monterey
County Water Resources Agency. Dated February 1994.
Montgomery Watson, 1997. Final Report Salinas Valley Integrated Ground Water and
Surface Model Update. Prepared for Monterey County Water Resources Agency. Dated
May 1997.
RBF Consultants, 2008. Coastal Water Project Technical Memorandum Update. North Marina
Alternative Desalination Plant. Revised July 8, 2008. Prepared for California American
Water.
Todd, David K., 1980. Groundwater Hydrology, Second Edition. New York: John Wiley &
Sons, 1980.
Zheng, C., and Wang, P., 1998. MT3DMS, A modular three-dimensional multispecies transport
model for simulation of advection, dispersion and chemical reactions of contaminants in
groundwater systems: Vicksburg, Miss., Waterways Experiment Station, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers.
Zheng, C., and Bennett, G., 2002. Applied Contaminant Transport Modeling, Second Edition.
New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2002.

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.

35
234

California American Water

FIGURES

235

NORTH MARINA GROUNDWATER MODEL


EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL PROJECTS

CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER


(
!

Las Lomas

San Juan Bautista

(
!

(
!

GENERAL
PROJECT LOCATION

Hollister

Elkhorn

(
!

( Prunedale
!

(
!

Me

Tres Pinos

(
!

Castroville

r ce

a
b

Sa

il

Monterey
Bay

z
A

Paicines

(
!

Be

nt y

ni
to

(
!

Monterey
(
!

Del Monte Forest

(
!

(
!

Sand City
(
!
!Seaside
(

(
!

Carmel-by-the-Sea

GEOSCIENCE Groundwater
Model Boundary

Del Rey Oaks

Pebble Beach

y
nt
ou

Pacific Grove
(
!

EXPLANATION

Co
un
ty

o
sn

Salinas

$
^
"
!
ou

e
Fr

Marina

(
!

dC

Salinas Valley Integrated


Groundwater and Surface
Water Model (SVIGSM)
Boundary

Chualar

(
!

(
!

?
S
A

(
!
Carmel
Valley

(
!

Gonzales
(
!

Highway

rr

(
!

Soledad

Idria

(
!

on
te

re
y

Co

ta

n
li

i c
c i f
P a

un

u
Greenfield

ia

(
!

(
!

ty

n
e a
O c

Big Sur

County Boundary

San Benito

I N

ie

(
!

a
n
g
e
King City

(
!

A
(
!

San Lucas

I
(San
!

(
!

Ardo

Lockwood

26-Sep-08
Prepared by: DWB

0
Map Projection:
State Plane 1983, California Zone IV
GIS_proj/cal_am_north_marina_modeling_9-08/0_Fig_1_Slant_Wells_180ft_9-08.mxd

10

20
Miles

Figure 1
236

NORTH MARINA GROUNDWATER MODEL


EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL PROJECTS

CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER

POTENTIAL
PROJECTS

PAJARO VALLEY
GROUNDWATER
BASIN

!
(

Elkhorn

SALINAS VALLEY
GROUNDWATER
BASIN

I
Prunedale

!
(

Monte

in
rey Submar

Monterey
Regional Water
Supply Project
Scenario 3b

e Canyon

EXPLANATION
!

GEOSCIENCE Groundwater
Model Boundary

!
!

!
(

Castroville

Groundwater Basin Boundary


(DWR, 2003)

!
!
!

Monterey
Regional Water
Supply Project
Scenario 4b

Monterey Regional Project Well

Offshore Aquifer Outcrop


(Green, 1970; DWR, 1973)

z
A

ean

180-Foot Aquifer

c O
c

400-Foot Aquifer

ifi

Slant Well
Highway

Pac

Major Roads
Cal-Am Slant Well
Desalination
Feedwater Supply
Project

!
(

Rivers and Creeks

NOTE:
Scenario 3b = 10 wells
Scenario 4b = 5 wells

Marina

!
(

Salinas

I
as
lin
Sa
r
ve
Ri

26-Sep-08
Prepared by: DWB

Map Projection:
State Plane 1983, California Zone IV
GIS_proj/cal_am_north_marina_modeling_9-08/0_Fig_2_proposed_projects_9-08.mxd

Figure 2

Miles

237

NORTH MARINA GROUNDWATER MODEL


EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL PROJECTS

CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER


180-FOOT
AQUIFER

(
!

400-FOOT
AQUIFER

Elkhorn

(
!

Elkhorn

b
A

b
A
(
!

Prunedale

Prunedale

EXPLANATION
GEOSCIENCE Groundwater
Model Boundary

Pac

ific

ific

Oc
ea

Oce
an

(
!

Castroville

Pac

Castroville

(
!

HISTORICAL SEAWATER
INTRUSION
180-FOOT AND
400-FOOT AQUIFERS

Highway

(
!

Major Roads
Rivers and Creeks
Seawater Intrusion by Year
(Source: MCWRA, 2005)

I
(
!

Marina

(
!

z
A
(
!

Marina

z
A

Salinas

(
!

Salinas

1944

1995

1959

1997

1965

1999

1975

2001

1985

2003

1990

2005

1993
as

as

lin

l in

Sa

Sa

v
Ri

ve
Ri

er

26-Sep-08
Prepared by: DWB

0
Map Projection:
State Plane 1983, California Zone IV
GIS_proj/cal_am_north_marina_modeling_9-08/0_Fig_3_historic_swi_180ft_400ft_9-08.mxd

Figure 3

Miles

238

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Incorporated


P.O. Box 220, Claremont, CA 91711
Tel: (909)920-0707 Fax: (909)920-0403
www.gssiwater.com
X:\Projects\Cal_American_Water_Co\North_Marina_Model-2008\Report\Figures

239

Date: 26-SEP-08

SLANT WELL LAYOUT


Approved:

Checked:

Figure

Drawn:

CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER

This layout was developed after


model runs were completed.
However, groundwater impacts
are not expected to be much
different between this layout and
the layout modeled.

NORTH MARINA GROUNDWATER MODEL


EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL PROJECTS

CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER


1

NORTH MARINA
GROUNDWATER
MODEL BOUNDARY

Elkhorn

(
!

j-di r
e c ti

on
(
!

Prunedale

EXPLANATION

345

GEOSCIENCE Groundwater
Model Boundary
Model Cell Size (200 ft x 200 ft)

Castroville

Highway

i-di r
e c ti

on

(
!

Major Roads

Pac

ific

Oce

an

Rivers and Creeks

(
!

300

Marina

z
A

Salinas

(
!

Cell Size
200 ft
200 ft

?
in
Sal
R
as

r
ive

26-Sep-08
Prepared by: DWB

Map Projection:
State Plane 1983, California Zone IV
GIS_proj/cal_am_north_marina_modeling_9-08/0_Fig_5_Model_Bouneary_9-08.mxd

Figure 5

Miles

240

NORTH MARINA GROUNDWATER MODEL


EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL PROJECTS

CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER

an

FLOW MODEL
CALIBRATION
HYDROGRAPHS
180-FOOT AQUIFER

Oce

Hydrographs for Well No. 8 (13S/02E-33R01)


Model Layer 2: 180-Foot Aquifer

Elkhorn

I
Prunedale

Pac

10
Ground Water Elevation, ft amsl

(
!

ifi c

20

(
!

-10

EXPLANATION

-20
-30

WRIME Calibration Well

-40
-50

(
!

Measured Water Level

-60

Castroville

GEOSCIENCE Groundwater
Model Boundary

8
!

Model-Calculated Water Level


-70
-80
1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

Highway

9
!

1994

Water Years

Major Roads
Rivers and Creeks

Hydrographs for Well No. 9 (14S/02E-03R01)


Model Layer 2: 180-Foot Aquifer
20

Ground Water Elevation, ft amsl

10
0
-10
-20
-30

Marina

(
!

-40

z
A

-50

-70

Model-Calculated Water Level

(
!

a
lin

Measured Water Level

Salinas

Sa

-60

sR

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1980

ive

-80
Water Years

(
!

Pacific Grove

Sand City

(
!

(
!

(
!

Seaside

Monterey

(
!

Del Rey Oaks

Del Monte Forest


(
!

26-Sep-08
Prepared by: DWB

Map Projection:
State Plane 1983, California Zone IV
GIS_proj/cal_am_north_marina_modeling_9-08/0_Fig_6_Hydrographs_180ft_aquifer_9-08.mxd

Figure 6

Miles

241

CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER

NORTH MARINA GROUNDWATER MODEL


EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL PROJECTS

Hydrographs for Well No. 2 (13S/02E-21N01)


Model Layer 4: 400-Foot Aquifer
20

Hydrographs for Well No. 3 (13S/02E-30A01)


Model Layer 4: 400-Foot Aquifer
20

Ground Water Elevation, ft amsl

10
0
-10

-20
-30

Hydrographs for Well No. 12 (14S/02E-12Q01)


Model Layer 4: 400-Foot Aquifer

-40

20

-50

10

-60
Measured Water Level

-20

-70

-30

Model-Calculated Water Level

-80
1980

-40

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

Water Years

-50
-60
Measured Water Level
-70

Model-Calculated Water Level

-80
1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

FLOW MODEL
CALIBRATION
HYDROGRAPHS
400-FOOT AQUIFER

0
-10

Ground Water Elevation, ft amsl

Ground Water Elevation, ft amsl

10

1994

Water Years

-20
-30

(
!

Elkhorn

-40
-50

Prunedale

(
!

-60
Measured Water Level

-70

2
!

3
!

0
-10

Model-Calculated Water Level

EXPLANATION

-80
1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

Water Years

6
! Castroville

Hydrographs for Well No. 5 (13S/02E-31N02)


Model Layer 4: 400-Foot Aquifer

(
!

GEOSCIENCE Groundwater
Model Boundary

20

!5

Highway

-10
-20
-30

-50

20

-60

10

Measured Water Level


Model-Calculated Water Level

-70
-80
1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

Water Years

Major Roads

11
!

Hydrographs for Well No. 6 (13S/02E-32A02)


Model Layer 4: 400-Foot Aquifer

-40

Ground Water Elevation, ft amsl

Ground Water Elevation, ft amsl

10

WRIME Calibration Well

Rivers and Creeks

12
!
13
!

0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50

Marina

-60

(
!

Measured Water Level


-70

14
!

Model-Calculated Water Level

-80
1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

z
A

Salinas
(
!

a
lin
Sa

1980

Water Years

i ve
sR
r

Hydrographs for Well No. 14 (14S/02E-34A01)


Model Layer 4: 400-Foot Aquifer
20

10

10

0
-10
(
!

-20

Pacific Grove

-30
-40
-50
(
!

Measured Water Level

-60

Model-Calculated Water Level

-70
(
!

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990
Del
Monte1992
Forest

1994

20
10

0
-10
-20

Sand City

(
!

-30

(
!

Seaside

-40

Monterey-50
Measured Water Level

-60

Model-Calculated Water
DelLevel
Rey
(
!

-70

-80

Hydrographs for Well No. 13 (14S/02E-14L01)


Model Layer 4: 400-Foot Aquifer

Ground Water Elevation, ft amsl

20

Ground Water Elevation, ft amsl

Pac

ific

Oce

an

Ground Water Elevation, ft amsl

Hydrographs for Well No. 11 (14S/02E-08M02)


Model Layer 4: 400-Foot Aquifer

Oaks

0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
Measured Water Level

-70

-80

Model-Calculated Water Level

-80
1980

1982

1984

Water Years

1986

1988

Water Years

1990

1992

1994

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

Water Years

26-Sep-08
Prepared by: DWB

Map Projection:
State Plane 1983, California Zone IV
GIS_proj/cal_am_north_marina_modeling_9-08/0_Fig_7_Hydrographs_400ft_aquifer_9-08.mxd

Figure 7

Miles

242

NORTH MARINA GROUNDWATER MODEL


EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL PROJECTS

CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER


Hydrographs for Well No. 1 (13S/02E-19Q03)
Model Layer 6: Deep Aquifer

FLOW MODEL
CALIBRATION
HYDROGRAPHS
DEEP AQUIFER

20

Ground Water Elevation, ft amsl

10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
(
!

Elkhorn

Measured Water Level

-70

Model-Calculated Water Level

Hydrographs for Well No. 4 (13S/02E-31A02)


Model Layer 6: Deep Aquifer

-80
1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

Prunedale

(
!

1994

Water Years

20

1
!

Ground Water Elevation, ft amsl

10

EXPLANATION

-10

4!
!7

-20

(
!

GEOSCIENCE Groundwater
Model Boundary

-30
-40

10
!

-50

WRIME Calibration Well

Castroville

Highway

-60
Measured Water Level
-70

Major Roads

Model-Calculated Water Level

-80
1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

Rivers and Creeks

1994

Water Years

Hydrographs for Well No. 7 (13S/02E-32E05)


Model Layer 6: Deep Aquifer
20
Measured Water Level

10

(
!

z
A

-10

Salinas
(
!

-20
-30

Sa
a
lin

Hydrographs for Well No. 10 (14S/02E-06L01)


Model Layer 6: Deep Aquifer

-40

-80
1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

Oce

an

Water Years

1994

Ground Water Elevation, ft amsl

10

-70

20

-60

-10
-20
-30
(
!

if ic

Pacific Grove

Sand City

(
!

-40
-50

(
!

-60
Measured Water Level

-70

(
!

Seaside

Monterey

Model-Calculated Water Level

-80

(
!

1980

(
!

Pac

ive

-50

sR

Ground Water Elevation, ft amsl

Marina

Model-Calculated Water Level


0

Del Monte Forest

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

Del Rey Oaks

1992

1994

Water Years

26-Sep-08
Prepared by: DWB

Map Projection:
State Plane 1983, California Zone IV
GIS_proj/cal_am_north_marina_modeling_9-08/0_Fig_8_Hydrographs_deep_aquifer_9-08.mxd

Figure 8

Miles

243

California American Water


North Marina Groundwater Model
Evaluation of Potential Projects

Histogram of Groundwater Level Residuals* - Transient Model Calibration


(Model Calibration Period October 1979 Through September 1994)
45%

40%

*Groundwater level residuals = measured ground


water levels less model-generated groundwater levels)
Histogram was based on 2,152 water measurements

This chart shows that 68% of the residuals


fall within +/- 10 ft

40%

In addition, the relative error


(Std. Deviation of Residuals / Range of
Heads)

35%

Frequency, %

30%

28%

25%

20%
14%

15%

10%

8%
6%

5%
0%

-50 to -40

-40 to -30

1%
-30 to -20

1%
-20 to -10

-10 to 0

0 to 10

10 to 20

Groundwater Level Residuals, ft

26-Sep-08

20 to 30

30 to 40

0%

0%

40 to 50

50 to 60

Figure 9

0%

0%

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.

244

NORTH MARINA GROUNDWATER MODEL


EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL PROJECTS

CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER

1994

1985

(
!

Elkhorn

(
!

(
!

Elkhorn

TRANSPORT MODEL
CALIBRATION
OF SEAWATER
INTRUSION
180-FOOT AQUIFER

Prunedale

Prunedale

(
!

EXPLANATION
Castroville

Castroville

(
!

(
!

GEOSCIENCE Groundwater
Model Boundary
MCWRA Seawater
Intrusion Line
(Chloride = 500 mg/L)
(MCWRA, 2005)
Model-Generated Seawater
Intrusion Line
(Chloride = 500 mg/L)
Highway
Major Roads
Rivers and Creeks

I
Marina

(
!

(
!

z
A
(
!

Marina

z
A

Salinas

(
!

Salinas

l in
Sa

l in
Sa

R
as

R
as

r
ive

r
ive

26-Sep-08
Prepared by: DWB

0
Map Projection:
State Plane 1983, California Zone IV
GIS_proj/cal_am_north_marina_modeling_9-08/0_Fig_10_calibration_swi_180ft_9-08.mxd

Figure 10

Miles

245

NORTH MARINA GROUNDWATER MODEL


EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL PROJECTS

CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER

1994

1985

(
!

Elkhorn

(
!

(
!

Elkhorn

Prunedale

TRANSPORT MODEL
CALIBRATION
OF SEAWATER
INTRUSION
400-FOOT AQUIFER

Prunedale

(
!

EXPLANATION
Castroville

Castroville

(
!

(
!

GEOSCIENCE Groundwater
Model Boundary
MCWRA Seawater
Intrusion Line
(Chloride = 500 mg/L)
(MCWRA, 2003)
Model-Generated Seawater
Intrusion Line
(Chloride = 500 mg/L)
Highway
Major Roads
Rivers and Creeks

I
(
!

Marina

(
!

z
A
(
!

Marina

z
A

Salinas

(
!

Salinas

l in
Sa

l in
Sa

R
as

R
as

r
ive

r
ive

26-Sep-08
Prepared by: DWB

0
Map Projection:
State Plane 1983, California Zone IV
GIS_proj/cal_am_north_marina_modeling_9-08/0_Fig_11_calibration_swi_400ft_9-08.mxd

Figure 11

Miles

246

NORTH MARINA GROUNDWATER MODEL


EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL PROJECTS

CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER

b
A

180-FOOT AQUIFER
BASELINE vs. SLANT WELL
FEEDWATER SUPPLY
SCENARIO (22 MGD)
GROUNDWATER
ELEVATIONS

b
A

Pac

Pac

if i c

if i c

Oc

Oc

ean

ean

-5

-5

EXPLANATION

10

-5

GEOSCIENCE Groundwater
Model Boundary

-5

-10

10

10

15

15

z
A

10

15
20

Baseline Groundwater Elevation,


ft amsl

z
A

25

15

20

25 25

20
20

25
30

Model Yr = 33
May-81(Normal)

30

25

25

Model Yr = 35
Mar-83 (Wet)

Highway

Model Yr = 13
Jun-1961 (Dry)

b
A

b
A

Slant Well Scenario


Groundwater Elevation, ft amsl

Predictive Model Year*


Hydrologic Year

Pa c

-20

-15

-20

-10

Pa c

-5

ific

ific

Oce

Oce

an

an

-5

* Years Since Start of Model Scenario

-10

-15

-10

-5
0
5

z
A

z
A
10
0

10
20

25

15

15

20

-5

Model Yr = 43
Jun-91 (Dry)

15

Model Yr = 56
Sep-04 (End)

26-Sep-08
Prepared by: DWB

0
Map Projection:
State Plane 1983, California Zone IV
GIS_proj/cal_am_north_marina_modeling_9-08/0_Fig_12_Slant_Wells_180ft_9-08.mxd

Figure 12

Miles

247

NORTH MARINA GROUNDWATER MODEL


EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL PROJECTS

180-FOOT AQUIFER
BASELINE vs. SLANT WELL
FEEDWATER SUPPLY
SCENARIO (22 MGD)
GROUNDWATER
ELEVATIONS (Close-Up)

Pac

ific

Pa c
ifi

Oc
ean

15

10

c O
cea

10

CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER

15

-15

-10

-1

-5

-5
-1 0

EXPLANATION

20

Baseline Groundwater Elevation,


ft amsl
Slant Wells
Slant Well Scenario
Groundwater Elevation, ft amsl

Model Yr = 33
May-81(Normal)

10

Model Yr = 35
Mar-83 (Wet)

10

Model Yr = 13
Jun-1961 (Dry)

-5
-1 0

* Years Since Start of Model Scenario

-1

Predictive Model Year*


Hydrologic Year

-1

-1 0

Pa c
ific

Pa c
ific

Oce

Oce

an

an

Highway

-5

-5

0
0

Model Yr = 43
Jun-91 (Dry)

10

Model Yr = 56
Sep-04 (End)

26-Sep-08
Prepared by: DWB

2,000

Map Projection:
State Plane 1983, California Zone IV
GIS_proj/cal_am_north_marina_modeling_9-08/0_Fig_13_Slant_Wells_180ft_ZOOM_9-08.mxd

4,000
Feet

Figure 13
248

NORTH MARINA GROUNDWATER MODEL


EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL PROJECTS

CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER

Hydrograph for Proposed Vertical Well 11


Slant Well Scenario

Hydrograph for Observation Well 8


Slant Well Scenario
30

Ground Water Elevation, ft amsl

20
10
Baseline

an

Slant Well Scenario

Oce

ifi c

-10
-20

Pac

Ground Water Elevation, ft amsl

30

-30
-40
0
0

1460

2920

12

4380

16

5840

20
24
28
32
36
Years Since Start of Scenario
7300

8760

10220

11680

13140

40

14600

44

16060

48

17520

52

18980

Baseline
20
10
0
-10
Slant Well Scenario
-20
-30

EXPLANATION

-40

56

20440

00

1460

2920

12

4380

5840
16

7300
8760
10220
11680
13140
20
24
28
32
36
Years Since Start of Scenario

40

14600

8
!

Hydrograph for Proposed Slant Well 1


Slant Well Scenario

44

16060

48

17520

52

18980

56

20440

30

Ground Water Elevation, ft amsl

180-FOOT AQUIFER
SLANT WELL
FEEDWATER SUPPLY
SCENARIO (22 MGD)
HYDROGRAPHS

Monterey Regional Project Well

WRIME Calibration Well

MCWD Well
Slant Well

9
!

20

GEOSCIENCE Groundwater
Model Boundary

10
Baseline

11
!

Highway

Slant Well Scenario

-10

Major Roads

-20

Rivers and Creeks

z
A

MCWD 2
!

-30
-40
0
0

1460

2920

4380

12

5840

16

7300
8760
10220
11680
13140
20
24
28
32
36
Years Since Start of Scenario

14600

40

16060

44

17520

48

18980

52

20440

56

Hydrograph for Observation Well 9


Slant Well Scenario

Hydrograph for MCWD Well 2


Slant Well Scenario
30

Ground Water Elevation, ft amsl

Baseline
20

10
0
Slant Well Scenario
-10
-20

Ground Water Elevation, ft amsl

30
20
Slant Well Scenario
10
0
-10
-20
Baseline
-30

-30
-40
-40
0
0

1460

2920

4380

12

5840

16

7300

8760
13140
20
24 10220
28 11680
32
36
Years Since Start of Scenario

14600
40

16060

44

17520

48

18980

52

20440

56

00

1460

2920

12

4380

16

5840

7300
8760
10220
11680
13140
20
24
28
32
36
Years Since Start of Scenario

14600
40

16060
44

48

17520

52

18980

56

20440

26-Sep-08
Prepared by: DWB

Map Projection:
State Plane 1983, California Zone IV
GIS_proj/cal_am_north_marina_modeling_9-08/0_Fig_14_Slant_wells_Hydrographs_9-08.mxd

Figure 14

Miles

249

NORTH MARINA GROUNDWATER MODEL


EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL PROJECTS

CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER

A
b

A
b

A
b

180-FOOT AQUIFER
BASELINE vs. SLANT WELL
FEEDWATER SUPPLY
SCENARIO (22 MGD)
SEAWATER INTRUSION

A
b

EXPLANATION
GEOSCIENCE Groundwater
Model Boundary

A
z

A
z

Model Yr = 0
Initial

A
z

?
?

Model Yr = 13
Jun-1961 (Dry)

Model Yr = 21
Jan-1969 (Wet)

Baseline Seawater Intrusion


Chloride = 500 mg/L

A
z

?
?

Model Yr = 29
Aug-1977 (Dry)

Slant Well Scenario Seawater


Intrusion, Chloride = 500 mg/L
Slant Well
Highway
Rivers and Creeks

A
b

A
b

A
b

A
b

Model Yr = 13
Jun-1961 (Dry)

Predictive Model Year*


Hydrologic Year

* Years Since Start of Model Scenario

A
z

A
z

Model Yr = 35
Mar-1983 (Wet)

A
z

Model Yr = 43
Jun-1991 (Dry)

A
z

Model Yr = 50
Feb-1998 (Wet)

?
?

Model Yr = 56
Sep-2004 (End)

4
Miles

26-Sep-08
Prepared by: DWB

Figure 15

Map Projection:
State Plane 1983, California Zone IV
GIS_proj/cal_am_north_marina_modeling_9-08/0_Fig_15_Slant_Wells_180ft_SWI_9-08.mxd

250

NORTH MARINA GROUNDWATER MODEL


EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL PROJECTS

CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER

Predicted Total Dissolved Solids Concentrations


Proposed Slant Well 3
40,000

TDS Concentration, mg/L

35,000

30,000

40,000

40,000

35,000

35,000

30,000

25,000

20,000

15,000

25,000

PREDICTED TDS
CONCENTRATIONS
FROM REGIONAL
PROJECT
SLANT WELLS

Predicted Total Dissolved Solids Concentrations


Proposed Slant Well 1

TDS Concentration, mg/L

TDS Concentration, mg/L

Predicted Total Dissolved Solids Concentrations


Proposed Slant Well 2

30,000

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

10,000
0

1460

2920

4380

12

5840

16

20,000

7300
11680
13140
20 8760
24 10220
28
32
36
Years Since Start of Project

14600

40

16060

44

17520

48

18980

52

20440

56

1460

2920

4380

5840

12

16

7300
10220
11680
13140
20 8760
24 28
32
36
Years Since Start of Project

14600

40

16060

44

17520

48

18980

52

20440

56

15,000

EXPLANATION

10,000
0

1460

2920

4380

12

5840

16

7300

8760

10220

11680

13140

20
24
28
32
36
Years Since Start of Project

14600

16060

40

17520

44

18980

48

20440

52

56

Slant Wells
Marina State Park

Predicted Total Dissolved Solids Concentrations


Proposed Slant Well 4

Highway

40,000

Major Roads

TDS Concentration, mg/L

35,000

30,000

25,000

20,000

BE
A

CH

10,000
0

1460

2920

4380

12

5840

16

7300
10220
11680
13140
20 8760
24
28
32
36
Years Since Start of Project

14600

40

16060

44

17520

48

18980

52

RD

RESERVATION RD

15,000

20440

56

BL
VD

Predicted Total Dissolved Solids Concentrations


Proposed Slant Well 5

Predicted Total Dissolved Solids Concentrations


Proposed Slant Well 6

30,000
40,000

35,000
20,000

Pa

cif

15,000

10,000
0

1460

2920

4380

12

5840

16

7300
11680
13140
20 8760
24 10220
28
32
36
Years Since Start of Project

14600

40

16060

44

17520

48

18980

52

20440

56

MarinaC

Marina
State Park

25,000

TDS Concentration, mg/L

ic

Oc

ean

TDS Concentration, mg/L

35,000

MO
N

TE

40,000

30,000

!
( A
RM

EL

AV
E

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000
0

1460

2920

4380

12

5840

16

7300
11680
13140
20 8760
24 10220
28
32
36
Years Since Start of Project

14600

40

16060

44

17520

48

18980

52

20440

56

26-Sep-08
Prepared by: DWB

2,000

Map Projection:
State Plane 1983, California Zone IV
GIS_proj/cal_am_north_marina_modeling_9-08/0_Fig_16_TDS_graphs_slant_9-08.mxd

4,000
Feet

Figure 16
251

NORTH MARINA GROUNDWATER MODEL


EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL PROJECTS

CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER

b
A

Pa c

ean

ific

Oce

an

b
A

180FT AQUIFER
BASELINE vs. REGIONAL
PROJECT SCENARIO 3a
GROUNDWATER
ELEVATIONS

Oc

-10

-5

Pac

-5

if i c

-5

-5
0

EXPLANATION

-5

10

GEOSCIENCE Groundwater
Model Boundary
10

Baseline Groundwater Elevation,


ft amsl
20

10

15

10

z
A
5

15

20

Model Yr = 33
May-81(Normal)

25

15

Regional Project Scenario


Groundwater Elevation, ft amsl

z
A

20 25
25
30 30

20 2 0

25 25

15

25

Model Yr = 35
Mar-83 (Wet)

Highway
Model Yr = 13
Jun-1961 (Dry)

Predictive Model Year*


Hydrologic Year

* Years Since Start of Model Scenario


b
A
-5
-5

an
Pa c

-5

-10

-5

Pa c

ific

ific

Oce

Oce

an

- 25

-10

-20

b
A

-20
-5

-20

-15

-5

-20

10
-1
0

z
A

15

20

10

15

-5
0

15

10

10

z
A

10
-15

20 20

15

25

25

-5

-5

Model Yr = 43
Jun-91 (Dry)

15

20

Model Yr = 56
Sep-04 (End)

26-Sep-08
Prepared by: DWB

0
Map Projection:
State Plane 1983, California Zone IV
GIS_proj/cal_am_north_marina_modeling_9-08/0_Fig_17_reg_proj_180ft_9-08.mxd

Figure 17

Miles

252

NORTH MARINA GROUNDWATER MODEL


EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL PROJECTS

CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER

10

Baseline

0
-10
Scenario
-20
-30

20
10

30
Baseline

Ground Water Elevation, ft amsl

Ground Water Elevation, ft amsl

20

Scenario

0
-10
-20
Baseline
-30

00

1460

2920

12

4380

16

5840

7300
8760
10220
11680
13140
20
24
28
32
36
Years Since Start of Scenario

40

14600

44

16060

48

17520

52

18980

0
0

56

20440

20

1460

2920

12

4380

16

5840

7300
8760
10220
11680
13140
20
24
28
32
36
Years Since Start of Scenario

40

14600

44

16060

48

17520

52

18980

REGIONAL PROJECT
SCENARIO 3a
HYDROGRAPHS

Scenario
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40

-40

-40

180 ft
Aquifer

Hydrograph for Observation Well 9


Regional Project Scenario

Pa c
i
O ce fic
an

30

30

Ground Water Elevation, ft amsl

Deep
Aquifer

Hydrograph for Observation Well 1


Regional Project Scenario

180 ft
Aquifer

Hydrograph for Proposed Regional Project Well 5


Regional Project Scenario

0
0

56

20440

1460

12

2920

16

4380

7300
8760
10220
11680
13140
20
24
28
32
36
Years Since Start of Scenario

5840

40

44

14600

16060

48

17520

52

18980

56

20440

EXPLANATION

180 ft
Aquifer

Hydrograph for Proposed Regional Project Well 9


Regional Project Scenario

Well Hydrograph Locations


!

20
Baseline
10
0

30

-10
Scenario
-20
-30
-40
00

1460

2920

4380
12

5840
16

7300
8760
10220
11680
13140
20
24
28
32
36
Years Since Start of Scenario

40

14600

44

16060

48

17520

52

18980

56

20440

180 ft
Aquifer

Hydrograph for Proposed Regional Project Well 6


Regional Project Scenario

Scenario

10
0

Monterey Regional Project Well

WRIME Calibration Well

15

GEOSCIENCE Groundwater
Model Boundary

11

-10

-20

11

Highway

Baseline

13

-30

Rivers and Creeks

-40
4

1460

2920

12

4380

16

5840

7300
8760
10220
11680
13140
20
24
28
32
36
Years Since Start of Scenario

40

14600

44

16060

48

17520

52

18980

56

20440

20

z
A

Baseline
10
0
-10

Scenario

-20

14

-30

-40
8

2920

12

4380

16

5840

7300
8760
10220
11680
13140
20
24
28
32
36
Years Since Start of Scenario

40

14600

44

16060

Hydrograph for Proposed Regional Project Well 11


Regional Project Scenario

48

17520

52

18980

56

20440

180 ft
Aquifer

30

Ground Water Elevation, ft amsl

20
10
Baseline
0
-10

400 ft
Aquifer

Hydrograph for Observation Well 13


Regional Project Scenario

Scenario

-20
-30

30

30

20

20

Scenario
10
0
-10
-20
-30

400 ft
Aquifer

Hydrograph for Observation Well 14


Regional Project Scenario

30
Scenario

10
0
-10
-20
Baseline
-30

20
10

Scenario

0
-10
-20
-30
Baseline

Baseline

-40
00

1460

2920

4380
12

5840
16

7300
8760
10220
11680
13140
20
24
28
32
36
Years Since Start of Scenario

40

14600

44

16060

48

17520

52

18980

-40

-40

56

20440

00

1460

2920

4380
12

5840
16

7300
8760
10220
11680
13140
20
24
28
32
36
Years Since Start of Scenario

400 ft
Aquifer

Hydrograph for Observation Well 15


Regional Project Scenario

Ground Water Elevation, ft amsl

1460

Ground Water Elevation, ft amsl

Ground Water Elevation, ft amsl

Slant Wells

20

00

30

Ground Water Elevation, ft amsl

400 ft
Aquifer

Hydrograph for Observation Well 11


Regional Project Scenario

Ground Water Elevation, ft amsl

Ground Water Elevation, ft amsl

30

40

14600

44

16060

48

17520

52

18980

56

20440

-40
0
0

1460

2920

12

4380

16

5840

7300
8760
10220
11680
13140
20
24
28
32
36
Years Since Start of Scenario

40

14600

44

16060

48

17520

52

18980

56

20440

0
0

1460

2920

12

4380

16

5840

7300
8760
10220
11680
13140
20
24
28
32
36
Years Since Start of Scenario

40

14600

44

16060

48

17520

52

18980

56

20440

26-Sep-08
Prepared by: DWB

Map Projection:
State Plane 1983, California Zone IV
GIS_proj/cal_am_north_marina_modeling_9-08/0_Fig_18_3a_reg_proj_Hydrographs_9-08.mxd

Figure 18

Miles

253

NORTH MARINA GROUNDWATER MODEL


EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL PROJECTS

CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER

A
b

A
b

A
b

180-FOOT AQUIFER
BASELINE vs. REGIONAL
PROJECT SCENARIO 3a
SEAWATER INTRUSION

A
b

EXPLANATION
GEOSCIENCE Groundwater
Model Boundary
Baseline Seawater Intrusion
Chloride = 500 mg/L

A
z

A
z

Model Yr = 0
Initial

A
z

?
?

Model Yr = 13
Jun-1961 (Dry)

A
z

Model Yr = 21
Jan-1969 (Wet)

?
?

Model Yr = 29
Aug-1977 (Dry)

Regional Project Scenario Seawater


Intrusion, Chloride = 500 mg/L
Highway
Model Yr = 13
Jun-1961 (Dry)

Predictive Model Year*


Hydrologic Year

* Years Since Start of Model Scenario

A
b

A
b

A
z

A
z

Model Yr = 35
Mar-1983 (Wet)

A
b

A
z

A
b

Model Yr = 43
Jun-1991 (Dry)

A
z

Model Yr = 50
Feb-1998 (Wet)

?
?

Model Yr = 56
Sep-2004 (End)

4
Miles

26-Sep-08
Prepared by: DWB

Figure 19

Map Projection:
State Plane 1983, California Zone IV
GIS_proj/cal_am_north_marina_modeling_9-08/0_Fig_19_3a_reg_proj_180ft_SWI_9-08.mxd

254

NORTH MARINA GROUNDWATER MODEL


EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL PROJECTS

CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER


Predicted Total Dissolved Solids Concentrations
Proposed Monterey Regional Water Supply Well 5

40,000

40,000

35,000

35,000

25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000

30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000

0
4

2920

4380

12

5840

16

7300
8760
10220
11680
13140
20
24
28
32
36
Years Since Start of Project

14600

40

16060

44

17520

48

18980

52

20440

56

0
0

1460

2920

4380

12

5840

16

7300

8760
10220
11680
13140
20
24
28
32
36
Years Since Start of Project

14600

16060

40

44

17520

48

18980

52

20440

56

40,000

Predicted Total Dissolved Solids Concentrations


Proposed Monterey Regional Water Supply Well 3
40,000
35,000

TDS Concentration, mg/L

(
!

30,000

25,000

!4

20,000

!
3
! !8

15,000
10,000

10
(
!

Prunedale

30,000

(
!

25,000
20,000
15,000

EXPLANATION

10,000

Castroville

5,000

00

2920

4380

12

5840

16

7300
8760
10220
11680
13140
20
24
28
32
36
Years Since Start of Project

14600

40

16060

44

17520

48

18980

52

20440

56

Monterey Regional
Project Well

Predicted Total Dissolved Solids Concentrations


Proposed Monterey Regional Water Supply Well 9

00

1460

2920

4380

12

5840

16

7300
8760
10220
11680
13140
20
24
28
32
36
Years Since Start of Project

14600

40

16060

44

17520

48

18980

52

! !

20440

56

11

Highway

40,000

12

35,000

TDS Concentration, mg/L

Predicted Total Dissolved Solids Concentrations


Proposed Monterey Regional Water Supply Well 1
40,000
35,000
30,000

Major Roads

30,000
25,000

Rivers and Creeks

20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000

25,000

Marina

(
!

20,000

00

1460

2920

4380

12

5840

16

7300

8760
10220
11680
13140
20
24
28
32
36
Years Since Start of Project

z
A

15,000
10,000

14600

40

16060

44

17520

48

18980

17520

18980

20440

52

20440

56

Salinas
(
!

a
lin
Sa

TDS Concentration, mg/L

1460

GEOSCIENCE Groundwater
Model Boundary

5,000

i ve
sR

5,000

0
00

1460

2920

4380

12

5840

16

7300
8760
10220
11680
13140
20
24
28
32
36
Years Since Start of Project

14600

40

16060

44

17520

48

18980

52

20440

56

Predicted Total Dissolved Solids Concentrations


Proposed Monterey Regional Water Supply Well 12

Predicted Total Dissolved Solids Concentrations


Proposed Monterey Regional Water Supply Well 11

Predicted Total Dissolved Solids Concentrations


Proposed Monterey Regional Water Supply Well 6

Predicted Total Dissolved Solids Concentrations


Proposed Monterey Regional Water Supply Well 8

40,000

40,000

35,000

35,000

35,000

30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000

30,000
(
!

Pacific Grove

25,000
20,000
15,000
(
!

Monterey

10,000

30,000

Sand City

(
!

25,000
(
!

Seaside

20,000
15,000
10,000
(
!

5,000

5,000

TDS Concentration, mg/L

40,000

35,000

TDS Concentration, mg/L

40,000

TDS Concentration, mg/L

TDS Concentration, mg/L

Elkhorn

35,000

ific

1460

Pac

00

Predicted Total Dissolved Solids Concentrations


Proposed Monterey Regional Water Supply Well 10

Oc

5,000

TDS Concentration, mg/L

30,000

PREDICTED TDS
CONCENTRATIONS
FROM REGIONAL
PROJECT
EXTRACTION WELLS
ean

TDS Concentration, mg/L

TDS Concentration, mg/L

Predicted Total Dissolved Solids Concentrations


Proposed Monterey Regional Water Supply Well 4

Del Rey Oaks

5,000

30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000

(
!

00

1460

2920

4380

12

5840

16

7300
8760
10220
11680
13140
20
24
28
32
36
Years Since Start of Project

14600

40

16060

44

17520

48

18980

52

Del Monte Forest


0
0

20440

56

1460

2920

4380

12

5840
16

7300
8760
10220
11680
13140
20
24
28
32
36
Years Since Start of Project

0
14600

40

16060

44

17520

48

18980

52

20440

56

0
0
0

1460

2920

4380

12

5840
16

7300
8760
10220
11680
13140
20
24
28
32
36
Years Since Start of Project

14600

40

16060

44

17520

48

18980

52

20440

56

00

1460

2920

4380

12

5840

16

7300
8760
10220
11680
13140
20
24
28
32
36
Years Since Start of Project

14600

40

16060

44

48

52

56

26-Sep-08
Prepared by: DWB

Map Projection:
State Plane 1983, California Zone IV
GIS_proj/cal_am_north_marina_modeling_9-08/0_Fig_20_TDS_graphs_regional_9-08.mxd

Figure 20

Miles

255

NORTH MARINA GROUNDWATER MODEL


EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL PROJECTS

CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER

b
A

if i c

Oc

Pa c

ean

ific

Oce

an

b
A

180-FOOT AQUIFER
BASELINE vs. REGIONAL
PROJECT SCENARIO 4b
GROUNDWATER
ELEVATIONS

0
0

Pac

-5

-5

-5

10

-5

-5

0
0

EXPLANATION
GEOSCIENCE Groundwater
Model Boundary
5

10

15

Baseline Groundwater Elevation,


ft amsl

20

20
5

10

z
A
25

5
10

15
15

30

30

?
25

Highway

15

20 20
25 25

Regional Project Scenario 4b


Grounwater Elevation, ft amsl

z
A

Model Yr = 33
May-81(Normal)

25

Model Yr = 35
Mar-83 (Wet)

25

20

Model Yr = 13
Jun-1961 (Dry)

Predictive Model Year*


Hydrologic Year

* Years Since Start of Model Scenario


b
A

-5

an

-5

Pa c

-5

Pa c

ific

ific

Oce

Oce

an

-20

-5

b
A

-5

-10

-5

-15

-15

-10

-20

-20

-20

-5

0
10

z
A
15

15

20 20

25

25

-5

15

15

10

10

10
10

z
A

-5
-5

Model Yr = 43
Jun-91 (Dry)

20

15

Model Yr = 56
Sep-04 (End)

26-Sep-08
Prepared by: DWB

0
Map Projection:
State Plane 1983, California Zone IV
GIS_proj/cal_am_north_marina_modeling_9-08/0_Fig_21_4a_reg_proj_180ft_9-08.mxd

Figure 21

Miles

256

NORTH MARINA GROUNDWATER MODEL


EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL PROJECTS

CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER

20
10

Baseline

0
-10

20

Ground Water Elevation, ft amsl

Ground Water Elevation, ft amsl

Scenario

Scenario

-20
-30

30
Scenario

Ground Water Elevation, ft amsl

30

30

Baseline

10
0
-10
-20
-30

00

1460

2920

4380
12

5840
16

7300
8760
10220
11680
13140
20
24
28
32
36
Years Since Start of Scenario

40

14600

44

16060

48

17520

52

18980

20

Baseline

10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40

-40

-40

REGIONAL PROJECT
SCENARIO 4b
HYDROGRAPHS

180 ft
Aquifer

Hydrograph for Observation Well 9


Regional Project Scenario 4b

Pa c
i
O ce fic
an

Deep
Aquifer

Hydrograph for Observation Well 1


Regional Project Scenario 4b

180 ft
Aquifer

Hydrograph for Proposed Regional Project Well 5


Regional Project Scenario 4b

00

56

20440

1460

2920

4380
12

5840
16

7300
8760
10220
11680
13140
20
24
28
32
36
Years Since Start of Scenario

40

14600

44

16060

48

17520

52

18980

00

56

20440

1460

4380
12

2920

5840
16

7300
8760
10220
11680
13140
20
24
28
32
36
Years Since Start of Scenario

40

14600

44

16060

48

17520

52

18980

56

20440

EXPLANATION

!
Hydrograph for Proposed Regional Project Well 4
Regional Project Scenario 4b

20
Baseline
10

400 ft
Aquifer

Hydrograph for Observation Well 11


Regional Project Scenario 4b

-10
Scenario

Scenario
-30
-40
00

1460

2920

4380
12

5840
16

7300
8760
10220
11680
13140
20
24
28
32
36
Years Since Start of Scenario

40

14600

44

16060

Hydrograph for Proposed Regional Project Well 3


Regional Project Scenario 4b

48

52

17520

18980

56

20440

180 ft
Aquifer

30

20

Baseline

10
0

Monterey Regional Project Well

WRIME Calibration Well

GEOSCIENCE Groundwater
Model Boundary

15

Highway

11

Rivers and Creeks

11
13

-10

-20
-30

20

z
A

-40
00

1460

2920

4380
12

5840
16

10

7300
8760
10220
11680
13140
20
24
28
32
36
Years Since Start of Scenario

40

14600

44

16060

48

17520

52

18980

56

20440

Baseline
0
-10

Scenario

14

-20
-30

-40
4

1460

2920

12

4380

5840
16

7300
8760
10220
11680
13140
20
24
28
32
36
Years Since Start of Scenario

40

14600

44

16060

48

17520

Hydrograph for Proposed Regional Project Well 1


Regional Project Scenario 4b

52

18980

56

20440

180 ft
Aquifer

Hydrograph for Proposed Regional Project Well 11


Regional Project Scenario 4b

30

180 ft
Aquifer

400 ft
Aquifer

Hydrograph for Observation Well 13


Regional Project Scenario 4b

30

30

30

30
Scenario

10
0
-10
Scenario
-20
-30
-40
0
0

1460

2920

4380
12

5840
16

7300
8760
10220
11680
13140
20
24
28
32
36
Years Since Start of Scenario

40

14600

44

16060

48

17520

52

18980

56

20440

20
Baseline

10
0
-10

Scenario

-20
-30

20

Baseline

10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40

-40
00

1460

2920

4380
12

5840
16

7300
8760
10220
11680
13140
20
24
28
32
36
Years Since Start of Scenario

40

14600

44

16060

48

17520

52

18980

56

20440

Ground Water Elevation, ft amsl

Ground Water Elevation, ft amsl

Baseline

Ground Water Elevation, ft amsl

Scenario
20

00

1460

2920

4380
12

5840
16

7300
8760
10220
11680
13140
20
24
28
32
36
Years Since Start of Scenario

40

14600

44

16060

48

17520

52

18980

56

20440

400 ft
Aquifer

Hydrograph for Observation Well 15


Regional Project Scenario 4b

400 ft
Aquifer

Hydrograph for Observation Well 14


Regional Project Scenario 4b

20

Scenario

Baseline

Ground Water Elevation, ft amsl

0
0

Ground Water Elevation, ft amsl

30

-20

Ground Water Elevation, ft amsl

Ground Water Elevation, ft amsl

30

Ground Water Elevation, ft amsl

Well Hydrograph Locations

180 ft
Aquifer

10
0
-10
-20
-30

20

Baseline

10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40

-40
00

1460

2920

4380
12

5840
16

7300
8760
10220
11680
13140
20
24
28
32
36
Years Since Start of Scenario

40

14600

44

16060

48

17520

52

18980

56

20440

00

1460

2920

4380
12

5840
16

7300
8760
10220
11680
13140
20
24
28
32
36
Years Since Start of Scenario

40

14600

44

16060

48

17520

52

18980

56

20440

26-Sep-08
Prepared by: DWB

Map Projection:
State Plane 1983, California Zone IV
GIS_proj/cal_am_north_marina_modeling_9-08//0_Fig_22_4a_reg_proj_Hydrographs_9-08.mxd

Figure 22

Miles

257

NORTH MARINA GROUNDWATER MODEL


EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL PROJECTS

CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER

A
b

A
b

A
b

180-FOOT AQUIFER
BASELINE vs. REGIONAL
PROJECT SCENARIO 4b
SEAWATER INTRUSION

A
b

EXPLANATION
GEOSCIENCE Groundwater
Model Boundary
Baseline Seawater Intrusion
Chloride = 500 mg/L

A
z

A
z

Model Yr = 0
Initial

A
z

?
?

Model Yr = 13
Jun-1961 (Dry)

A
z

Model Yr = 21
Jan-1969 (Wet)

?
?

Model Yr = 29
Aug-1977 (Dry)

Regional Project Scenario Seawater


Instrusion, Chloride = 500 mg/L
Highway

Model Yr = 13
Jun-1961 (Dry)

Predictive Model Year*


Hydrologic Year

* Years Since Start of Model Scenario

A
b

A
b

A
z

A
z

Model Yr = 35
Mar-1983 (Wet)

A
b

A
z

A
b

Model Yr = 43
Jun-1991 (Dry)

A
z

Model Yr = 50
Feb-1998 (Wet)

?
?

Model Yr = 56
Sep-2004 (End)

4
Miles

26-Sep-08
Prepared by: DWB

Figure 23

Map Projection:
State Plane 1983, California Zone IV
GIS_proj/cal_am_north_marina_modeling_9-08/0_Fig_3_4a_reg_proj_180ft_SWI_9-08.mxd

258

NORTH MARINA GROUNDWATER MODEL


EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL PROJECTS

CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER

PREDICTED TDS
CONCENTRATIONS
FROM REGIONAL
PROJECT SCENARIO 4b
EXTRACTION WELLS

Predicted Total Dissolved Solids Concentrations


Proposed Regional Project Well 5 - Scenario 4b

35,000

25,000

ean

20,000

15,000

Oc

Predicted Total Dissolved Solids Concentrations


Proposed Regional Project Well 4 - Scenario 4b

30,000

10,000
0

1460

2920

4380

12

5840
16

7300
8760
10220
11680
13140
20
24
28
32
36
Years Since Start of Project

14600

40

16060

17520

44

48

18980

52

Elkhorn

20440

56

I
Prunedale

(
!

Pac

TDS Concentration, mg/L

(
!

ific

TDS Concentration, mg/L

35,000

30,000

25,000

EXPLANATION

20,000

15,000

(
!

Castroville

!4
10,000
00

1460

2920

4380

5840

12

16

7300
8760
10220
11680
13140
20
24
28
32
36
Years Since Start of Project

14600

40

16060

44

17520

48

18980

20440

52

56

Predicted Total Dissolved Solids Concentrations


Proposed Regional Project Well 3 - Scenario 4b

35,000

TDS Concentration, mg/L

Monterey Regional
Project Well
GEOSCIENCE Groundwater
Model Boundary
Highway

Major Roads

11

30,000

Rivers and Creeks


25,000

20,000

15,000

Marina

(
!

10,000
00

1460

2920

4380

12

5840

16

7300
8760
10220
11680
13140
20
24
28
32
36
Years Since Start of Project

14600

40

16060

44

17520

18980

48

52

z
A

20440

56

Salinas
(
!

a
lin
Sa
i ve
sR
r

Predicted Total Dissolved Solids Concentrations


Proposed Regional Project Well 1 - Scenario 4b

Predicted Total Dissolved Solids Concentrations


Proposed Regional Project Well 11 - Scenario 4b

30,000

25,000

(
!

20,000

Pacific Grove

Sand City

(
!

(
!

Seaside

15,000

(
!

Monterey

10,000
00

1460

2920

4380

12

5840

16

7300
8760
10220
11680
13140
20
24
28
32
36
Years Since Start of Project

14600

40

16060

44

17520

48

18980

52

35,000

TDS Concentration, mg/L

TDS Concentration, mg/L

35,000

30,000

25,000

20,000

15,000

20440

56
(
!

Del Rey Oaks


10,000

(
!

00

Del Monte Forest

1460

2920

4380

12

5840

16

7300
8760
10220
11680
13140
20
24
28
32
36
Years Since Start of Project

14600

40

16060

44

17520

48

18980

52

20440

56

26-Sep-08
Prepared by: DWB

Map Projection:
State Plane 1983, California Zone IV
GIS_proj/cal_am_north_marina_modeling_9-08/0_Fig_24_TDS_graphs_regional_9-08.mxd

Figure 24

Miles

259

APPENDIX E: LATE COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED

260

6/4/13 Board Meeting- Item 7


MPWSP Draft Report
Deadline: 5/30/13 by 12 noon

LAW OFFICES OF

MICHAEL W. STAMP
Michael W. Stamp
Molly Erickson
Olga Mikheeva
Jennifer McNary

479 Pacific Street, Suite One


Monterey, California 93940

Telephone (831) 373-1214


Facsimile (831) 373-0242

LATE COMMENT
June 10, 2013

6-10-13

Felicia Marcus, Chair and Members of the Board


State Water Resources Control Board
P.O. Box 100

Sacramento, CA 95812-0100

Subject:

June 4, 2013 Board Meeting/HearingA/Vorkshop


Item 7 - Workshop on revised draft report to CPUC on Cal Am's
Desalination Project

Dear Chair Marcus and Members of the Board:

This Office represents Ag Land Trust. This letter follows up on my oral


comments to you at your June 4, 2013 Board meeting held in Monterey. This letter
addresses the lack of reliability of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the
Regional Desalination Project. We urge the State Board to reject the Board staff
document that relies on information in that EIR.
Board Staff Statements at June 4. 2013 Board Meeting

At the Board meeting, Board staff presented Agenda Item 7, a workshop on


Board staffs "revised Draft Report that examines the legal and technical
considerations" associated with Cal Am's new desalination project proposal. In the oral
introduction, Board staff stated1 as follows:
As to the sources of information used to prepare our report,
Board staff used the most available information that was out

there. We did rely on the EIR for the proposed Regional


Desal Plant. I know that EIR was challenged in court, but it
was only challenged on legal aspects of the EIR, not from a
technical standpoint. So we used the technical aspects of
the EIR to prepare our report.

The Board staffs statement that the challenge to the EIR was "only" on "legal
aspects" and not "technical" issues is not accurate. Also, the Board staffs confusing
separation of the EIR problems into "legal aspects" and "technical aspects" is not
helpful. The Board staff also did not state whether, in its opinion, water rights are a
legal issue or technical issue. Ag Land Trust believes that the water rights analysis in
this case should involve legal and technical considerations.
Rough transcription prepared by our Office. The official recording is not yet available.

261

Felicia Marcus, Chair and Members of the Board


State Water Resources Control Board

June 10, 2013

Page 2

Ag Land Trust's position is that any reliance on the Regional Desalination Project
EIR is inappropriate, and that reliance on the EIR would undermine the factual
disclosure purposes and legislative intent of CEQA. With regard to the challenge to the
EIR, we provide a brief overview here, to assist the Board.
The Litigation Challenged the EIR on Seven Substantive Grounds

In April 2010, Ag Land Trust challenged the Marina Coast Water District's
Regional Desalination Project approvals made in reliance on the Regional Desalination
Project EIR. The lawsuit resulted in an April 2012 judgment by the Monterey County
Superior Court in favor of Ag Land Trust. That judgment has been appealed. The
appeal is pending before the Sixth District Court of Appeal.
In the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) litigation, Ag Land Trust
argued that the EIR was legally insufficient due to substantive errors in seven broad
categories. We very briefly and generally summarize Ag Land Trust's arguments.

1.

Water Rights. The EIR failed to identify water rights for the
feedwater that would supply the desalination plant. The Draft EIR
did not address water rights. The Salinas Valley Water Coalition
asked "Under what water right, and whose, will groundwater be
pumped and surface water diverted? On what basis?" (FEIR,
comment G-SVWC-10 [no FEIR page number].) The FEIR
response was: "[Wjater rights are not considered an environmental
issue." (FEIR, p. 14.5-198.)

2.

Assumptions about Groundwater Pumping. The EIR relied on a


groundwater model that assumed 56 years of constant pumping of
the coastal feedwater wells, which led to the EIR's conclusion that
the pumping would create a groundwater "trough" that would
prevent seawater intrusion. This assumption is not realistic
because of the known operational problems of desalination plants
and coastal wells. Relying on the model, the EIR claimed that the
project's coastal pumping would halt seawater intrusion. That claim
is inconsistent with purposes behind the Monterey County
prohibitions on pumping from the coastal 180-foot aquifer, which
were enacted to halt seawater intrusion.

3.

Violations of the Monterey County Water Resources Aoencv Act.

The Act prohibits exportation of groundwater from the Salinas


Valley Groundwater Basin. The EIR assumed that the feedwater
for the desalination plant would be 80% seawater and 20% fresh
water. This assumption was inconsistent with an EIR appendix that
stated that over time the seawater portion would fall to 60% and the

262

Felicia Marcus, Chair and Members of the Board


State Water Resources Control Board

June 10,2013

Page 3

fresh water - from the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin - would


grow to 40%, which was double the EIR's assumption of 20%.
4.

Impacts of Brine. After the Final EIR was released, and before the

Regional Project was approved, the Monterey Regional Water


Pollution Control Agency received a report that said that the brine
would cause increased corrosion of the existing outfall pipeline that
would significantly decrease the expected life of the pipeline. A
separate problem is that the outfall pipeline does not have available
capacity during peak periods. Neither issue was addressed
adequately in the EIR.

5.

Impacts to Overlying and Adjacent Properties. Ag Land Trust and


other overlying agricultural and residential owners of water rights
would be harmed by the exacerbation of seawater intrusion that the
EIR assumed would take place around the intake wells.

6.

Degradation of Groundwater Quality under the SWRCB's AntiDeoradation Policy. The operation of the intake wells would
degrade the groundwater in the area, including the North County
water supply that is protected by the Local Coastal Plan certified by
the California Coastal Commission.

7.

Mandatory Contingency Plan. Monterey County requires a


desalination plant to have a contingency plan to provide an
alternate water supply. The EIR did not address or identify the
requirement for a contingency plan. Ag Land Trust later discovered
documentation that the contingency plan was to pump water from
the overdrafted Carmel River and the adjudicated Seaside Basin the very harm that the desalination plant was intended to avoid.

It cannot be disputed that these are serious technical issues. This list
demonstrates that it is inaccurate for Board staff to claim that the EIR was challenged
only on legal aspects, not on technical aspects.
Ag Land Trust provided the Superior Court judgement to the Board staff as
Exhibit C to Ag Land Trust's May 3, 2013 comments on the Board staffs draft report.
Ag Land Trust's letter is at pages 118 to 191 of the 262-page "Draft Final Review of
California American Water Company's Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project,"
dated May 22, 2013.

The Superior Court determined that the EIR was inadequate in its analysis of
water rights (April 17, 2012 Judgment, Ex. B, at pp. 29-30), and that "As the lead
agency, Marina Coast will need to address this prejudicial abuse of discretion including,

263

Felicia Marcus, Chair and Members of the Board


State Water Resources Control Board

June 10, 2013

Page 4

but not limited to, 1) water rights; 2) contingency plan; 3) the assumption of constant
pumping; 4) the exportation of groundwater from the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin;
5) brine impacts on the outfall; 6) impacts on overlying [and] adjacent properties; and 7)
water quality." (Id. at p. 30.)
Ag Land Trust's challenge to the EIR included one critical procedural issue,
which was the issue of proper lead agency. The Superior Court determined that Marina
Coast Water District was the proper lead agency for Marina Coast's approvals, not the
CPUC. (/d. atp. 19.)

Under CEQA, when an EIR is prepared by the wrong lead agency, ifthe Court
finds one or more significant and prejudicial defect in the EIR, the Court is to reject the
EIR. (Planning and Conservation League v. Department of Water Resources (2000) 83
Cal.App.4th 892, 920.) In view of the Court's conclusion that a different agency must
serve as lead agency under CEQA and that the EIR was defective in at least one
significant and prejudicial aspect, the Court held that the proper lead agency may
choose to address issues differently than the way those issues had been addressed in
the EIR prepared by the wrong lead agency. (Ibid.) Once a Court has determined that
a new EIR should be prepared by the proper lead agency, the Court "need not address
the other alleged deficiencies" in the EIR. (Ibid.) In other words, ordering the correct
lead agency to prepare a new EIR gives a fresh start to the EIR efforts.
Ag Land Trust Is Using Groundwater For Beneficial Uses

Ag Land Trust's position is that the Regional Desalination Project EIR did not
adequately consider the issue of groundwater use by adjacent landowners. Ag Land
Trust raised this issue prior to and during the EIR process. No adjacent land owners
were contacted by the EIR preparers in spite of the objections.
Cal Am currently proposes to place its desalination intake wells on the coastal
CEMEX site north of Marina. Ag Land Trust owns prime agricultural property adjacent
to the CEMEX site. The Ag Land Trust property is in active agricultural production. Ag
Land Trust is using its groundwater for beneficial uses. Ag Land Trust is irrigating
native plants onsite as part of its dune restoration program. Ag Land Trust's position is
that pumping by Cal Am's wells would harm the groundwater quality and would cause
the unlawful contamination of the coastal aquifers, which would result in an unlawful
taking of Ag Land Trust's groundwater resources.
Request

The Board should not rely on the Regional Desalination Project EIR for any
purpose. The EIR analysis is not "the best information available," contrary to the claim
of State Water Board staff ("Draft final review of California American Water Company's
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project," dated May 22, 2013, p. 53).

264

Felicia Marcus, Chair and Members of the Board


State Water Resources Control Board

June 10, 2013

Page 5

If the Board chooses to provide a report to the CPUC on water rights, the Board
should direct Board staff to rewrite the draft report without any reliance on the EIR, and
recirculate the revised document for public comment.

Ifthe Board decides to allow the Board staff to rely on the EIR, the Board should
instruct staff to (1) annotate the draft report by identifying the specific language of the
EIR that Board staff relied on, and (2) recirculate the annotated document for public
comment.

Thank you.
Very truly yours,
LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL W. STAMP

cc:

Thomas Howard, Executive Director

265

Public Comment
MPWSP Draft Report
Deadline: 5/3/13 by 12 noon

LATE COMMENT

P.O. Box 269


Monterey, CA 93942
831/663-9460

5-30-13

May 30, 2013


State Water Resources Control Board
P.O. Box 100
Sacramento, CA 95812-0100
Re: 6/4/13 BOARD MEETING, Agenda Item 7, WORKSHOP ON STATE WATER BOARD REVISED DRAFT
REPORT THAT EXAMINES THE LEGAL AND TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH CALIFORNIA
AMERICAN WATER COMPANYS PROPOSAL TO EXTRACT DESALINATION FEEDWATER FOR THE
MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT
Dear Board Members and Staff:
Thank you for the opportunity to provide information and comment on this important item. The
following comments are made on behalf of The Otter Project and our water quality program Monterey
Coastkeeper and our 3000 members. I want to acknowledge that the official comment period for this
item has closed and that this information is meant to add detail to my comments that will be made June
4th.
The information sheet for this item states: Cal-Am must show any desalinated water it produces is
developed water that is surplus to the current uses in the Basin. The Salinas Valley is perhaps the most
poorly managed surface and groundwater basin in the State of California. The lack of water in the basin
is not because of water scarcity, it is because of the unrestrained thirst of agriculture in the basin and
because agricultural use so pollutes the water that it becomes unavailable for reuse without expensive
treatment.
The Salinas Basin is one of the first places in California where over-extraction and desalination were
documented. As early as the 1930s Salinas Valley farmers were forced to drill deeper to find potable
water because of salt water intrusion. A commissioned State Department of Health Study, published as
Bulletin 52 in 1946, recommended a series of measures to slow and eventually eliminate the intrusion.
One outcome was a legislative act that created a management agency, the Monterey Flood Control and
Water Conservation District, endowed with special powers to control saltwater intrusion. The
Monterey Flood Control and Water Conservation District became the Monterey County Water
Resources Agency (MCWRA) of today. MCWRA has created a labyrinth of engineered water supply
projects including:

Nacimiento Dam and Lake built in 1961;


San Antonio Dam and Lake built in 1965;
The Salinas Valley Water Project including an inflatable dam and water diversion on the Salinas
River completed in 2010.

The intent of these projects to halt and reverse sea water intrusion has not been realized. As shown in
Attachment One, sea water intrusion continues to creep inland and one front of intrusion is now 11
miles inland and nearly underlying the City of Salinas (Attachment One).

266

Salinas Valley agriculture and MCWRA have touted and documented apparent progress in water
conservation including efforts to reduce flood and furrow irrigation and encourage drip. With all this
additional water supply and water conservation, why has sea water intrusion not been reversed?
The answers are threefold:
1. The move to drip reflects crop type and not water conservation. The lower Valley now grows
water loving strawberries and the upper valley now grows grapes, both irrigated with drip.
2. MCWRAs focus has drifted away from water quality and flood control to simply a water supply
agency.
3. The shift towards water supply has resulted in MCWRA ignoring its regulatory abilities and
mandate to constrain water extraction as a means to reverse saltwater intrusion.
Despite all of the touted and documented water savings resulting from the shift from furrow to drip
irrigation the net water use by agriculture has remained essentially the same over the past decade (see
Attachment Two Monterey County Water Extraction).
Water supply to solve seawater intrusion, environmental degradation, and the water supply problems of
the Monterey Peninsula are dependent on agriculture showing restraint and MCWRA embracing its
mandate to solve water quality (and flooding) problems instead of simple supplying more and more
water to agricultures unquenchable thirst.
Sincerely,

Steve Shimek
Chief Executive
Attachments (2)

267

Attachment One

268

Attachment Two Monterey County Groundwater Extraction


Year
Total Water Pumped
Ag Percentage
Urban Percentage

1995
504512
91.7
8.3

1996
563438
92.4
7.6

1997
598139
92.3
7.7

1998
441048
90.6
9.4

1999
504567
92
8

2000
484354
91.3
8.7

2001
441276
91.5
8.5

2002
520202
91
9

269

2003
501336
90
10

2004
524114
89.9
10.1

2005
494046
89.8
10.2

2006
471240
89.5
10.5

2007
525595
90.4
9.6

2008
527171
90.5
9.5

2009
511224
91.1
8.9

2010
460443
90.4
9.6

2011
448584
90.1
9.9

APPENDIX C1

Coastal Water Elevations and Sea Level Rise


Scenarios

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

C1-1

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

This page intentionally left blank

550 Kearny Street

www.pwa-ltd.com

Suite 900
San Francisco, CA 94108
415.262.2300 phone
415.262.2303 fax

memorandum
date

April 2, 2013

to

Michael Burns, ESA

from

Doug George, ESA PWA

subject

Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project: Coastal Water Elevations and Sea Level Rise Scenarios

Introduction
The purpose of this memo is to provide a set of coastal water elevations under three sea level rise scenarios that
the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project study will use for modeling groundwater. The scenarios are
summarized in Table 1 and the application of these scenarios is presented below.
Table 1: Sea Level Rise Scenarios
Scenario #

Scenario Name

Sea Level Rise

Additional Assumptions in Scenario

Average of Models, High

65.5 in by 2100

Existing wave conditions & continued CEMEX sand mining

Projection

36.2 in by 2100

Existing wave conditions & continued CEMEX sand mining

Average of Models, Low

16.7 in by 2100

Existing wave conditions & continued CEMEX sand mining

The work described in this memorandum was completed by Doug George, Elena Vandebroek, Louis White and
David Revell, PhD, with oversight by Bob Battalio, PE.

Sea Level Rise


Climate change is likely to result in increases in temperature with associated changes in precipitation, more
extreme storm events, including rainfall intensity and droughts, as well as increases in sea level and other
consequences. Rising sea levels associated with global warming result from both thermal expansion of water (e.g.
warmer water occupies more volume) and increasing ice melt. This sea level rise is expected to contribute to an
increase in the severity and duration of flooding and an acceleration of shoreline erosion.
Existing Sea Level Trends

Local rates of sea level rise can be estimated as a result of two components a regional rate of sea level rise
associated with the nominal global rate of sea level rise and a local component controlled by local or regional
processes, such as tectonics, subsidence and changes to local wind fields. The combination of these two
components lead to a rate of relative sea level rise as it combines changes in the both the sea and land elevations.
If sea level rises and the shoreline rises or subsides, the relative rise in sea level could be lesser or greater than the

\\sfo-file01\PROJECTS\SFO\205xxx\D205335.00 - CalAm Coastal Water Project\00 205335.01 MPWSP\03 Working Documents\02 Admin
Draft EIR\Coastal Tech\Sections\SLR\Scenarios_memo_v4.doc

global sea level rise. Vertical land movement can occur due to tectonics (earthquakes, regional subsidence or
uplift), sediment compaction, isostatic readjustment and groundwater depletion (USACE, 2011).
The Monterey tide gage has a 30-year long period of record and a mean historic local sea level trend of 5.3 inches
per century 5.3 inches per century (Table 2) (NOAA 2009).
Table 2: Existing Sea Level Trends
Source

Location

Period of Record

Local Mean Sea Level Trend

Est. Vertical Land Movement

IPCC, 2007

Global

1961 - 2003

7.1 inches per century

N/A

NOAA, 2009 & Gill, 2011

Monterey tide gage

1973 - 2006

5.3 5.3 inches per century

1.3 inches per century

NRC, 2012 Table 4.6

San Francisco

1930 - 1980

7.1 7.6 inches per century

NRC, 2012 Table 5.3

San Andreas Region

-6 5 inches per century

Note: Positive values indicate upward movement.

Table 2 reports the vertical land movement as estimated using a recently developed NOAA methodology (Gill,
2011) and as published in a recent National Research Council (NRC) report (NRC, 2012). Rates of estimated
vertical land movement vary depending on the study, showing a difference in both magnitude and direction. The
NRC rate is a rough estimate that doesnt take into account localized variations in vertical land motion due to
shallow subsidence and local tectonic movement. Accurate, long-term trends in vertical land motion are difficult
to obtain for specific sites. However, as rates of global sea level continue to increase with climate change, at some
point, the rate of vertical land movement will become less significant in determining the impact of sea level rise.

Future Projections and Guidance on Sea Level Rise


In March 2011, the OPC published a resolution recommending that state agencies incorporate the risks posed by
sea level rise into project and program plans (OPC, 2011). The resolution was targeted towards state agencies and
non-state entities implementing projects or programs funded by the state or on state property (OPC, 2011). The
OPC (2011) provides the following guidance on which SLR projections to use:

Assess vulnerabilities over a range of SLR projections, including analysis of the highest SLR values
presented in the state guidance document;

Avoid making decisions based on SLR projections that would result in high risk; and

Coordinate and use the same SLR projections when working on the same project or program.

The State of California provided interim guidance via the OPC on SLR projections and requested that the NRC
establish a committee to assess sea-level rise to inform the state efforts. The states of Washington and Oregon, the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the U.S. Geological
Survey subsequently joined California in sponsoring the NRC study to evaluate sea-level rise in the global oceans
and along the coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington for 2030, 2050, and 2100. The NRC released their
final report in June 2012 and in March 2013, the OPC revised the interim guidance to incorporate the report
findings (OPC, 2013).

In the NRC recently released results, regional sea level rise (which includes an allowance for vertical land motion)
for San Francisco (the regional estimate nearest to Monterey Bay) is predicted to be 4.8 to 24.0 inches by 2050
and 16.7 to 65.5 inches by 2100 relative to 2000 (Table 3). The San Francisco projection incorporates a 5.9
inches/century rate of subsidence.
Table 3: San Francisco Sea-Level Rise Projections (in inches) Relative to Year 2000 (from Table 5.3, NRC 2012)
2030

2050

2100

Projection

Range

Projection

Range

Projection

Range

5.7 2.0

1.7 to 11.7

11.0 3.6

4.8 to 24.0

36.2 10.0

16.7 to 65.5

Note: NRC 2012 projections include a vertical subsidence of 5.9 5.1 inches/century.

Coastal Water Elevations


Groundwater modeling for the MPWSP requires considering the influence of additional seawater volume above
the aquifer. A curve was fit to the four data points provided in the NRC 2012 report (2030, 2050, 2070, 2100) for
each scenario to generate an annual time series of sea level rise between 2012 to 2073. The values were
normalized to 2012 by subtracting the projected sea level rise at 2012 from all annual sea level rise values (Figure
1). Table 4 contains annual sea level rise projections for each scenario.
Figure 1. Monterey Bay Sea Level Rise Curves for 2012 to 2073.
Note: The values are normalized to 2012 after subtracting the change in sea level from 2000-2012.

Table 4: Projected Annual Sea Level Rise for Monterey Bay


Sea Level Rise Relative to 2012 (inches)

Year
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052

High Range of
Models
0.0
0.4
0.7
1.1
1.5
1.9
2.4
2.8
3.2
3.7
4.1
4.6
5.1
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.6
8.1
8.6
9.2
9.7
10.3
10.8
11.4
12.0
12.6
13.2
13.8
14.4
15.1
15.7
16.3
17.0
17.6
18.3
19.0
19.6
20.3
21.0
21.7

Projection
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.1
1.3
1.5
1.7
1.9
2.1
2.3
2.5
2.7
2.9
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
4.1
4.3
4.5
4.8
5.0
5.3
5.5
5.8
6.0
6.3
6.6
6.9
7.1
7.4
7.7
8.0
8.3
8.6
8.9
9.3
9.6

Low Range of
Models
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.7
1.8
2.0
2.1
2.3
2.4
2.6
2.7
2.9
3.1
3.3
3.4
3.6
3.8
4.0
4.2
4.4
4.5

Incremental Sea Level Rise (inches)


High
Low
Range of
Range of
Models
Projection
Models
---0.368
0.181
0.056
0.378
0.182
0.056
0.388
0.184
0.056
0.398
0.186
0.056
0.407
0.188
0.056
0.417
0.190
0.056
0.427
0.192
0.056
0.436
0.195
0.056
0.446
0.197
0.056
0.455
0.200
0.056
0.464
0.202
0.056
0.473
0.205
0.056
0.482
0.208
0.056
0.491
0.211
0.056
0.500
0.214
0.056
0.509
0.217
0.056
0.518
0.220
0.056
0.527
0.224
0.056
0.535
0.227
0.124
0.544
0.231
0.128
0.552
0.235
0.132
0.561
0.238
0.136
0.569
0.242
0.139
0.577
0.246
0.143
0.586
0.251
0.146
0.594
0.255
0.150
0.602
0.259
0.153
0.610
0.264
0.157
0.617
0.268
0.160
0.625
0.273
0.163
0.633
0.278
0.167
0.640
0.283
0.170
0.648
0.288
0.173
0.655
0.293
0.176
0.663
0.298
0.179
0.670
0.303
0.182
0.677
0.309
0.185
0.684
0.314
0.188
0.692
0.320
0.190
0.699
0.326
0.193

2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
2066
2067
2068
2069
2070
2071
2072
2073

22.4
23.1
23.9
24.6
25.3
26.1
26.8
27.5
28.3
29.1
29.8
30.6
31.4
32.2
33.0
33.8
34.6
35.4
36.2
37.0
37.9

9.9
10.3
10.6
11.0
11.3
11.7
12.0
12.4
12.8
13.2
13.6
14.0
14.4
14.8
15.2
15.7
16.1
16.6
17.0
17.5
18.0

4.7
4.9
5.1
5.3
5.6
5.8
6.0
6.2
6.4
6.6
6.8
7.1
7.3
7.5
7.7
8.0
8.2
8.4
8.7
8.9
9.1

0.705
0.712
0.719
0.726
0.732
0.739
0.745
0.751
0.758
0.764
0.770
0.776
0.782
0.788
0.794
0.799
0.805
0.811
0.816
0.821
0.827

0.332
0.338
0.344
0.350
0.356
0.363
0.369
0.376
0.382
0.389
0.396
0.403
0.410
0.418
0.425
0.432
0.440
0.448
0.456
0.463
0.471

0.196
0.199
0.201
0.204
0.206
0.209
0.211
0.213
0.216
0.218
0.220
0.222
0.224
0.226
0.228
0.230
0.232
0.234
0.235
0.237
0.239

Additional Information
The uncertainty in these projections is large (NRC, 2012) and the probability of a particular sea level rise
occurring at a particular date is not known (USACE, 2011). Hence, each project design should consider the risk
of sea level changes to the project and environment, with risk typically considered the product of the likelihood of
an impact and the consequences of that impact (NRC, 2012). Other work by Flick and others (2003) have
suggested that tidal ranges are increasing with sea level rise. In particular, the increase of the high tides was
observed to be larger than that of the mean and low tides, which has implications for setting the mean higher high
water (MHHW) line in the future. In addition, the values provided above do not address any local vertical land
motion that could affect the relative sea level rise at the site. Subsidence or settlement of the land will increase
relative sea level rise. Such local vertical land lowering can be induced by consolidation of subsurface soils due to
groundwater extraction and additional vertical loads such as fill. Vertical land motions can be estimated based on
elevation surveys of benchmarks over time. The data in Table 4 implicitly assume that vertical land motions at the
project site(s) are small relative to the values of future sea level rise and uncertainty but evaluation of vertical land
motions is beyond the scope of the work performed. Also, these computations do not include wave-driven
dynamics and coastal geomorphic responses which may affect ground water levels.

Attachment
SLRScenarios_data_final.xls - Table 4: Projected Annual Sea Level Rise for Monterey Bay

References
Flick, R.E., J. F. Murray, and L.C. Ewing (2003). Trends in United States Tidal Datum Statistics and Tide Range.
Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal, and Ocean Engineering, Vol. 129, No. 4, July 1, 2003, 155-164.
Gill (2011). NOAA regional estimates - Estimating Local Vertical Land Motion from Long-term Tide Gage
Records Version 2 draft (NOAA 6/8/2011).
NOAA (2009). Sea Level Variations of the United States 1854 - 2006. Technical Report NOS CO-OPS 053.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Silver Spring, Maryland. December 2009.
NRC (2012). Sea-Level Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington: Past, Present, and Future.
Prepublication. National Academy Press: Washington, D. C.
OPC (2013). California Ocean Protection Council. State Of California Sea-Level Rise Guidance Document.
Presented on March 27, 2013. Available online:
http://www.opc.ca.gov/webmaster/ftp/pdf/docs/2013_SLR_Guidance_Update_FINAL1.pdf (last visited April
2, 2013).
OPC (2011). California Ocean Protection Council. Resolution of the California Ocean Protection Council on SeaLevel Rise. Adopted on March 11, 2011. Available online:
http://www.opc.ca.gov/webmaster/ftp/pdf/docs/OPC_SeaLevelRise_Resolution_Adopted031111.pdf (last
visited August 14, 2012).
USACE (2011). Sea-Level Change Considerations for Civil Works Programs. US Army Corps of Engineers,
EC 1165-2-212.

APPENDIX C2

Analysis of Historic and Future Coastal


Erosion with Sea Level Rise

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

C2-1

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

This page intentionally left blank

1425 N. McDowell Boulevard

www.esassoc.com

Suite 200
Petaluma, CA 94954
707.795.0900 phone

Memorandum
date

July 21, 2016

to

Insert to Appendix C2, Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement

from

Project Team

subject

Use of Coastal Erosion Technical Memorandum Titled:


Analysis of Historic and Future Coastal Erosion with Sea Level Rise dated March 19, 2014

In support of the April 2015 Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply
Project (MPWSP), ESA analyzed sea level rise and coastal erosion for the Monterey Bay coastline. The purpose
was to describe coastal processes that could be relevant to assessing the environmental impacts of the MPWSP
and its alternatives, and to identify potential damages to infrastructure from coastal erosion. The ESA report
Analysis of Historic and Future Coastal Erosion with Sea Level Rise, dated March 19, 2014, was included in
Appendix C2 of the 2015 Draft EIR. As discussed in the April 2015 Draft EIR, some of the project components
would be affected by coastal erosion within the project lifetime and a mitigation measure was proposed to reduce
the impact to less than significant.
Subsequently, the proposed action for the MPWSP was revised and is analyzed in this Draft Environmental
Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS). The proposed locations of some project components
have been relocated. The results of the coastal erosion study are still applicable because the change in project
component locations does not change the coastal erosion anticipated to occur in response to sea level rise. The
updated locations of the proposed action components were compared to the anticipated extent of coastal erosion
as shown on Figures 4.2-7 and 4.2-8, presented in Section 4.2, Geology, Soils, and Seismicity.

550 Kearny Street

www.esassoc.com

Suite 900
San Francisco, CA 94108
415.896.5900 phone
415.896.0332 fax

memorandum
date

March 19, 2014

to

Michael Burns and Eric Zigas

from

Elena Vandebroek, David Revell and Doug George

project

Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (205335.01)

subject

Analysis of Historic and Future Coastal Erosion with Sea Level Rise

Purpose and Scope

The Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (Project) proposes infrastructure that is located near or along the
Monterey Bay coastline (Figure 1). Sea level is predicted to rise over the next century and could affect some of
these project components. Coastal erosion, an ongoing issue in Southern Monterey Bay, is also expected to increase
with accelerating sea level rise. The primary focus of this memo is to describe coastal processes that could be relevant
to assessing the environmental impacts of the Project and the viability of Project alternatives, and to identify
potential damages to Project infrastructure from coastal erosion. This memo is organized as follows:
Section 2 Historic and existing erosion processes in Southern Monterey Bay
Section 3 Future erosion in the face of accelerating sea level rise

Historic and Existing Erosion Processes

The following section summarizes the existing and historic processes affecting coastal erosion. These processes
include Wave Climate and Storm Characteristics, Historic Shoreline Change Trends, Sand Mining, and Rip
Embayments.

2.1

Wave Climate and Storm Characteristics

The coast of Monterey Bay is exposed to high energy waves throughout the year, with seasonal differences
resulting in waves approaching from many directions. Wave data measured by offshore wave buoys show these
seasonal and annual differences (Storlazzi and Wingfield 2005). The largest waves typically occur in the late fall
and winter and are associated with wave generation in the Gulf of Alaska. These winter waves have long wave
periods (12 to 14 seconds), large significant waves heights (~9 ft on average), and come from the northwest
(310) (Storlazzi and Wingfield 2005). In the spring, smaller wave heights and shorter wave periods result from
strong northwest winds. In the summer, the coast is exposed to long period south swells. Point Pios partially
shelters the coast from these waves, especially farther south in the bay, toward the City of Monterey. Estimates of
recurrence intervals for large wave events can be statistically derived from a time series of wave data. For
example, a 100-year wave event at the Monterey wave buoy (NDBC #46042) is projected to have an offshore
significant wave height of 40 ft OR a dominant wave period of 32 seconds (Storlazzi and Wingfield 2005)1. This
1 A swell period of 32 seconds is not expected to govern at the 100-year recurrence level because the associated wave height would be

much smaller than the 100-year wave height of 40. For this and a range of reasons beyond the scope of this memo, a shorter wave
period would be associated with the governing 100-year swell.

means that every year, there is a 1% chance that waves will achieve the above combination of significant wave
height and dominant period. Similar calculations can be made for more frequent storm events, such as 10-yr or
25-yr occurrences, which reflect the 10% and 4% annual probabilities respectively.
Large waves are not the only contributing factor to coastal erosion. A common indicator of coastal erosion is the
total water level, which is the sum of tides, wave runup on the beach, and other atmospheric conditions which
affect ocean water levels. When all of these constituents are added together, the resulting total water elevation
provides a useful measure for projecting coastal erosion (Ruggiero et al 1996, Revell et al 2011). Historically,
some of the most damaging wave erosion events have occurred during El Nio events, when wave directions shift
more to the south and west and come less impeded into Monterey Bay. This more direct wave energy coupled
with elevated ocean water levels (on the order of one foot2) can cause dramatic and often devastating erosion
along the Monterey Bay coast.
The ideal situation to minimize damage to the desalination infrastructure is to avoid the dynamic beach
environment, which will migrate inland over time from sea level rise. The storm waves discussed above drive the
episodic erosion events that are typical in Monterey Bay, and periodically threaten existing development.
Following these storm events, beaches can sometimes recover over a season or a few years. Other parts of the Bay
are experiencing continuous erosion without full recovery, especially in southern Monterey Bay (see section 2.2).

2.2

Historic Shoreline Change Trends

It is essential to understand historic shoreline change trends in order to accurately project future erosion. Shoreline
change data was compiled from a variety of sources and is summarized in Figure 2. This figure shows the
locations of the MPWSP representative profiles shown on Figure 1 (discussed in detail later in this technical
memorandum) and other landmarks relative to the historic accretion or erosion rates. Table 1 summarizes each of
the datasets plotted in Figure 2. For the erosion analysis, we combined the updated shoreline change rates (#2)
with the Thornton et al 2006 dune erosion rates (#1), where available. Thornton et al 2006 estimated recent
erosion rates based on dune crest recession, which is a more robust estimate of erosion than shoreline change.
TABLE 1
EROSION RATE DATA SOURCES FOR SOUTHERN MONTEREY BAY
#

Dataset

Timespan

Notes

Thornton 2006, dune crest recession rate

1984 2002

This was the most detailed study available for erosion rates in the
study area. Erosion was measured at 6 locations in Southern
Monterey Bay. Erosion rates were interpolated between these
measurements for this analysis.

Analysis by ESA for this study: short-term


linear regression erosion rate calculated based
on the 1933, 1998, and 2010 shorelines.

1932 2010

The 1932 and 1998 shorelines were obtained from Hapke et al


2006 and updated with a 2010 shoreline, extracted from a high
resolution LiDAR DEM (NOAA 2012, collected in May/June 2010).

Hapke et al 2006, shoreline change rate

1945 1998

Not used in this analysis, included for context only.

Hapke et al 2007, soft bluff recession rate

1933 1998

Not used in this analysis, included for context only. This study was
for the entire California coast, while Thornton 2006 focused on this
study area.

Analysis by ESA for this study: long-term


linear regression erosion rate calculated
based on the 1852, 1933, 1998, and 2010
shorelines.

1852 2010

The 1852, 1932 and 1998 shorelines were obtained from Hapke et
al 2006 and updated with a 2010 shoreline. Because sand mining,
which started in 1906, plays such a large role in coastal erosion,
these rates were not used in this analysis.

2 Tide stations have recorded an increase in average winter water levels of about one foot during the strong 1982-3 and 1997-8 El Nios,

and individual deviations above predicted tides of over 2 during El Nio storms.

2.3

Sand Mining

The mining of sand can increase erosion rates, modify shoreline orientation, and change sand transport rates.
Thornton et al (2006) suggests that the alongshore variation in dune recession rates is a function of wave energy
and sand mining. Southern Monterey Bay has been mined intensively for sand for more than a century. Sand
mining near the mouth of the Salinas River started in 1906, and expanded to six commercial sites: three at Marina
and three at Sand City. Five of these operations closed by 1990, leaving the Pacific Lapis Plant in Marina (owned
by CEMEX) as the only active sand mining operation.

2.4

Rip Embayments

Rip embayments have been correlated with dune erosion in Monterey Bay (Thornton et al, 2007). Also known as
beach mega-cusps, rip embayments are localized narrowing and deepening of the beach. They are caused by the
erosive action of cross-shore rip currents. The beach is the narrowest at the embayment, allowing swash and wave
run-up to reach the toe of the dune and cause erosion during coincident high tides and storm wave events. In
Monterey Bay, these embayments are on the order of 200 feet wide (alongshore and cross-shore), and occur at
approximately 600-foot along-shore spacing intervals (MacMahan et al, 2006, Thornton et al, 2007). Rip currents
are highly dynamic, migrating up to 12 feet per day (Thornton et al, 2007). Field observations of rip channels in
Monterey Bay between Wharf II in Monterey and Sand City found that typical rip channels are 5 feet deeper than
the adjacent beach face.

Projecting Future Erosion

Future erosion was analyzed at six locations along the study area (Figure 1) and assessed using two methods. The
first was to look at the aerial extent of potential erosion. Coastal erosion hazard zones, which delineate areas
potentially at risk from coastal erosion, are described and discussed in Section 3.1. The second method considers
erosion on a vertical profile. Profiles were selected at locations of key infrastructure (Figure 1) and projected into
the future. The methods and results of this analysis are described in Section 3.2.

3.1

Coastal Erosion Hazard Zones3

Coastal erosion hazard zones were developed using methods described in PWA 2009 and Revell et al 2011. A
coastal erosion hazard zone represents an area where erosion (caused by coastal processes) has the potential to
occur over a certain time period. This does not mean that the entire hazard zone is eroded away; rather, any area
within this zone is at risk of damage due to erosion during a major storm event. Actual location of erosion during
a particular storm depends on the unique characteristics of that storm (e.g. wave direction, surge, rainfall, and
coincident tide). As sea level rises, higher mean sea level will make it possible for wave run-up to reach the dune
more frequently, undercutting at the dune toe and causing increased erosion. This analysis used a sea level rise
projection of 15 inches by 2040 and 28 inches by 2060, relative to 2010. These projections are based on a 2012
study by the National Research Council (NRC) which provided regional sea level rise estimates for San Francisco
(the closest projection to the Project). The 2040 and 2060 values were derived by fitting a curve to the Average
of Models, High projections for 2030, 2050, and 2100 published in the NRC study (NRC 2012).

3 The coastal erosion hazard zones are being developed by ESA PWA as part of the ongoing Monterey Bay Sea Level Rise Vulnerability

Study (anticipated completion in early 2014). The zones presented here are preliminary and are subject to change in the final maps
delivered to the Monterey Bay Sanctuary Foundation (the client). However, particular attention was given to the Project focus
locations. Therefore any final modifications are expected to be minimal at these locations.

Coastal Hazard Zone Model Development


The coastal hazard zones are developed from three components: historic erosion, additional erosion due to sea
level rise, and the potential erosion impact caused by a large storm wave event (e.g. 100-year). The most
important variables in the hazard zone model address these components (Table 2).
TABLE 2
COASTAL HAZARD ZONE MODEL COMPONENTS AND PRIMARY VARIABLES
Coastal Hazard Zone Component

Primary Variables

historic erosion

historic erosion trend

erosion due to sea level rise

backshore toe elevation, shoreface slope, sea level rise curve

erosion impact caused by a large storm wave event

storm total water level, beach slope, backshore toe elevation

This section gives a brief description of the erosion hazard zone methods. For more details about the methods
please see the Pacific Institute study (PWA, 2009 and Revell et al, 2011).
The historic erosion rate is applied to the planning horizon (2010 through 2060 at 10 year increments) to get the
baseline erosion, which is an indirect means to account for the sediment budget. Section 2.2 explains how historic
erosion rates were selected for each location. The erosion model does not account for other shore management
actions, such as sand placement, that could mitigate future shore recession. In this region, where beaches are
controlled in part by sand mining, we assumed that there are no changes to existing sand mining practices.
The potential inland shoreline retreat caused by sea level rise and the impact from a large storm event was
estimated using the geometric model of dune erosion originally proposed by Komar et al (1999) and applied with
different slopes to make the model more applicable to sea level rise (Revell et al, 2011). This method is consistent
with the FEMA Pacific Coast Flood Guidelines (FEMA, 2005). Potential erosion accounts for uncertainty in the
duration of a future storm. Instead of predicting storm specific characteristics and response, this potential erosion
projection assumes that the coast would erode or retreat to a maximum storm wave event regardless of duration.
This is considered to be a conservative approach to estimating impact of a 100-year storm event because larger
erosion estimates are produced.

Results
Figure 3 presents the coastal hazard zones, with detailed maps for each analysis location. These plan view maps
do not represent the vertical extent of erosion, which is relevant to most of the proposed Project infrastructure
which will be buried. As a result, the plan view maps indicated a more robust cross-shore profile analysis was
needed to elucidate how Project infrastructure may be affected by coastal erosion.

3.2

Representative Coastal Profiles

The coastal profile analysis developed a set of representative profiles that show how the shoreline is likely to
evolve from the present (2010) to 2040 and 2060, and the locations of selected Project components relative to
those profiles. As previously discussed, the Monterey Bay shoreline is affected seasonally by localized erosion
(rip currents), long term erosion, and sea level rise. Each of these factors is important in defining the horizontal
and vertical elements of a profile shape and location through time. For this reason, we identify a projected future
profile and an extremely eroded profile (lower envelope) for each future time horizon. The profiles contain both
horizontal and vertical erosion. As described below, the future profile is the current profile eroded horizontally at
the historic rate, with added erosion caused by sea level rise. The lower profile envelope represents a highly

eroded condition, which could occur from a combination of localized erosion (rip currents), a large winter storm,
and seasonal changes. The upper envelope (a highly accreted profile) was not analyzed because a key Project
concern is the exposure of buried project components in the future.

Methods and Assumptions


Topographic and bathymetric data, summarized in Table 3, was compiled in the vicinity of the representative
profiles specified by the ESA Project team (Figure 1). Three recent LiDAR profiles and one bathymetric survey
were available. The locations of the Thornton representative profile envelopes (dataset #6 in Table 3), which were
developed for a previous study (ESA PWA 2012), are located in the vicinity of the Project profiles at Sand City
and to the east of Wharf II perpendicular to Del Monte Ave in Monterey.
TABLE 3
BATHYMETRY AND TOPOGRAPHY DATA USED TO DEVELOP REPRESENTATIVE PROFILES
Elevation Limits
(Approximate)

Source

Minimum of
~0 ft NAVD

NOAA Digital Coast CA Coastal Conservancy Coastal


LiDAR Project

Dataset

Date Collected

Hydro-flattened bare earth


digital elevation model (1 meter
resolution)

May/June 2010

Bathymetry in offshore Monterey Sept/Oct/Nov 2009 Maximum of


Bay (2 meter resolution)
-8 to -12 ft NAVD

California State University, Monterey Bay Seafloor


Mapping Lab

Bathymetry within Moss Landing


Harbor (1 meter resolution)

June 2011

Maximum of
-25 to -45 ft NAVD

California State University, Monterey Bay Seafloor


Mapping Lab

LiDAR topography
(3 meter resolution)

April 1998
(post El Nino
winter)

Minimum of
~0 ft NAVD

NOAA Digital Coast Airborne LiDAR Assessment of


Coastal Erosion Project (NOAA/NASA/USGS)

LiDAR topography
(3 meter resolution)

Fall 1997
(pre El Nino
winter)

Minimum of
~0 ft NAVD

NOAA Digital Coast Airborne LiDAR Assessment of


Coastal Erosion Project (NOAA/NASA/USGS)

Representative profiles and


profile envelopes at Marina,
Sand City, and Del Monte

Unknown based
on several
surveys.

N/A

Published in ESA PWA 2012, originally Ed Thornton,


unpublished data. Shown in Figure 4.

The raw profile data were processed as follows to develop a representative profile and a corresponding highly
eroded profile for existing conditions:
1.

A representative profile was created by combining the June 2010 LiDAR onshore with the 2009 fall
California State University Monterey Bay (CSUMB) bathymetry offshore. The 2009 2010 winter was a
minor El Nino year, resulting in a relatively eroded starting beach profile. A linear profile was interpolated
between the offshore bathymetry and the terrestrial LiDAR. It is unlikely that the profile is linear, and more
likely has a concave shape with one or more sand bars, depending on season and other factors. The surf and
swash zone is highly dynamic and hence judgment is required to select a design profile. In this study, we
account for this uncertainty in the eroded profile by using an envelope of possible shapes, based on
perturbations from the estimated profile, as described in the following steps.

2.

The Thornton envelopes (Figure 4) were horizontally aligned with the representative profiles using the
backshore toe location as a reference feature, which is easily identified in all datasets. Since the profiles
were not collected at exactly the same location and time as the representative profiles, some of profiles do
not align as well in the upland areas. Since upland areas are much more static than the beach (the profile
variability is much smaller), we do not focus on these areas in the profile evolution model, unless erosion
through upland is expected.

3.

As discussed above, rip currents can contribute to significant (~5 feet) lowering of the beach profile through
the rip channel. The Thornton profiles were typically measured away from localized rip embayments. The
profile envelope was adjusted to include uncertainty associated with rip channels by narrowing and
5

lowering the nearshore elevations. The beach berm was shifted shoreward by 50 feet or the distance
between the berm crest and the dune toe (whichever was smaller), and the profile was lowered by 5 feet at
MLLW. This adjustment assumes that the rip current would mainly impact the swash zone.
4.

The profile envelope was lowered in any areas where the LiDAR or bathymetry data fell below the lower
Thornton envelope. However, measured profile envelopes were unavailable for Profiles 1, 2, and 3. An
envelope of shore profile elevation was created using Thorntons Del Monte profile (the most variable
profile envelope located near Wharf II in Monterey). The vertical variability of the Del Monte profile was
tabulated as a function of distance from shore, and then the elevations in Profiles 1, 2 and 3 were lowered
accordingly.

Once a representative profile and lower profile envelope were identified for existing conditions, an equilibrium
profile approach was used to shift the existing conditions profile and envelope based on projected erosion, which
includes the historic erosion trend and future sea level rise (see Section 3.1). For profiles 1, 2, and 3, which show
a historic trend in accretion, we include only the erosion due to sea level rise (setting the historic trend to 0).
Detailed erosion rates were not available for these profiles, so erosion was calculated based on four shorelines
(June 2010, April 1998, July 1952, and May 1933). The overall linear regression shows accretion, but the
shorelines have fluctuated historically, and the most recent shoreline (spring 2010) is more eroded than the spring
1998 post-El Nino LiDAR. For this reason, we conservatively do not include the accretion signal.
The profiles were shifted horizontally inwards by the projected erosion and raised by the projected sea level rise.
The existing dune elevations were held as maximums even though the profile shift would imply dune growth in
some locations. The shifted profiles were truncated at the back beach location where the toe of dune starts. From
this location, the profile was drawn sloping upward at the approximate angle of repose of loose sand, and
truncated when the existing dune profile was intersected. The slope so drawn is an approximation of the eroded
dune face extending from the beach to the top of the existing dune profile. An angle of 32 degrees was assumed
for these locations (PWA, 2009). We did this because most of southern Monterey Bay shore is receding landward,
erosion is cutting into relict dunes, and the steep dune faces and narrow beaches impede dune growth (Thornton et
al 2006). Dune migration and other changes have not been modeled and dune elevations may change whether the
shore is accreting or eroding due to changes in vegetation, other disturbance, etc. North of the Salinas River, the
shore is accreting and dune growth appears to be occurring but accretion was neglected in these locations as well.
The lower profile envelopes do not necessarily encompass the full range of possible profile configurations. The
profiles are not statistically defined or associated with a specific return interval. The profile construction did
consider historic erosion, which includes a pre-El Nino shoreline and two post- El Nino shorelines, accelerated
erosion from sea level rise, and an additional buffer factor associated with rip currents. The lower envelope for
these profiles does not reflect potential dune erosion that could happen during a major (e.g. 100-year) storm event.
This type of event could contribute as much as 100 feet of dune erosion. The representative profile may accrete or
experience less erosion than projected, which would result in more sand covering the project components. This
analysis is configured to provide estimates of the downward and inland extent of erosion, with the assumption that
higher elevations are not a concern or are addressed by others.

Results
Figure 5 through Figure 11 show the existing (2010) and future (2040 and 2060) profiles and lower envelopes at
each location. There are two profile/envelope combinations for each time step: one to represent long-term profile
evolution (consisting of historic erosion and accelerated erosion from sea level rise) and a second that adds
potential erosion from a 100-year erosion event, which could be as high as much as 125 feet, to the long-term
profile.

Approximate locations and other descriptors of proposed Project infrastructure are shown on profiles where pipes
or outfalls cross the profile. These data were provided by the applicant (California American Water Company)
and are shown as a spatial reference to aid in the interpretation of the profiles. The geometry was not proposed by
this study and may be revised based on this study and for other reasons beyond the scope of this document.

At Moss Landing Harbor (Profile 1, Figure 5b), ongoing erosion is relatively low. The dune erosion
envelopes extend inland 105 feet by 2060, with another 68 feet possible with a 100-year erosion event.

Sandholdt Road (Profile 2, Figure 6). The dune erosion envelopes extend inland 105 feet by 2060, with
another 65 feet possible with a 100-year erosion event.

At Potrero Road (Profile 3, Figure 7). The dune erosion envelopes extend inland 120 feet by 2060, with
another 30 feet possible with a 100-year erosion event.

At the CEMEX Pacific Lapis sand mining plant (Profiles 4a and b, Figure 8 and Figure 9). The greatest
uncertainty for these lies in the effects of sand mining, which are not explicitly addressed but may be
implicitly addressed by the use of historic erosion rates. The dune erosion envelopes extend inland 300 feet
by 2060, with another 130 feet possible with a 100-year erosion event.

At Sand City (Profile 5, Figure 10). The dune erosion envelopes extend inland 180 feet by 2060, with
another 40 feet possible with a 100-year erosion event.

In the City of Monterey (Profile 6, Figure 11). The dune erosion envelopes extend inland 65 feet by 2060,
with another 110 feet possible with a 100-year erosion event.

Assessment of methodology and accuracy of erosion envelopes


The methodology uses historic data and applied geomorphology methods generally consistent with coastal
engineering and geology practice. There are sufficient data available to have confidence in the results. In general,
we believe that the projections of potential erosion envelopes to be on the more conservative side and actual
erosion may be less. The methodology addresses wave driven processes only, and assumes that historic changes
are representative of future changes, and historic changes can be adjusted based on the rate of sea level rise. This
analysis is consistent with our interpretation of the draft guidance recently published by the Coastal Commission4.
It is important to note that actual sea level rise and the effects are not known, and that relatively high values were
used in this study. Also, interventions may change shore recession.
Alternative estimates could be developed by computer-aided modeling of sand transport. For example, XBEACH
and other available software can provide estimates of storm-induced profile erosion (USGS, 2009)5. Also,
GENESIS and other available software can provide estimates of future shoreline positions6. Such further analysis
may enhance the ability to assess the likelihood of shore recession estimates presented herein.

4California Coastal Commission's Public Review Draft, Sea-Level Rise Policy Guidance, dated October 14, 2013
5 http://oss.deltares.nl/web/xbeach/

6 http://chl.erdc.usace.army.mil/chl.aspx?p=s&a=Software;34

List of Figures
Figure 1 - Regional Map of Analysis Profiles and Project Components
Figure 2 - Erosion Rates in Southern Monterey Bay
Figure 3 - Coastal Erosion Hazard Zones
Figure 4 Representative Profiles and Envelopes by Ed Thornton, unpublished
Figure 5 - Representative Profile #1 at Moss Landing Harbor
Figure 6 - Representative Profile #2 at Sandholdt Road
Figure 7 - Representative Profile #3 at Potrero Road
Figure 8 - Representative Profile #4a at CEMEX
Figure 9 - Representative Profile #4b at CEMEX
Figure 10 - Representative Profile #5 at Sand City
Figure 11 - Representative Profile #6 at Del Monte Avenue

References
ESA PWA (2012). Evaluation of Erosion Mitigation Alternatives for Southern Monterey Bay. Prepared for
Monterey Bay Sanctuary Foundation and The Southern Monterey Bay Coastal Erosion Working Group on
May 30, 2012.
California State University Monterey Bay (CSUMB) (2009-2010). Marine habitat mapping data for the Southern
Monterey Bay region. California Coastal Conservancy, Ocean Protection Council, Department of Fish and
Game, and the NOAA National Marine Sanctuary Program. Available online:
http://seafloor.csumb.edu/SFMLwebDATA_mb.htm
Hanson, Hans (1989). GENESIS-A generalized shoreline change numerical model. Journal of Coastal Research,
5(1), 1-27, Charlottesville (Virginia). ISSN 0749-0208.
MacMahan, J.H., E.B. Thornton, and J.H.M. Reniers (2006). Rip current review. Coastal Engineering: 53:191208.
NOAA (2012). 2009 2011 CA Coastal Conservancy Coastal LiDAR Project: Hydro-flattened Bare Earth
DEM. NOAA Coastal Services Center. Charleston, South Carolina. Available online:
http://www.csc.noaa.gov/dataviewer/#.
NRC (2012). Sea-Level Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington: Past, Present, and Future.
Prepublication. National Academy Press: Washington, D. C.
PWA (2004). Southern Monterey Bay Coastal Erosion Services. Memo prepared for the Monterey Regional
Water Pollution Control Agency (MRWPCA). November 24, 2004. PWA Project #1729.00.
PWA (2009). "California Coastal Erosion Response to Sea Level Rise - Analysis and Mapping." Prepared for the
Pacific Institute.

Revell, D.L., R. Battalio, B. Spear, P. Ruggiero, and J. Vandever, (2011). A Methodology for Predicting Future
Coastal Hazards due to Sea-Level Rise on the California Coast. Climatic Change 109:S251-S276. DOI
10.1007/s10584-011-0315-2.
Stockdon, H., R. Holman, P. Howd, and A. Sallenger (2006). Empirical parameterization of setup, swash, and
runup. Coastal Engineering: 53:573-588.
Storlazzi, C.D. and D.K. Wingfield (2005). "Spatial and Temporal Variations in Oceanographic and Meteorologic
Forcing Along the Central California Coast, 1980 - 2002." USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2005-5085.
Thornton, E.B., A.H. Sallenger, J. Conforto Sesto, L. A. Egley, T. McGee, and A.R. Parsons, (2006). Sand mining
impacts on long-term dune erosion in southern Monterey Bay, Marine Geology, v. 229, p. 45-58.
Thornton, E.B. J. MacMahan, and A.H. Sallenger Jr. (2007). Rip currents, mega-cusps, and eroding dunes.
Marine Geology, v. 240: 2-4, p. 151-167. 5 June 2007.
Thornton, E.B., L.A. Egley, A. Sallenger, and R. Parsons (2003). Erosion in Southern Monterey Bay during the
1997-98 El Nino. Coastal Sediments 2003.
USGS (2009). Barnard, P.L., O'Reilly, Bill, van Ormondt, Maarten, Elias, Edwin, Ruggiero, Peter, Erikson, L.H.,
Hapke, Cheryl, Collins, B.D., Guza, R.T., Adams, P.N., and Thomas, J.T., 2009, The framework of a coastal
hazards model; a tool for predicting the impact of severe storms: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report
2009-1073, 21 p. [http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2009/1073/].

Figures

Inset: CEMEX Profile


Representative Profiles
Slant Wells (Proposed)
MRWPCA Ocean Outfall and Diffuser (Existing)

Profile #4a - CEMEX


(Northern W

ell Cluster)

Profile

#1 - M
oss L

Pr

Profile #4b - CEMEX (Southern Wel


l Cluster)

of
ile

Pr

ofi
le

#3

-P

otr
ero

Ro

ad

#2

andin
g

Harbo

-S

an
dh
ol
dt
R

oa
d

250

500 Feet

Legend
Representative Coastal Profiles

Pipelines

Slant Well
Source Wate Pipeline; Collector Line; Intake Tunnel
Interconnection Improvements (Proposed)
Brine Discharge Pipeline (Proposed)
MRWPCA Ocean Outfall and Diffuser (Existing)

See inset above

Desalinated Water Pipeline (Proposed)

Transmission Main (Proposed)

MPWSP Desalination
Plant (Proposed)

Transfer Pipeline (Proposed)


Monterey Pipeline (Proposed)

Salinas Valley Return PL (Proposed)


ASR Conveyance Pipelines (Proposed)

MRWPCA
Regional Wastewater
Treatment Plant (Existing)

Note: Existing infrastructure locations are approximate.


Proposed infrastructure locations are shown for reference
and were developed prior to this study. Infrastructure
locations were provided by the California American Water
Company and are included here for reference.

Regional Setting

Pr

#5

-S

an
d

Ci
ty
ASR Injection/
Extraction Wells (Proposed)

!
!

ile #
6

- De
l Mo
nte

of
ile

Prof

!
!

Phase II ASR
Facilities (Existing)
Phase I ASR
Facilities (Existing)

Terminal Reservoir and


ASR Pump Station (Proposed)

Miles

Basemap National Geographic, Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, UNEP-WCMC, USGS, NASA, ESA, METI, NRCAN, GEBCO, NOAA, iPC
Copyright: 2013 Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, TomTom
Copyright: 2013 Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ
Copyright: 2014 Esri, DeLorme, HERE, TomTom
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

U:\GIS\GIS\Projects\205xxx\205335_Water\Tasks\Cal_Am_2012\CoastalErosion\Figure X - Profile Locations v2.mxd


3/17/2014

Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project . 205335.01

Figure 1
Regional Map of Analysis Profiles

Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project. 205335.01

Figure 2. Historic Erosion Rates in Monterey Bay

(b) Sandholdt Road

(a) Moss Landing Harbor

io
os
Er

it
lim

dy
stu

Pro

Outfall 6

Turn in profile

Profile #1

file

#2

Inta
ke
Ou
tfa

Intake 8
(opt 2)

ll 5

Outf
all

Intake 5

Er
os

200 100 0

200 ft

(c) Potrero Road

ion

stu

dy

lim
it

200 100 0

200 ft

(d) CEMEX

Eros
io

n stu

dy li

mit

Eros
io

Northern Well
Cluster

n stu

dy li

mit

Profile #4a
Sou

Profile #4b

rce W
ater

Pipe
line

Southern Well
Cluster

Intak
e

Prof

ile #

3
Er
os

Eros
io

n stu

200 100 0

dy lim
it

ion

stu

dy

lim
it

200 ft

300 150 0

(e) Sand City


lim
i

Erosion st
udy limit

it
dy lim

#5

n stu

file

dy

io
Eros

Pro

stu

(f) Del Monte Ave

Profile #6

Ero
sio
n

300 ft

Monterey Pipeline

200 100

200 ft

Intakes (proposed)
Coastal Erosion Hazard Zones
Intake and/or Outfall (proposed)
2010
Pipes
2030
Erosion Reference Line
2040
Er
os

Offset to backshore toe


ion

stu

dy

lim
it

200 100

200 ft

2050
2060
2100

Note: Existing infrastructure locations are approximate. Proposed infrastructure


locations are shown for reference and were developed prior to this study.
Infrastructure locations were provided by the California American Water
Company and are included here for reference.

Data Source: ESA PWA 2013 hazard zone analysis, NAIP 2012 imagery

Please see Figure 1 for regional map of profile locations.

Monterey Bay Sea Level Rise Assessment . 211906.00

Figure 3
Coastal Erosion Hazard Zones

These hazard zones show coastal erosion hazard areas, with the inland limit representing the potential future dune crest. Flood hazards may be more extensive,
especially if the area is low-lying compared to the potential wave run-up and flood water levels. Future erosion through dunes has the potential to flood low-lying
areas that are currently protected by high dunes.
U:\GIS\GIS\Projects\205xxx\205335_Water\Tasks\Cal_Am_2012\CoastalErosion\Figure X - Erosion HZs v5.mxd
3/17/2014

Service Layer Credits:

Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project. 205335.01


SOURCE: Data from Thornton, unpublished.
Figures published in ESA PWA 2012.

Figure 4
Representative Profiles and Envelopes by Ed Thornton, unpublished

Note: Proposed infrastructure locations are shown


for reference and were developed prior to this
study. The locations were provided by the
California American Water Company.

Sources: Topography from CA Coastal Conservancy LiDAR Project (collected in June 2010).
Bathymetry from the CSUMB Seafloor Mapping Lab (collected in September 2011).
* EMHW = Extreme Monthly High Water. This is, on average, the highest tide level that occurs each month.

Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project. 205335.01

Figure 5a
Profile 1 Overview

Notes:
1. These envelopes of erosion consider seasonal changes in beach width, localized erosion
(rip currents), long-term erosion, and accelerated erosion caused by sea level rise.
2. The profile shape is linearly interpolated between the bathymetry data and the
topography data (between x = 1181 ft and x = 1657 ft).

Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project. 205335.01

Figure 5b. Representative Profile #1 at Moss Landing Harbor

Note: Proposed infrastructure locations are shown


for reference and were developed prior to this
study. The locations were provided by the
California American Water Company.

Sources: Topography from CA Coastal Conservancy LiDAR Project (collected in June 2010).
Bathymetry from the CSUMB Seafloor Mapping Lab (collected in September 2011).
* EMHW = Extreme Monthly High Water. This is, on average, the highest tide level that occurs each month.

Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project. 205335.01

Figure 5c
Profile 1 - Inland Inset

Notes:
1. These envelopes of erosion consider seasonal changes in beach width, localized erosion (rip currents), long-term erosion, and accelerated erosion caused by sea level rise.
2. The profile shape is linearly interpolated between the bathymetry data and the topography data (between x = 958 ft and x = 1299 ft).
3. This profile crosses the shore-parallel portion of Outfall 5 at x = 1648 ft (see Figure 3). This portion of the outfall does not fall within the erosion hazard zones through 2060.
Location of Outfall 5 provided by California American Water Company. Vertical location of the shore-perpendicular portion of Outfall 5 and Intake 6 were not available and
therefore are not shown in this profile view.

Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project. 205335.01

Figure 6. Representative Profile #2 at Sandholdt Road

Proposed slant well alignment is shown for


reference and was developed prior to this
study. The slant well alignment was provided
by the California American Water Company
and is included here for reference.

Notes:
1. These envelopes of erosion consider seasonal changes in beach width, localized erosion (rip currents), longterm erosion, and accelerated erosion caused by sea level rise.
2. The profile shape is linearly interpolated between the bathymetry data and the topography data (between x
= 4777 ft and x = 5259 ft).
3. Pumped well location is based on the Potrero Rd Pumped Wells Test Well Google Earth map provided by
CalAm on September 27, 2013.
4. This profile assumes the pumped well is perpendicular to shore.
5. The well input parameters in the table to the right were developed prior to this study and provided by the
California American Water Company.

Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project. 205335.01

Figure 7. Representative Profile #3 at Potrero Road

Proposed slant well alignments are shown for


reference and were developed prior to this
study. The slant well alignments were provided
by the California American Water Company and
are included here for reference.

Notes:
1. These envelopes of erosion consider seasonal changes in beach width, localized erosion (rip
currents), long-term erosion, and accelerated erosion caused by sea level rise.
2. The profile shape is linearly interpolated between the bathymetry data and the topography
data (between x = 919 ft and x = 1385).
3. This profile is located immediately south of the CEMEX Pacifica Lapis sand mining plant. No
data is available to quantify the uncertainty in adjacent beach and dune erosion related to
sand mining activities. The potential for fluctuations in beach width associated with sand
mining were not considered in this analysis.
4. Slant well location and angle are based on the Test Slant Well Alignment and Test Slant
Well Cross-Section drawings provided by Geoscience on July 30, 2013.
5. The well input parameters in the table to the right were developed prior to this study and
were provided by the California American Water Company.

Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project. 205335.01

Figure 8. Representative Profile #4a at CEMEX

Proposed slant well alignments are shown for reference and


were developed prior to this study. The slant well alignments
were provided by the California American Water Company and
are included here for reference.

Notes:
1. These envelopes of erosion consider seasonal changes in beach width, localized erosion (rip
currents), long-term erosion, and accelerated erosion caused by sea level rise.
2. The profile shape is linearly interpolated between the bathymetry data and the topography data
(between x = 820 ft and x = 1480).
3. This profile is located immediately south of the CEMEX Pacifica Lapis sand mining plant. No data
is available to quantify the uncertainty in adjacent beach and dune erosion related to sand
mining activities. The potential for fluctuations in beach width associated with sand mining were
not considered in this analysis.
4. Slant well location and angle are based on the Well 3 Alignment and Well 3 Cross-Section
drawings provided by Geoscience on July 30, 2013.
5. The well input parameters in the table to the right were developed prior to this study and were
provided by the California American Water.
6.

Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project. 205335.01

Figure 9. Representative Profile #4b at CEMEX

Notes:
1. These envelopes of erosion consider seasonal changes in beach width, localized erosion (rip
currents), long-term erosion, and accelerated erosion caused by sea level rise.
2. The profile shape is linearly interpolated between the bathymetry data and the topography data
(between x = 7127 ft and x = 7533 ft).
3. This profile does not intersect any proposed desalination infrastructure.

Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project. 205335.01

Figure 10. Representative Profile #5 at Sand City

Monterey Pipeline location, approximate. The location


along the profile, depth, and diameter were provided by
the California American Water Company and are included
here for reference. Pipe cross-section not to scale.

Notes:
1. These envelopes of erosion consider seasonal changes in beach width, localized erosion (rip currents), long-term erosion, and accelerated erosion caused by sea level rise.
2. The profile shape is linearly interpolated between the bathymetry data and the topography data (between x = 7960 ft and x = 7920 ft).
3. Approximate horizontal and vertical location of the Monterey Pipeline provided by California American Water Company.

Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project. 205335.01

Figure 11. Representative Profile #6 at Del Monte

APPENDIX C3

Exploratory Borehole Results

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

C3-1

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

This page intentionally left blank

Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Hydrogeologic Inves ga on
Technical Memorandum (TM1)
Summary of Results - Exploratory Boreholes

PREPARED FOR:

California American Water


RBF Consul ng
July 8, 2014
GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc., Ground Water Resources Development
P.O. Box 220, Claremont, CA 91711 | P (909) 451-6650 | F (909) 451-6638 | www.gssiwater.com

MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectHydrogeologicInvestigation
TechnicalMemorandum(TM1)SummaryofResultsExploratoryBoreholes8Jul14

CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER / RBF CONSULTING


MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT HYDROGEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM (TM 1)
SUMMARY OF RESULTS - EXPLORATORY BOREHOLES
CONTENTS
1.0

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 1


1.1 Introduction...............................................................................................................................1
1.2 Findings......................................................................................................................................2

2.0

1.2.1

General........................................................................................................................2

1.2.2

CEMEXArea.................................................................................................................2

1.2.3

MossLandingArea......................................................................................................4

1.2.4

RefinementofNMGWMandDevelopmentofFocusedCEMEXModel.....................6

INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 8
2.1 Background................................................................................................................................8
2.2 ExtractingSeawaterfromSubseaAquifersforFeedwaterSupply............................................8
2.3 SubsurfaceIntakes.....................................................................................................................9
2.4 Formation of Hydrogeology Working Group and Formation of the Hydrogeologic
InvestigationWorkplan...........................................................................................................10
2.5 ProjectDocuments...................................................................................................................10
2.5.1

HydrogeologicInvestigationWorkplan.....................................................................10

2.5.2

HydrogeologicInvestigationReport.........................................................................11

2.6 PurposeandScope...................................................................................................................12

3.0

2.6.1

Purpose.....................................................................................................................12

2.6.2

Scope.........................................................................................................................12

2.6.3

AddedScope.............................................................................................................13

FIELD INVESTIGATION ............................................................................................................14


3.1 BoreholeDrillingandSampling................................................................................................14
3.1.1

Drilling.......................................................................................................................14

CaliforniaAmericanWater&RBFConsulting

ii

MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectHydrogeologicInvestigation
TechnicalMemorandum(TM1)SummaryofResultsExploratoryBoreholes8Jul14

3.1.2

CoreSampling...........................................................................................................15

3.1.3

CaliforniaModifiedSplitSpoonSampling................................................................15

3.1.4

MechanicalGradingAnalysis....................................................................................16

3.1.5

GeophysicalBoreholeLogging..................................................................................16

3.1.6

IsolatedAquiferZoneTestingforWaterQualitySampleCollection........................17

3.1.7

BoreholeDestruction................................................................................................20

3.2 EstimatesofHydraulicConductivity........................................................................................20

4.0

3.2.1

MechanicalGradingAnalysis....................................................................................20

3.2.2

SummaryofHydraulicConductivityValues..............................................................22

3.2.3

LaboratoryPermeameterEstimates.........................................................................25

GEOHYDROLOGIC SETTING .....................................................................................................26


4.1 HistoricalBackground..............................................................................................................26
4.2 GroundwaterSubbasins...........................................................................................................27
4.2.1

PressureSubareaand180/400FootAquifer........................................................27

4.2.2

SeasideandCorraldeTierraSubbasins....................................................................27

4.4 RegionalGeologicSetting........................................................................................................28
4.4.1

AromasSand(Qar,Qae,andQaf).............................................................................29

4.4.2

QuaternaryMarineTerraceDeposits(Qmt).............................................................29

4.4.3

QuaternaryTerraceDeposits(Qt).............................................................................29

4.4.4

OlderDuneSand(Qod).............................................................................................30

4.4.5

OlderAlluvium(Qo)..................................................................................................30

4.4.6

YoungerDuneDeposits(Qd).....................................................................................31

4.4.7

QuaternaryBasinFill(Qb)Alluvium(Q)andFloodplainDeposits(Qfl)....................31

4.5 LocalGeology...........................................................................................................................31
4.5.1

CEMEXArea...............................................................................................................31
4.5.1.1 FindingsfromCEMEXBoreholes...................................................................32

4.5.2

MossLandingArea....................................................................................................32
4.5.2.1 FindingsfromMossLandingBoreholes........................................................33

4.6 Hydrostratigraphy....................................................................................................................34

iii

CaliforniaAmericanWater&RBFConsulting

MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectHydrogeologicInvestigation
TechnicalMemorandum(TM1)SummaryofResultsExploratoryBoreholes8Jul14

4.6.1

900FootAquifer.......................................................................................................36

4.6.2

400FootAquifer.......................................................................................................36

4.6.3

180FootAquifer.......................................................................................................36
4.6.3.1 HistoricalApproachesforIdentifyingthe180FootAquifer.........................37

4.6.4

180FootEquivalentAquifer(TerraceDeposits).......................................................38

4.6.5

SalinasValleyAquitard..............................................................................................39

4.6.6

DuneSandAquifer....................................................................................................39

4.6.7

PerchedAAquifer..................................................................................................39

4.7 HydrostratigraphicInterpretationofCEMEXBoreholeData...................................................39
4.8 HydrostratigraphicInterpretationofMossLandingBoreholesData.......................................40
4.9 UpdatedConceptualModel.....................................................................................................42
5.0

GROUNDWATER QUALITY ......................................................................................................44


5.1 General.....................................................................................................................................44
5.1.1

GroundwaterLevels..................................................................................................44

5.1.2

GroundwaterSamplingandAnalysis........................................................................44

5.2 GroundwaterQualityCEMEXArea........................................................................................47
5.3 GroundwaterQualityMossLandingArea..............................................................................49
5.4 DeterminingAverageCentralCaliforniaCoastSeawaterQuality............................................50
5.5 BoreholeWaterQualityResults...............................................................................................51
5.6 DistinguishingWaterQualityfromUpperandLowerAquifers...............................................52
5.7 EvaluationofSourceWaters....................................................................................................53
5.7.1

CEMEXBoreholes......................................................................................................53

5.7.2

MossLandingBoreholes...........................................................................................54
5.7.2.1MossLandingHarborArea.............................................................................54
5.7.2.2 MoleraandPotreroRoadParkingLots,SalinasRiverStateBeach...............55

5.7.3

Resultsof2Hand18OAnalysis...............................................................................56

5.8 ResultsofTritiumAnalysis.......................................................................................................58

5.8.1

Background:TritiumSourceandInterpretation.......................................................58

5.8.2

TritiumResultsCXB1WQandCXB2WQ..................................................................59

iv

CaliforniaAmericanWater&RBFConsulting

MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectHydrogeologicInvestigation
TechnicalMemorandum(TM1)SummaryofResultsExploratoryBoreholes8Jul14

6.0

NORTH MARINA AND CEMEX GROUNDWATER MODELS .........................................................62


6.1 AquiferCharacteristics.............................................................................................................62
6.2 ModelLayerBoundaries..........................................................................................................63
6.3 Hydraulicconductivity..............................................................................................................65
6.3.1

7.0

VerticalHydraulicConductivity.................................................................................65

FINDINGS...............................................................................................................................68
7.1 General.....................................................................................................................................68
7.2 CEMEXArea..............................................................................................................................68
7.3 MossLandingHydrogeologicConditions.................................................................................70
7.4 GroundwaterModels...............................................................................................................71

8.0

REFERENCES ..........................................................................................................................72

FIGURES, TABLES, and APPENDICES

CaliforniaAmericanWater&RBFConsulting

MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectHydrogeologicInvestigation
TechnicalMemorandum(TM1)SummaryofResultsExploratoryBoreholes8Jul14

FIGURES

No.
Description
Stand Alone Figures-Attached

1
GeneralProjectLocation
2

GeneralLocationofMossLanding,PotreroRd.,andCEMEXAreas

ProposedCEMEXAreaBoreholes

MossLandingHarborAreaBoreholes

DWR1946and2012GroundwaterSubbasinBoundaries

6a

GeologicSetting

6b

GeologicMapLegend

7a

GeologicCrossSection11

7b

CEMEXAreaPortionofGeologicCrossSection11

GeologicCrossSection22

GeologicCrossSection33

10

TrilinearDiagramCEMEXIsolatedAquiferZoneTests

11

TrilinearDiagramMossLandingIsolatedAquiferZoneTests

12

CEMEXAreaWaterQualityPlotTDSversusChloride

13

CEMEXAreaWaterQualityPlotSodiumversusChloride

14

CEMEXAreaWaterQualityPlotCalciumversusChloride

15

CEMEXAreaWaterQualityPlotSodiumversusCalcium

16

CEMEXAreaWaterQualityPlotTotalBoronversusChloride

17

CEMEXAreaWaterQualityPlotStrontiumversusChloride

18

CEMEXAreaWaterQualityPlotSulfateversusChloride

19

MossLandingAreaWaterQualityPlotTDSversusChloride

vi

CaliforniaAmericanWater&RBFConsulting

MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectHydrogeologicInvestigation
TechnicalMemorandum(TM1)SummaryofResultsExploratoryBoreholes8Jul14

FIGURES (continued)

No.
Description
Stand Alone Figures-Attached

20
MossLandingAreaWaterQualityPlotSodiumversusChloride
21

MossLandingAreaWaterQualityPlotCalciumversusChloride

22

MossLandingAreaWaterQualityPlotSodiumversusCalcium

23

MossLandingAreaWaterQualityPlotTotalBoronversusChloride

24

MossLandingAreaWaterQualityPlotStrontiumversusChloride

25

MossLandingAreaWaterQualityPlotSulfateversusChloride

26

CXB1WQPlotof2H()versus18O()

27

MossLandingAreaPlotof2H()versus18O()

28

GroundWaterModelBoundaries

29

WellandCrossSectionLocations

30

HydrogeologicCrossSectionAA

31

HydrogeologicCrossSectionBB

32

HydrogeologicCrossSectionCC

33

HydrogeologicCrossSectionDD

34

HydrogeologicCrossSectionEE

35

HydrogeologicCrossSectionFF

36

HydrogeologicCrossSectionGG

37

ThicknessofDuneSand,PerchedA,andDeltaicDepositAquifers(ModelLayer2)

38

ThicknessofSalinasValleyAquitard(ModelLayer3)

39

Thicknessof180Footand180FootEquivalentAquifers(ModelLayer4)

vii

CaliforniaAmericanWater&RBFConsulting

MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectHydrogeologicInvestigation
TechnicalMemorandum(TM1)SummaryofResultsExploratoryBoreholes8Jul14

FIGURES (continued)

No.
Description
Stand Alone Figures-Attached

40
Thicknessof180/400FootAquitard(ModelLayer5)
41

Thicknessof400FootAquifer(ModelLayer6)

42

Thicknessof400/900FootAquitard(ModelLayer7)

43

Thicknessof900FootAquifer(ModelLayer8)

44

SedimentTextureversusHorizontalandVerticalHydraulicConductivity Values Dune


SandAquifernearCEMEXSite

45

Sediment Texture versus Horizontal and Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity Values


180FootEquivalentAquifernearCEMEXSite

46

SedimentTextureversusHorizontalandVerticalHydraulicConductivity Values Dune


Sand/PerchedAAquifernearMossLandingSite

47

SedimentTextureversusHorizontalandVerticalHydraulicConductivity Values Dune


Sand/PerchedAAquifernearPotreroRoadSite

viii

CaliforniaAmericanWater&RBFConsulting

MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectHydrogeologicInvestigation
TechnicalMemorandum(TM1)SummaryofResultsExploratoryBoreholes8Jul14

FIGURES (continued)

No.
Inset Figures

11

HydrostratigraphicModelMossLandingtoCEMEXArea............................................6

41

ReproducedfromFigureIV2ofTinsley,1975..............................................................34

42

HydrostratigraphicModelMossLandingtoCEMEXArea.............................................43

51

TritiumConcentrationvs.SampleElevationCXB1WQandCXB2WQ......................59

Description

Page No.

ix

CaliforniaAmericanWater&RBFConsulting

MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectHydrogeologicInvestigation
TechnicalMemorandum(TM1)SummaryofResultsExploratoryBoreholes8Jul14

TABLES

No.
Description
Stand Alone Tables-Attached

SummaryofHydraulicConductivityCalculations
2

SummaryofVerticalandHorizontalPermeabilityTests

3a

SummaryofIsolatedAquiferZoneTestingFieldandLaboratoryWaterQualityResults
MossLandingArea

3b

SummaryofIsolatedAquiferZoneTestingFieldandLaboratoryWaterQualityResults
CEMEXMarina,CA

HydraulicConductivityforGeologicUnitsatCEMEX

HydraulicConductivityforGeologicUnitsatMossLanding

CEMEXAreaMaximumKValues

CEMEXAreaMinimumKValues

MossLandingMaximumKValues

MossLandingMinimumKValues

CaliforniaAmericanWater&RBFConsulting

MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectHydrogeologicInvestigation
TechnicalMemorandum(TM1)SummaryofResultsExploratoryBoreholes8Jul14

TABLES (continued)

No.
Inset Tables
11

Description

Page No.

31

CorrelationofGeologicandHydrostratigraphicwithSVIGSM,NMGWM,and
CMModelLayers.............................................................................................................7

ChronologyofFieldInvestigation..................................................................................14

32

IsolatedAquiferZoneDepthIntervals...........................................................................18

33

FieldGroundwaterQualityParameters.........................................................................19

34

ParameterStabilizationCriteria.....................................................................................19

35

SummaryofAverageHydraulicConductivityEstimatesbySoilType...........................23

36

RangeofHydraulicConductivityfromMechanicalGradingAnalysis(MGA)................24

37

HydraulicConductivityforGeologicUnitsatCEMEX....................................................24

38

39

HydraulicConductivityforGeologicUnitsatMossLanding..........................................25

41

DepthsofGeologicUnitsinCEMEXBorings(ftbgs)......................................................32

42

CorrelationofGeologicandHydrostratigraphicUnits..................................................35

43

PreviousEstimatesofThicknessandElevationRangesforthe180FootAquifer........36

44

SummaryofLaboratoryWaterQualityResultsfromBoreholesatCEMEX..................40

45

SummaryofLaboratoryWaterQualityResultsfromtheMossLandingBorings..........42

51

DepthtoWaterfromIsolatedAquiferTestZones........................................................43

52

WaterQualityAnalysesforExploratoryBoreholes......................................................44

53

SummaryofWaterQualitybyHydrostratigraphicUnitCEMEX....................................47

54

SummaryofWaterQualitybyHydrostratigraphicUnitMossLanding........................49

SummaryofLaboratoryHydraulicConductivityResultsbySoilType...........................25

xi

CaliforniaAmericanWater&RBFConsulting

MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectHydrogeologicInvestigation
TechnicalMemorandum(TM1)SummaryofResultsExploratoryBoreholes8Jul14

TABLES (continued)

No.
Inset Tables

Description

55

StandardSeawaterandCentralCaliforniaCoastSeawater...........................................50

56

ComparisonofMeasuredTDSandCalculatedTDSforBoreholeWaterQuality
Samples..........................................................................................................................51

57

58

61

ResultsofOxygenandHydrogenIsotopeAnalyses.......................................................56
ResultsofTritiumAnalysesCXB1WQandCXB2WQ................................................58
CorrelationofGeologicandHydrostratigraphicwithSVIGSM,NMGWM,
CMModelLayers...........................................................................................................63

Page No.

xii

CaliforniaAmericanWater&RBFConsulting

MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectHydrogeologicInvestigation
TechnicalMemorandum(TM1)SummaryofResultsExploratoryBoreholes8Jul14

APPENDICES
Ltr.

Description

A1

BoreholeLithologicLogs

A2

WellLogsUsedforCrossSections

PhotographsofCoreandChipTrays

SoilPhysicalPropertiesDataReports

MechanicalGradingAnalysesFormationMaterials

GeophysicalBoreholeLogs

IsolatedAquiferZonesConstructionFormsandWellSamplingDataForms

GroundwaterQualityLaboratoryReports

xiii

CaliforniaAmericanWater&RBFConsulting

MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectHydrogeologicInvestigation
TechnicalMemorandum(TM1)SummaryofResultsExploratoryBoreholes8Jul14

CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER / RBF CONSULTING


MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT HYDROGEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM (TM 1)
SUMMARY OF RESULTS - EXPLORATORY BOREHOLES

1.0

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1

Introduction

TheinvestigationandfindingsdescribedinthisTechnicalMemorandumaretheresultofcollaborative
planning and discussions among the hydrogeologic experts that represent key stakeholders for
groundwater use and management in the Salinas Valley and Monterey Peninsula area of central
California.TheHydrogeologyWorkingGroup(HWG)consistedofthefollowingexperts:Mr.TimDurbin
andMr.MartinFeeney(bothrepresentingtheSalinasValleyWaterCoalitionandtheMontereyCounty
FarmBureau),Mr.PeterLeffler(representingCalAm),andDr.DennisWilliams(representingtheCPUC
CEQATeam).TheHWGwasformedasaresultofa2013SettlementAgreementamongpartiestoan
ongoingCPUCproceedingresultingfromCalAmsproposedMontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProject,
toreviewandapprovethescopeoffieldinvestigationanddevelopmentofahydrogeologicconceptual
modelfromwhichtoconstructthegroundwatermodelingtools.ThenamesoftheHWGmembersare
presented here to indicate the general agreement among the members on the core findings of the
investigativeworkdescribedherein.

The work completed for this investigation was described in the HydrogeologicInvestigationWorkplan
(Workplan),Attachment1,dated18Dec2013.Thisinvestigationrepresentsthefirstphaseoffielddata
gathering to develop a hydrogeologic conceptual model for the project area that is accepted by the
stakeholders. The conceptual model will be used to refine the existing North Marina Ground Water
Model(NMGWM)andconstructanewfocusedmodel(CEMEXmodel).Thesemodelswillbeusedto
evaluateproposedprojectoperationsandimpacts.Additionalphasesoffieldtestingareplannedand
outlinedintheWorkplan.

Since September 2013, six exploratory boreholes were drilled at the CEMEX facility. Total borehole
depthrangedfrom250feet(ft)belowgroundsurface(bgs)to350ftbgs.Threeoftheboreholeswere
used to collect continuous soil cores, undisturbed soils samples, samples for mechanical grading

CaliforniaAmericanWater&RBFConsulting

MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectHydrogeologicInvestigation
TechnicalMemorandum(TM1)SummaryofResultsExploratoryBoreholes8Jul14

analysis,andgeophysicallogs.Twoboringswereusedtoconstructisolatedzones1forcollectingwater
quality samples from aquifers at discrete depths and the last borehole (CXB4) was used to collect
continuoussoilcores,undisturbedsoilssamples,samplesformechanicalgradinganalysis,geophysical
logs,andtocollectwaterqualitysamples.Atotaloffifteen(15)aquiferzonetestshavebeencompleted
attheCEMEXsite.Waterqualitysamplescollectedfromtheisolatedaquiferzoneswereanalyzedfor
the same suite of analytes outlined in the Workplan and included general physical, general mineral,
volatileorganiccompounds,pesticides,tritium,andstableisotopesofoxygenandhydrogen.

SinceSeptember2013,sevenexploratoryboreholesweredrilledintheMossLandingarea.Sixborings
weredrilledtoadepthof200ftbgs.Oneboring(MDW1)wasdrilledtoadepthof300ftbgs.Each
borehole was used to collect continuous soil cores, undisturbed soil samples, samples for mechanical
gradinganalysis,andgeophysicallogs.TwoisolatedaquiferzoneswereconstructedinboreholesML1,
ML2,ML3,ML4,ML6,andPR1(foratotalof12zones)tocollectdepthspecificgroundwaterquality
samples. Four isolated aquifer zones were constructed to collect groundwater samples from Boring
MDW1.

1.2
Findings
1.2.1

General

The conceptual hydrogeologic model developed from this investigation suggests that a
feedwatersupplysystemusingslantwellsattheCEMEXsiteisfeasibleandcanutilizetheDune
Sand Aquifer and underlying terrace deposits (180Foot Equivalent Aquifer) as conduits to
extractwaterthroughtheseafloorbeneathMontereyBay.

ThisopinionwillbetestedusingthenewlyconstructedCEMEXModelandtherefinedNMGWM
andwillbefieldtestedusingatestslantwellandgroundwatermonitoringsystemasdescribed
intheHydrogeologicInvestigationWorkplan.

The conceptual model also indicates that the Perched A Aquifer between the Molera and
Sandholt Road Salinas River State Beach parking lots could provide an alternative target for
constructionofasubsurfacefeedwatersupplysystem.

1.2.2

CEMEX Area

The CEMEX facility is located on the westernmost edge of the 180/400Foot Aquifer Subbasin of the
Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin, as currently mapped by DWR (2003) and the MCWRA (2011). The
findingsoftheinvestigationatCEMEXaresummarizedbelow:
1

Anisolatedzoneisconstructedbytheinstallationofwellscreenataselecteddepthintervalandisolatingthewellscreen
aboveandbelowusingbentoniteseals.Constructionofisolatedzonesallowsdepthspecificsamplingofgroundwater.

CaliforniaAmericanWater&RBFConsulting

MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectHydrogeologicInvestigation
TechnicalMemorandum(TM1)SummaryofResultsExploratoryBoreholes8Jul14

A significant clay layer is not present beneath the Dune Sand Aquifer at the CEMEX site at
elevations commonly attributed to the Salinas Valley Aquitard (SVA), suggesting a different
depositional environment than that of the 180Foot Aquifer in the Salinas Valley. The water
qualitydatasuggestsgroundwaterintheDuneSandAquifermaybeinhydrauliccontinuitywith
the underlying aquifer units. The degree of hydraulic continuity will be determined by
construction of aquifer specific monitoring wells and the longterm pumping test of the test
slantwell.

Stratigraphic relationships and lithologic observations indicate that the aquifer system
underlying the Dune Sand Aquifer consists of terrace deposits that are older than the inland
180FootAquiferdeposits,sincetheyunderlietheOlderDuneSand.

The terrace deposits appear to be a distinct lithologic unit in terms of geologic history and
depositional environment in the Dune Highland area and may be hydrostratigraphically
equivalenttothe180FootAquiferintheSalinasValley.

Forpurposesofthisdocument,thealluvialmaterialsencounterednearthecoast(intheCEMEX
area)arebasedsolelyonanalysesofboreholesamples(andgeophysicalboreholelogs).Asof
yet,nodirectcorrelationcanbemadebetweenthesecoastalalluvialdepositsandthestandard
naming convention found further inland (e.g., 180Foot Aquifer, 400Foot Aquifer, SVA, etc).
Consequently,thenamingconventionagreeduponbytheHWG,includesthewordequivalent
since the lithologic units that make up the aquifers at CEMEX and in the Salinas Valley are
chronologicallydifferent,butstratigraphicallyequivalent.

Asahydrogeologicunit,theterracedepositswillbedesignatedasthe180FootEquivalent(180
FTE)Aquifer.Theextentofhydrostratigraphicequivalencewillbeevaluatedthroughapumping
testutilizingthetestslantwellsandamonitoringnetwork.

The current interpretation of the distinctive dark greenishgray clay found at depths ranging
from241to282ftbgsatCEMEXisthatitmayrepresentachangeinthedepositionalhistory
andisunderlainbyaunitequivalenttotheAromasSand(?)/400FootAquifer.

BoththeDune Sand Aquifer and the underlying180FTE Aquiferextend seaward beneaththe


MontereyBay.

Groundwater in the Dune Sand Aquifer and most of the groundwater in the 180FTE Aquifer
exhibithighconcentrationsoftotaldissolvedsolids(TDS),rangingfrom24,000to32,000mg/L,
indicatingaseawatersource.

Hydraulic conductivity fortheDune Sand at CEMEX ranged from an average low value of 273
ft/daytoanaveragehighvalueof779ft/day.

CaliforniaAmericanWater&RBFConsulting

MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectHydrogeologicInvestigation
TechnicalMemorandum(TM1)SummaryofResultsExploratoryBoreholes8Jul14

HydraulicconductivityfortheOlderDuneSandatCEMEXrangedfromanaveragelowvalueof
136ft/daytoanaveragehighvalueof372ft/day.

Hydraulicconductivityoftheterracedepositsthatmakeupthe180FTEAquiferrangedfroman
averagelowvalueof113ft/daytoanaveragehighvalueof342ft/day.

Hydraulic conductivity values will be further refined based on the longterm test slant well
pumpingtest.

Analysis of cation/anion ratios indicates that groundwater in the lower portion of 180FTE
Aquiferandinthe400FootAquiferhavebeengeochemicallyalteredduetoseawaterintrusion.

Tritium results indicate that groundwater in the lower portionof the180FTEAquifer is older
thangroundwaterintheupperportionofthe180FTEAquiferandtheDuneSandAquifer.

AnalysisofoxygenandhydrogenisotopessuggeststhatatboththeCEMEXandMossLanding
sites, saltwater from the ocean is mixing with a freshwater source that has not undergone
significantevaporation(aswouldbeexpectedofasurfacewatersource).

HydrostratigraphicrelationshipsindicatethatslantwellsdrilledintotheDuneSandAquiferand
180FTE Aquifer will receive recharge primarily from ocean sources through vertical leakage
fromtheseafloorandhorizontalrechargefromoffshoresubseaaquifers.Thiswillbetestedby
theCEMEXandrefinedNMGWMsaswellasfieldpumpingtests.

1.2.3

Moss Landing Area

The Moss Landing area is located north of the mouth of the Salinas River, which overlies the
westernmost edge of the 180/400Foot Aquifer Subbasin. Borings were drilled and sampled at Moss
LandingHarborandattheMolera,PotreroRoad,andSandholtRoadparkinglotsofSalinasRiverState
Beach. The exploratory borings primarily penetrated fluvial sediments associated with Holocene and
LatePleistoceneSalinasRiverdeposition.

The Perched2 A Aquifer is ascribed to the Holocene river alluvium and considered to be the
hydrostratigraphicequivalentoftheDuneSandAquiferlocatedtothesouth.

The Perched A Aquifer in the Moss Landing area is composed of interbedded river and
floodplaindeposits.

ThetermPerchedAAquiferreferstotheshallowaquiferabovetheSalinasValleyAquitard.Traditionally,theterm
perchedaquiferreferstoahydrogeologicconditionwhereanaquiferisformedbygroundwaterbeingpresentabove
(perchingon)animpermeableunitsuchasclaybutwithanunsaturatedportionofanaquiferbetweenthebottomofthe
clayandtheunderlyingsaturatedportionofaloweraquifer.

CaliforniaAmericanWater&RBFConsulting

MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectHydrogeologicInvestigation
TechnicalMemorandum(TM1)SummaryofResultsExploratoryBoreholes8Jul14

WiththeexceptionofthesedimentspenetratedinBoringPR1andMDW1,individualsandand
sandandgravellensesdonotappeartobeeitherverticallyorareallyextensiveinMossLanding.

Significant variations in TDS concentrations suggest that groundwater ismixedwith seawater,


andislikelypresentinsemiisolatedlenticulardeposits.

In general, the upper isolated aquifer test zones were above a depth of 110 ft bgs. TDS
concentrationsrangedfrom3,200mg/Lto34,000mg/L.

The lower isolated aquifer zones were generally constructed at depths exceeding 150 ft bgs.
WiththeexceptionofZone1ofPR1(190200feet)at630mg/L,theTDSconcentrationsranged
from7,400mg/Lto34,000mg/L.

BoringPR1penetratedaverypermeableunitinthePerchedAAquiferfrom54to139ftbgs.
Groundwater in this interval approximated seawater quality (i.e., 34,000 mg/L). This unit is
interpretedto continue,but decreaseinthicknesssouthwardtowardsBoringMDW1.To the
north,theunitisinterbeddedwithfinegrainedunits.

It is interpreted that the lowest portion of Boring PR1 penetrated the SVA. Very low TDS
concentrations(630mg/L)encounteredinthelowestzoneinBoringPR1suggestthatisolated
zones of freshwater may exist within the 180Foot Aquifer or that the sand unit is laterally
discontinuousandmaybeinterbeddedwiththeSVA.Inthislastinterpretation,BoringPR1did
notcompletelypenetratetheSVA.

HydraulicconductivityvaluesforthepermeableportionofthePerchedAAquiferpenetrated
in PR1 ranged from 194 ft/day to 717 ft/day, based upon relationships between grain size
distributionandhydraulicconductivity.

ThepermeableunitbetweenBoringPR1andMDW1representsapotentiallocationforslant
wells.

The Moss Landing Borings (ML1, ML2, ML3, ML4, and ML6) did not penetrate significant
thicknesses of permeable deposits to produce the required feedwater supply volume for the
MPWSP.

CaliforniaAmericanWater&RBFConsulting

MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectHydrogeologicInvestigation
TechnicalMemorandum(TM1)SummaryofResultsExploratoryBoreholes8Jul14

1.2.4

Refinement of NMGWM and Development of Focused CEMEX Model

The geologic and hydrogeologic data collected during this investigation was used to prepare the
interpretationsofhydrostratigraphicrelationshipsintheMossLandingandCEMEXareas.Aconceptual
modelofthehydrostratigraphicunitsfromtheMossLandingtoCEMEXareaasinterpretedfromdata
collectedfromthisinvestigationisshownbelowonFigure11

Figure 1-1. Hydrostratigraphic Model Moss Landing to CEMEX Area

Thefollowingtableprovidesacorrelationofthegeologicandhydrostratigraphicunitstogroundwater
modellayersoftheSalinasValleyIntegratedGroundwaterandSurfaceWaterModel(SVIGSM)andthe
NMGWM. In addition,the project technical advisory group described in Section 2.4 requested thata
thirdmodel(afocusedmodel)beconstructedintheCEMEXarea.Thenewfocusedmodelisdesignated
astheCEMEXModel(CM)andwillbediscussedinSection6.ThemodellayersoftheCM,ascorrelated
totheSVIGSMandNMGWM,arealsoshownonTable11.

CaliforniaAmericanWater&RBFConsulting

MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectHydrogeologicInvestigation
TechnicalMemorandum(TM1)SummaryofResultsExploratoryBoreholes8Jul14

Table 1-1.
Correlation of Geologic and Hydrostratigraphic with SVIGSM, NMGWM, and CM Model Layers
180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin

CEMEX Area

Surface Geologic
Units

Surface
Geologic
Units
Map
Symbol

Hydrostratigraphic
Units

BenthicZone

BenthicZone

Qal2

Alluvium

PerchedA
Aquifer

Surface Geologic
Units

Surface
Geologic
Units
Map
Symbol

Hydrostratigraphic
Units

BenthicZone

DuneSand

Qd

OlderDuneSand

Qod

SVIGSM
Layer1

NMGWM
Layer

CEMEX
Model
Layer

Constant
Head

1
2

DuneSand
Aquifer

1a

3
4

OlderAlluvium

Qo

SalinasValley
Aquitard

1a

5
6

OlderAlluvium/
MarineTerrace

Qo/Qmt

OlderAlluvium/
OlderAlluvium
FanAntioch

Qo/Qfa

OlderAlluvialFan
Placentia

Qfp

AromasSand
(undifferentiated)

Qar

AromasSand
Eolian/Fluvial
Lithofacies

PasoRobles
Formation

180Foot
Aquifer

OlderTerrace/
MarineTerrace

Qt(Qmt?)

180FTE
Aquifer

7
1

4
8

180/400
Foot
Aquitard

400Foot
Aquifer

AromasSand
(undifferenciated)
(?)

180/400
Foot
Aquitard

2a

400Foot
Aquifer

10

400/900
Foot
Aquitard

3a

11

900Foot
Aquifer

12

Qar(?)

Qae/Qaf

QT

400/900
Foot
Aquitard

PasoRobles
Formation

QT

900Foot
Aquifer
1

SVIGSMconsidersalayerstobeaquitards(verticalhydraulicconductivityandthicknessareinput)
SubsurfaceHolocenegeologicunitnotmappedatsurface

CaliforniaAmericanWater&RBFConsulting

MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectHydrogeologicInvestigation
TechnicalMemorandum(TM1)SummaryofResultsExploratoryBoreholes8Jul14

2.0

INTRODUCTION

2.1

Background

The California American Water Company (CalAm) is proposing the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply
Project (MPWSP, or proposed project) for the purpose of developing water supplies to replace those
portions of CalAms existing supplies that have beenconstrained by legal decisions regarding CalAms
diversionsfromtheCarmelRiverandpumpingfromtheSeasideGroundwaterBasin.TheMPWSPwould
include construction of a subsurface Seawater Intake System and a desalination plant with a rated
capacityof9.6milliongallonsperday(MGD)or6.4MGD,whichisapproximately10,800acreftperyear
and7,200acreftperyear,respectively.

OnApril23,2012,CalAmfiledanapplicationwiththeCaliforniaPublicUtilitiesCommission(CPUC)for
the MPWSP (A.1204019), seeking a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) to
construct, own, and operate a desalination facility for water supply on the Monterey Peninsula. The
MPWSP application to the CPUC proposed a subsurface intake feedwater system consisting of slant
wellslocatedattheCEMEXsandminingpropertyinMarina,CA.

In a letter dated September 26, 2012, the CPUC asked the State Water Resources Control Board
(SWRCB)whetherCalAmhasthelegalrighttoextractdesalinationfeedwaterfortheproposedMPWSP.
TheCPUCrequestedanopiniononwhetherCalAmhasacrediblelegalclaimtoextractfeedwaterfor
theproposedMPWSPinordertoinformtheCPUCsdeterminationregardingthelegalfeasibilityofthe
MPWSP.TheSWRCBconcludedinJuly2013,thattheconditionsintheaquiferwhereMPWSPfeedwater
would be extracted could be either confined or unconfined. However, there was not enough
information at that time to determine what types of conditions exist at the location of the proposed
MPWSPwells.TheSWRCBrecommendedthatstudiesareneededtodeterminetheextentoftheDune
SandAquifer,thewaterqualityandwaterquantityoftheDuneSandAquifer,theextentandthickness
oftheSalinasValleyAquitard,andtheextentofthe180FootAquifer,ifpresent.

InAugust2013,aSettlementAgreementwassignedbyseveralofthePartiesassociatedwiththeCPUC
proceeding.ThepartiesagreedthatCalAmandSalinasValleyWaterCoalitions(SVWC)hydrogeologists
would work withother experts to develop and implement aworkplan fortheproposed source water
intakesitesconsistentwiththestudyrecommendationspresentedinSWRCBsJuly2013Reviewofthe
MPWSP.
2.2

Extracting Seawater from Subsea Aquifers for Feedwater Supply

The intake system proposed by CalAm is expected to supply a high percentage of ocean water from
aquiferunitsthatareinhydrauliccontinuitywiththeoceanfloor.Thefeasibilityofextractingseawater

CaliforniaAmericanWater&RBFConsulting

MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectHydrogeologicInvestigation
TechnicalMemorandum(TM1)SummaryofResultsExploratoryBoreholes8Jul14

fromtheaquifersthatunderlietheoceanfloorusingslantwellsisdirectlydependentontheverticaland
horizontaldistributionofhydrostratigraphicunitsintheprojectareasandtheirhydraulicproperties.

PreviousstudieshaveindicatedthatinthevicinityoftheCEMEXfacility,theshallowDuneSandAquifer
may directly overlie the 180Foot Aquifer, or may be separated from the 180Foot Aquifer by low
permeability material of the hydrostratigraphic unit designated as the Salinas Valley Aquitard (SVA).
Therefore, a key aspect of the exploratory boring program at the CEMEX facility was to evaluate the
presenceandverticaldistributionofhydrostratigraphicunits.IftheDuneSandAquiferdirectlyoverlies
the180FootAquiferoranequivalenthydrostratigraphicunit(i.e.,nointerveningclaylayerofsignificant
thickness),andifbothunitsareinhydraulicconnectionwiththeoceanfloor,feedwatercanbeobtained
directlyfromthesubseaportionofbothaquiferswithlittleornoimpactontheinlandaquifers.

A groundwatermodel was developed by GEOSCIENCE in 2008 and is called the North Marina Ground
WaterModel(NMGWM).TheNMGWMwasdevelopedbasedonexistingdataandconceptualmodels
ofthehydrogeologyintheregion,andhasbeenusedtoevaluateseveralproposedprojectsinthearea.
TheNMGWMisathreedimensionalvariabledensityfinitedifferencemodelthatusesindustrystandard
computercodes(MODFLOW,MT3DMSandSEAWAT).Regionalboundaryconditionsforthemodelare
obtained from the Salinas Valley Integrated Groundwater and Surface Water Model (SVIGSM).
Constructionofathirdmodel,afocusedmodelcenteredatCEMEX,wasrequestedbytheHydrogeology
WorkingGroup(HWG).Thenewmodelwillhaveadditionalmodellayersandafinergridsizethanthe
NMGWM. The new focused model is herein referred to as the CEMEX Model (CM). The CM will be
constructedwiththefielddatacollectedfromthisinvestigation.TheNMGWMincludestheareaofthe
current investigation (i.e.,CEMEX andMoss Landing) and will berefined (based on recent field data).
BoththeCMandtheNMGWMwillbeusedtosupporttheCPUCsenvironmentalreviewprocess,andto
designasubsurfacefeedwatersupplysystem.
2.3

Subsurface Intakes

Subsurfaceintakesaregenerallyfavoredamongregulatoryagenciesbecauseof:(1)thenaturalwater
filtration and pretreatment provided by ocean floor sediments, which reduce the need for some
treatmentchemicalsduringthedesalinationprocess,and(2)theminimalgrowthofmarineorganisms
that occurs inside the intake pipeline. The slant well subsurface intake system is also a primary
considerationbecausethesystemwillallowforafeedwatersupplytobeobtainedfromoceansources
(i.e.,verticalleakagethroughtheseafloorandhorizontalrechargefromoffshoreaquifers).Ingeneral,
sourcewaterderivedfromsubsurfacewellsrequiressignificantlylessfiltrationwhencomparedtoraw
seawater. Subsurface wells are also generally considered a lowimpact technology with respect to
impingementandentrainment.

CaliforniaAmericanWater&RBFConsulting

MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectHydrogeologicInvestigation
TechnicalMemorandum(TM1)SummaryofResultsExploratoryBoreholes8Jul14

ThesubsurfaceintakesiteproposedbyCalAmislocatedattheCEMEXpropertyinMarina.Alternative
intake sites have been proposed in the Moss Landing area. Therefore, this technical memorandum
addressesthepotentialfeasibilityofsubsurfaceintakesinbothareas.

Figure 1 is a general location map for the current study. Figure 2 shows the locations of borings
completedinboththeCEMEXandtheMossLandingareas.AreamapsspecifictoCEMEXfacilityandthe
MossLandingareaareshowninFigures3and4,respectively.

2.4
Formation of Hydrogeology Working Group and Formation of the Hydrogeologic Investigation
Workplan
Asnotedearlier,theSettlementAgreementlaidthegroundworkforacollaborativeeffortbyrecognized
experts in geology, hydrogeology and modeling, representing stakeholders of groundwater use and
management in the project area. This led to the development of the Hydrogeology Working Group3
(HWG).TheHWGfirstmetonApril25,2013,todiscussconceptualmodelsandtoformacollaborative
plan of investigation to assess the hydrogeologic conditions in the project area. As with any
collaborative group, individual opinions need to be evaluated against actual field data and testing to
arrive at a conceptual model that reflects a common understanding at the areas of concern. A draft
workplan was prepared which provides a phased approach to progressively investigate the
hydrogeologyandthepotentialeffectstoaquifersfromtheuseofsubsurfaceslantwellsforobtaining
feedwater supply. The draft workplan was submitted to the HWG on August 2, 2013, for review and
comment.ThefinalworkplanincorporatedcommentsandrecommendationsbymembersoftheHWG,
coveredtheinvestigativestepsneededtoevaluatetheprojectimpacts,andwassubmittedtotheHWG
onDecember18,2013.Thisfinalworkplanbecamethehydrogeologyinvestigationroadmap.

2.5
Project Documents
2.5.1

Hydrogeologic Investigation Workplan

The process adopted by the HWG for the workplan consists of ongoing steps of data collection and
analysis.ThedatacollectedfromthisinitialphaseofinvestigationwillbeusedtoconstructtheCMand
torefinetheNMGWM.Eachsubsequentstepofdatacollectionwillbefollowedbyrefinementofthe
CM and NMGWM, which are the tools being developed to evaluate the short and longterm
hydrogeologicimpactsintheprojectareafromoperationoftheMPWSP.Eachstepofdatagathering
will be preceded by an update of the workplan as appropriate, describing the proposed work and

TheHWGparticipantsinclude:TimDurbinandMartinFeeney(representingtheSalinasValleyWaterCoalitionandthe
MontereyCountyFarmBureau),PeterLeffler(representingCalAm),andDennisWilliams(representingtheCPUCCEQA
Team).

10

CaliforniaAmericanWater&RBFConsulting

MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectHydrogeologicInvestigation
TechnicalMemorandum(TM1)SummaryofResultsExploratoryBoreholes8Jul14

desiredoutcomes.Resultswillbedocumentedbyatechnicalmemorandumdescribingthemethodsof
datacollection,findingsandrecommendations,andtheresultsofthemodelrefinements.

The MPWSP Hydrogeologic Investigation Workplan (HWP) is the main working document for all
exploratory,testing,andmodelingwork,including:

Attachment1 TechnicalSpecificationsExploratoryBoreholes

Attachment2 TechnicalSpecificationsTestSlantWell
Attachment3 TechnicalSpecificationsMonitoringWells

Attachment4 TechnicalSpecificationsLongTermPumpingTestandMonitoringProgram
Attachment5 TechnicalSpecificationsFullScaleSlantWellField

Assuch,theHWPisalivingdocumentwhichwillbemodifiedasappropriateastheprojectprogresses.

Todate,technicalspecificationsfortheboreholes(Attachment1)wassubmittedtotheHWGforreview
and comment, forming the basis for the current investigation. Preliminary Technical Specifications
(Attachment 1 of the Hydrogeologic Investigation Report) for the test slant well and two monitoring
wellswerepreparedandsubmittedtoCalAmforplanningpurposes.Subsequently,itwasdecidedby
CalAmtoprepareseparatetechnicalspecificationsforthetestslantwellandforthemonitoringwells.
These documents were recently submitted for review. Therefore, after review of the findings of the
current document by the HWG, the Technical Specifications for the Test Slant Well and Technical
Specifications for the Monitoring Wells (Attachment 2 and Attachment 3 of the Hydrogeologic
InvestigationWorkplan)willbeupdatedifappropriate.

2.5.2 Hydrogeologic Investigation Report


ThecompaniondocumenttotheWorkplanwillbetheHydrogeologicInvestigationReport(HIR)andwill
include technical memorandums documenting all exploratory and testing activities as well as
progressivemodelrefinementsandimpacts.Thisdocumentwillincludethefollowing:

TheHydrogeologicInvestigationReportwillincludeaseriesoftechnicalmemorandumswhichprovide
thedataandanalysisconductedthroughoutthestudyperiodincludingthefollowing:

Attachment1
Attachment2

Attachment3

TechnicalMemorandum(TM)SummaryofResultsExploratoryBoreholes
Technical Memorandum (TM) Summary of Results Test SlantWell and
MonitoringWells
TechnicalMemorandum(TM)SummaryofResultsLongTermPumping
TestandMonitoringWellProgram

11

CaliforniaAmericanWater&RBFConsulting

MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectHydrogeologicInvestigation
TechnicalMemorandum(TM1)SummaryofResultsExploratoryBoreholes8Jul14

Attachment4

Technical Memorandum (TM) Refined ground water model results


following exploratory boreholes, monitoring wells, test slant well and full
scalesystem

ThecurrentdocumentisAttachment1oftheHydrogeologicInvestigationReport.

2.6 Purpose and Scope


2.6.1 Purpose
AspartoftheWorkplan,ageotechnicalboreholeinvestigationwasundertakenatseveralsitesalongthe
Montereycoast.Thepurposeoftheexploratoryboreholeswastoobtaininformationonthelithologic
andhydrauliccharacterofthehydrostratigraphicunitsandtheverticalandhorizontaldistributionofthe
units.ThedatagatheredfromtheboreholeswillbeusedtoupdatetheNMGWM.Themodellayerswill
berefinedusingthesitespecificdepthandthicknessinformationof thehydrostratigraphicunits.The
hydraulicpropertiesoftheunitsobtainedfromthefieldworkandthewaterqualitydatawillbeusedfor
modelinput.Inotherwords,theboreholedatawillhelpto:

Characterizetheaquiferunits,

Characterize the water contained in the aquifer units (to determine if it is seawater,
groundwater,orseawaterintrudedgroundwater),and

DetermineiftheSalinasValleyAquitard(ablueclaylayer)existsbetweentheaquiferunitsat
thislocation.

Thistechnicalmemorandum:

1. Presentstheresultsfromtheexploratory boringsattheCEMEXfacility (see Figure 2) andthe


MossLandingarea(seeFigure3),
2. Providesaninterpretationofthegeologicunitsencounteredintheboreholesastheyrelateto
theconceptualhydrogeologicmodel,and
3. ProvidesrecommendationsforrefinementstotheNMGWMbasedonthenewlycollecteddata.

2.6.2

Scope

The Moss Landing area investigation included drilling of exploratory borings at the Molera, Potrero
Road, and Sandholt Road Salinas River State Beach parking lots and along Pacific Coast Highway and
along Sandholt Road at Moss Landing Harbor. The CEMEX area investigation included exploratory

12

CaliforniaAmericanWater&RBFConsulting

MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectHydrogeologicInvestigation
TechnicalMemorandum(TM1)SummaryofResultsExploratoryBoreholes8Jul14

boringsdrilledontheCEMEXfacilityatlocationsapprovedbyCEMEX.Theapprovedscopeofworkfor
theinvestigationincludedthefollowing:

Drillingofsonicboreholesfromdepthsrangingapproximately200to350feet(ft)belowground
surface(bgs)

Collectingcontinuoussoilcoresfromallborings

Preparationoflithologiclogsofthematerialspenetratedineachborehole

Photographsofsoilcores

Geophysicalboreholelogs

ConstructionoftwogroundwaterqualitysamplingzonesineachboreholeintheMossLanding
areaandcollectionofwatersamplesfromeachzone

Figures,maps,andphotographsshowingsitelocationsandconditions

Boreholedestructiondetails

Mechanicalgradinganalysis

AnalysisofhydraulicconductivityusingtheHazenApproximation,KrumbeinMonk,andKozeny
Carmanmethods

Laboratoryverticalandhorizontalpermeametertesting

Evaluationofgroundwaterqualityconditions

Preparationofrecommendationsformodellayerrevisions

2.6.3

Added Scope

Attheinitiationofthisstudy,exploratoryboringsattheCEMEXfacilitywerelimitedtothecollectionof
lithologicandgeophysicaldataonly.Morerecently,thescopewasexpandedtoincludetwoadditional
boreholes at the CEMEX facility to collect groundwater quality samples for borings not previously
sampled for groundwater quality (see Section 3.1.6). A water quality boring (CXB1WQ) was drilled
adjacenttoBoringCXB1.Asecondwaterqualityboring(CXB2WQ)wasdrillednearBoringCXB2.A
fourth boring(CXB4, third water quality boring) was also drilled at CEMEX to obtain continuouscore
andgeophysicallogsforlithologicloggingandtocollectgroundwaterqualitysamples.Thelocationsof
thewaterqualityboringsatCEMEXareshownonFigure2andFigure3.Inaddition,tofurtherexplore
theareasouthofPotreroRoad,anexploratoryboring(MDW1)wasdrilledintheMoleraparkinglotof
Salinas River State Beach located at Monterey Dunes Way. Four isolated zones were constructed in
MDW1tocollectwaterqualitysamples.

13

CaliforniaAmericanWater&RBFConsulting

MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectHydrogeologicInvestigation
TechnicalMemorandum(TM1)SummaryofResultsExploratoryBoreholes8Jul14

3.0

FIELD INVESTIGATION

3.1

Borehole Drilling and Sampling

3.1.1

Drilling

Thesonicdrillingmethodwasusedforall13boreholesforthisinvestigation.Allofthesonicdrillingwas
completed by Cascade Drilling of Upland, California. Drilling commenced at the Potrero Road site in
September 2013. Sonic drilling
produced continuous core samples
that were minimally disturbed. The
Sonic
cores from all borings were logged by
Drill
the field geologist, photographed, and
Crane/
Geophysical
placedinwoodencoreboxes.Detailed
Pipe Truck
Logging Van
borehole logs for each borehole are
provided in AppendixA1. The cores
were placed in storage at the Cal Am
facility in Pacific Grove, California.
Borehole
Sediment samples were collected of
Sonic Drilling Rig and Support Equipment
each lithologic unit encountered in
theboreholesbythefieldgeologist.PhotographsofthecoreareprovidedinAppendixB.Table31
belowprovidesasummaryofdrillingdatesforeachexploratoryboring.

Table 3-1. Chronology of Field Investigation


Borehole

Location

Drill Dates

PR1
ML1
CXB1
CXB2
CXB3
ML6

MossLanding:SRStateBeachPortreroRoadParkingLot
MossLanding:SRStateBeachSandholtRoadParkingLot
CEMEX
CEMEX
CEMEX
MossLanding(MBARI)

September2026,2013
October18,2013
October2126,2013
November48,2013
November913,2014
November1824,2013
November25,26and
December28,2013

ML4

MossLanding(CoastHighway)

ML2

MossLanding(DelMarFisheries)

December920,2013

ML3
CXB1WQ
CXB2WQ
CXB4
MDW1

MossLanding(CoastHighway)
CEMEX
CEMEX
CEMEX
MossLanding:SRStateBeachMoleraParkingLot

January614,2014
February1726,2014
March47,2014
March20April10,2014
April23May10,2014

14

CaliforniaAmericanWater&RBFConsulting

MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectHydrogeologicInvestigation
TechnicalMemorandum(TM1)SummaryofResultsExploratoryBoreholes8Jul14

3.1.2

Core Sampling

The core sampling was conducted using a 4inch to 6inch diameter inner casing. The core barrel is
attached to smalldiameter drill rods and is vibrated ahead of theouter casing collecting undisturbed
formationmaterials as the core samples. With each 10ft advance of thecasing, the core barrel was
extractedandbroughttothesurfacetoretrievethecore.Soilcoresampleswerecollectedcontinuously
during drilling of all the exploratory boreholes. Upon collection, all soil cores were placed in 6mil
polyethyleneplasticsleevesmeasuringapproximately2ftinlength.Eachbagwasphotographedand
properlylabeledinthefieldwiththeclient name,boringnumber,sampledepthinterval,anddate of
collection.Thecoresampleswerethensplitlongitudinallyinhalfandvisuallyclassified(logged)inthe
fieldinaccordancewiththeUnifiedSoilClassificationSystem(USCS).

Extruding6Inch
Core
fromCoreBarrel
into
PlasticSleeve

6-inch Sonic
Casing Advanced
to Hold
Borehole Open

Sonic Drill Rig and Pipe Truck

3.1.3

California-Modified Split-Spoon Sampling

Splitspoon samples were collected at specified depths from each borehole to obtain undisturbed
samples of the formation materials for the purpose of estimating hydraulic conductivity using a
laboratory permeameter. Samples were collected from the Dune Sand Aquifer, finegrained aquitard
material,andcoarsegrainedmaterial.

Thesplitspoonsamplerholdsthreethinwalledmetal(brass
orstainlesssteel)sleevesmeasuringapproximately6inches
in length and 2.5 inches in diameter. The sampler was
attachedtoasmalldiameterdrillrodthatispushedthrough
18to24inchesofundisturbedformationmaterialaheadof
Split Spoon
the drilling bit. Each time the splitspoon sampler is
Sampler with
Brass Sleeves
retrieved, the sampling sleeves were removed and the
exposed ends were covered with Teflon sheets, covered
withplasticcaps,andtapedtopreservethesampleforlaboratorytesting.Eachsleevewasmarkedwith

15

CaliforniaAmericanWater&RBFConsulting

MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectHydrogeologicInvestigation
TechnicalMemorandum(TM1)SummaryofResultsExploratoryBoreholes8Jul14

the project name, borehole name, sample depth and number, and the date. The sample tubes were
submittedtoPTSLaboratories,Inc.of SantaFeSprings,Californiaunderchainof custody protocolfor
analysis of vertical and horizontal soil hydraulic conductivity and selected soil parameters. Chain of
custodyformsareprovidedinAppendixC,alongwiththeresultsofthelaboratorytesting.

3.1.4 Mechanical Grading Analysis


Representative samples of coarsegrained intervals were collected from core samples for mechanical
grading analysis. The samples were sieved in the GEOSCIENCE soil laboratory and the grain size
distributionwasplottedoncharts.Thedepthintervalsatwhichsampleswerecollectedformechanical
gradinganalysisareshownonthecorrespondinglithologiclog(seeAppendixA1).Samplesweresieved
usingU.S.Standardsieveswithmeshsizesrangingfrom0.0740mm(0.0029inches)to9.525mm(0.375
inches).GrainsizedistributionplotsareprovidedasAppendixD.Grainsizedistributionwasusedto
estimatethehydraulicconductivity;discussedinSection3.2.3.Table1(attached)providesasummary
of mechanical grading analysis and hydraulic conductivity estimates. Table 1 includes depth interval,
lithology, geologic formation, conductivity direction, and the average hydraulic conductivity value for
eachsampleinterval.Soiltypeslistedarebasedupontheresultsofthemechanicalgradinganalyses.

3.1.5 Geophysical Borehole Logging


Onceeachboreholetargetdepthwasreached,thecorebarrelwasremovedanda4inchdiameterPVC
screen was installed within the borehole prior to removing the outer sonic casing. The PVC screen
ensuredthattheboreholeremainedopenduringgeophysicallogging.

Geophysicallogswererunthroughoutthetotaldepthofeachborehole.Eachgeophysicalrunincluded
thefollowingsuiteoflogs:

DualInduction,

Gamma,

Temperature,and

FluidResistivity.

Dual induction logs (DIL) were used to determine resistivity of formation materials by measuring
conductivity adjacent to the induction tool.4 The induction tool focuses alternating electromagnetic
4

Conductivityismeasuredas(mho/m)andistheinverseofresistivity.

16

CaliforniaAmericanWater&RBFConsulting

MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectHydrogeologicInvestigation
TechnicalMemorandum(TM1)SummaryofResultsExploratoryBoreholes8Jul14

currentsintotheformation,withmediumanddeepmeasurementsdeterminedbytransmitter/receiver
spacing.TheDILiscomprisedofsix(6)separatemeasurements:

RILM Resistivity, Induction Log Medium

RILD Resistivity, Induction Log Deep

CILM Conductivity, Induction Log Medium

CILD Conductivity, Induction Log Deep

SP

GR Gamma Ray

Spontaneous Potential

Gammaray(GR)logswereusedtoaugmentandaididentificationoflithologicunitsencounteredwithin
eachborehole.

A temperature log measures absolute fluid temperature within a borehole. A calculated differential
measurement is provided with the log, which allows detection of vertical fluid movement within a
borehole,includingfluidentryandexitpoints.

Fluid resistivity logs provide a measure of the resistivity of borehole fluid (in units of ohmm) and
provideacalculateddifferentialcurve.Thislogwasusedforcorrelationoftemperaturemeasurements,
to assist in locating the presence of borehole water with higher total dissolved solids (TDS)
concentrations,andtodifferentiatebetweenwatersfromvariouscontributingaquiferzones.

All geophysical logs are provided in Appendix E. The geophysical borehole logs and lithologic
descriptions were used to determine recommended depth intervals for zone testing and to delineate
theaquifersystems inthestudy area.Theresultswillbeusedto designprojectmonitoringwellsfor
longtermaquifertesting.

3.1.6 Isolated Aquifer Zone Testing for Water Quality Sample Collection
Followingcompletionofgeophysicallogging,thelithologicandgeophysicallogswerereviewedtoselect
depthintervalsthatwouldlikelyyieldgroundwaterwiththelowestandhighestsalinity.Depthintervals
selectedwereusedtoconstruct isolatedaquiferzonesfor groundwaterqualitysampling.Anisolated
aquiferzonetestconsistsofconstructingatemporarywellwitha10footwellscreenintervalplacedat
thedepthofthelithologicunittobetested.Asealisconstructedaboveandbelowthewellscreento
isolate the portion of the aquifer for water quality testing. Two depth intervals were selected for
groundwatersamplingzonesforeachMossLandingborehole(BoringsMl1, ML2, ML3,ML4, ML6,

17

CaliforniaAmericanWater&RBFConsulting

MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectHydrogeologicInvestigation
TechnicalMemorandum(TM1)SummaryofResultsExploratoryBoreholes8Jul14

andPR1).FourisolatedzoneswereconstructedinBoringMDW1.FortheCEMEXarea,awaterquality
boringwasdrillednearBoringCXB1anddesignatedBoringCXB1WQ.Anotherboringwasdrillednear
Boring CXB2 and designated as Boring CXB2WQ. A third boring, Boring CXB4 was drilled
approximately1,500feetinlandfromCXB2WQandusedtocollectwaterqualitysamples.Thelocations
ofthewaterqualityborings(CXB1WQ,CXB2WQ,andCXB4)areshownonFigure3.Sixzoneswere
selected for construction in Boring CXB1WQ in an effort to assess potential water quality changes
between the Dune Sand Aquifer and the underlying aquifer units. The groundwater quality samples
weresenttothelaboratorywithanexpeditedrequest.Afterreceiptofgroundwaterqualityresultsfor
samplesfromBoringCXB1WQ,andafterreviewingthegeophysicallogsandlithologiclogs,fourzones
were selected for Boring CXB2WQ. The zones were selected to confirm and augment water quality
data collected from Boring CXB1WQ,and to develop an overall profileof groundwater quality atthe
CEMEXsite.FivezoneswereselectedforBoringCXB4.

Eachisolatedzonewasconstructedbyplacingabentonitesealbelowtheselectedzoneinterval.A10ft
PVCscreenwasplacedoppositetheselectedsamplingintervalandfilterpackconsistingof Monterey
Sand#3wasplacedopposite,above,andbelowthewellscreen.Asecondbentonitesealwasplaced
abovethefilterpackinterval.Thebentonitesealseffectivelyisolatedthegroundwaterqualityinterval
from groundwater above and below the selected interval. Each isolated aquifer zone is constructed
specifically for the hydrogeologic conditions at the borehole site. The isolated aquifer zone testing
formsareprovidedinAppendixF.Table32belowsummarizesthedepthofzonesbyboringselected
forthewaterqualitysampling.Atotalof31zoneswereconstructedforwaterqualitysampling.
Table 3-2. Isolated Aquifer Zone Depth Intervals
ML-2

ML-3

ML-4

ML-6

PR-1

Zone No.

ML-1

Zone 1
(ft bgs)

113.5
118.5

Zone 2
(ft bgs)

90100

90100

Zone 3
(ft bgs)

Zone 4
(ft bgs)

Zone 5
(ft bgs)

Zone 6
(ft bgs)

Total
Depth
(ft bgs)

200

200

200

201

167177 180190

163.5
173.5

152162 190200

MDW-1

CX-B1 WQ CX-B2 WQ

CX-B4

274284

215225

306316

103113 74.584.5 100110 125135 187197 237247

161171

248258

104114

155165

134144

5565

110120

8494

5868

5161

200

200

306

250

237247

152162 182192
6070

300

350

SeeAppendixFforzoneconstructiondetails.

18

CaliforniaAmericanWater&RBFConsulting

MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectHydrogeologicInvestigation
TechnicalMemorandum(TM1)SummaryofResultsExploratoryBoreholes8Jul14

Onceazonewasconstructed,theaquiferunitacrossfromthewellscreenwasdevelopedusingaswab
and brush to remove fine sediment. A submersible pump was placed in the temporary well and
pumped.Fieldmeasurementsofgroundwaterqualitywerecollectedtoevaluatewhenthegroundwater
quality had stabilized, and a representative sample of the aquifer unit was collected. Groundwater
qualityparametersmeasuredandrecordedinthefieldareprovidedinTable33.
Table 3-3. Field Groundwater Quality Parameters
Parameters and Units
Time(minutes)

Salinity(ppt)

WaterLevel(depthinfeet,bgs)

DissolvedOxygen(DO)(mg/L)

Temperature(degreesF)

pH

Conductivity(us/cm)

OxygenReductionPotential(ORP)(mV)

CalculatedTotalDissolvedSolids(TDS)(mg/L)

Turbidity(NTU)

Thefieldmeasurementswerecollectedapproximatelyeverythreetofiveminutes,untilatleastthree
fieldparametersstabilized.ThestabilizationcriteriaareprovidedinTable34.
Table 3-4. Parameter Stabilization Criteria
Parameters and Units
pH

+/0.1unit

Conductivity

+/3%

ORP

+/10mV

Turbidity

+/10%

DO

+/10%

Groundwater samples were not collected until the turbidity reading was less than 1NTU in order to
avoidthepotentialforadditionalmetalconcentrationsfromsedimentswithinthesample.Copiesof
the field data sheets used to record field parameters during zone testing areprovided in Appendix F.
The results of the laboratory testing are summarized in Table 3a and Table 3b. Copies of the
groundwaterqualitylaboratoryreportsareprovidedinAppendixG.

19

CaliforniaAmericanWater&RBFConsulting

MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectHydrogeologicInvestigation
TechnicalMemorandum(TM1)SummaryofResultsExploratoryBoreholes8Jul14

3.1.7

Borehole Destruction

Each exploratory borehole was destroyed immediately following completion of geophysical logging
(Borings CXB1, CXB2 and CXB3) or after isolated aquifer zone testing (remainder of borings). Each
boreholewasdestroyedbyfillingwithneatcementandnativematerials.Topreventmaterialbridging
during placement, all materials used for borehole destruction were placed through a tremie pipe.
Borehole destruction was accomplished in accordance with the approved borehole destruction plan
submitted by Cascade Drilling to Monterey County Health Department and in accordance with DWR
Bulletins7481and7490.Thefinegrainedunits(i.e.,aquitards)encounteredbeneaththeDuneSand
Aquifer were sealed using a neat cement grout to insure that mixing of groundwater does not occur
betweenaquiferunits.

3.2
Estimates of Hydraulic Conductivity
Multiple estimates of hydraulic conductivity were made using mechanical grading analysis properties
and vertical and horizontal conductivity/permeability values from laboratory analyses of relatively
undisturbedsoilsamples.

3.2.1 Mechanical Grading Analysis


Mechanical grading analyses were used to determine the distribution of sediment grain sizes from
samplescollectedfromthecontinuouscore.Threeanalyticalmethodswereusedtoestimatehydraulic
conductivity from the distribution of grain size in the samples. The Hazen Approximation,
KrumbeinMonk,andKozenyCarmanmethodswereusedtoestimatehydraulicconductivityfromgrain
sizedistributioncurves.Abriefdescriptionofthesemethodsisprovidedbelow.

HazenApproximation

HazensApproximationisanempiricalequationthatestimateshydraulicconductivitytobeproportional
tothesquareoftheeffectivegrainsize,whichisexpressedas:

K=C(d10)2
Where:

K
=
Hydraulicconductivity(cm/s)

Hazensconstant,approximately1(dimensionless)

d10

Grainsizeinmmforwhich10%oftheparticlepassbyweight

20

CaliforniaAmericanWater&RBFConsulting

MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectHydrogeologicInvestigation
TechnicalMemorandum(TM1)SummaryofResultsExploratoryBoreholes8Jul14

Thismethodisapplicabletosandswheretheeffectivegrainsize(d10)isbetweenapproximately0.1and
0.3 mm. Hazens Approximation was originally determined for uniformly graded sands, but it can
provideroughbutusefulestimatesformostsoilsinthefinegrainedsandtogravelrange(Freezeand
Cherry,1979).

KrumbeinMonk

KrumbeinandMonk(1942)describedhydraulicconductivityintheformofDarciesforunconsolidated
sands with a lognormal grain size distribution. Using this description, they used a semi empirical
equationassumingfortypercentporosity,whichisexpressedas:

K=

where:

Fluiddensity(kg/m3orft/s3),assumedtobetheaveragetemperatureof
groundwater(22degreesCelsius)

dm

Particlediameterorcharacteristiclengthofagivenmaterial(morft)

Porosity

Dynamicviscosity(Pasprlbss/ft2),alsoassumedtobetheaverage
temperatureofgroundwater(22degreesCelsius)

Gravitationalconstant(m/s2orft/s2)

KozenyCarman

One of the most widely used equations for determining hydraulic conductivity from characteristic
lengthsistheKozenyCarmanEquation.Kozenyproposedin1927,whichwaslatermodifiedbyCarman
in1956,amethodfordetermininghydraulicconductivityfromthefollowing:

K=

g
n
(1 n)

d
180

where:

Fluiddensity(kg/m3offt/s3),assumedtobetheaveragetemperatureof
groundwater(22degreesCelsius)

21

CaliforniaAmericanWater&RBFConsulting

MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectHydrogeologicInvestigation
TechnicalMemorandum(TM1)SummaryofResultsExploratoryBoreholes8Jul14

TotalPorosity

Dynamicviscosity(Pasorlbss/ft2),alsoassumedtobetheaverage
temperatureofgroundwater(22degreesCelsius)

Gravitationalconstant(m/s2orft/s2)

dm

Harmonicmeanparticlediametercalculatedfromtheparticlesize
distribution(morft)

and
f

d = 100%

where:
fi

Dave,i =

fractionofparticlesbetweentwosievesizes;larger[l]andsmaller[s]
(%)
averageparticlesizebetweentwosievesizes(cm)=D

Table 1 (attached) provides a summary of hydraulic conductivity calculations based on mechanical


grading analyses from the three methods. The soil types listed may not represent the complete
lithologic interval from which they were obtained since the lithology is generally bedded and
gradational.

3.2.2 Summary of Hydraulic Conductivity Values


Table35summarizesthehydraulicconductivityestimatesfrommechanicalgradinganalysesfortensoil
typescollectedfromboththeCEMEXandMossLandingsites.First,theaveragehydraulicconductivity
was calculated separately for all soil types using each method. Secondly, the range of horizontal
hydraulic conductivity shown in the Table 35 for each type of soil was determined by the method
yieldingtheminimumaverageandthemethodyieldingthemaximumaveragehydraulicconductivity.

22

CaliforniaAmericanWater&RBFConsulting

MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectHydrogeologicInvestigation
TechnicalMemorandum(TM1)SummaryofResultsExploratoryBoreholes8Jul14

Table 3-5. Summary of Average Hydraulic Conductivity Estimates by Soil Type


Summary of Hydraulic Conductivity Estimates from Mechanical Grading Analysis
Soil Type (Unified Soils Classification System
Designation)

Horizontal Hydraulic
Conductivity Range (ft/day)

OrganicClay(CH)

NA

SiltyClay(CL)

NA

Silt(ML)

NA

SiltySand(SM)

77223

PoorlyGradedSand(SP)

112349

WellGradedSand(SW)

4681,440

SandwithSilt(SPSM)

33135

SandwithGravel(SP+Gravel)

342817

SiltySandSand+Gravel(SM+Gravel)

3111,150

WellGradedSand+Gravel(SW+Gravel)

469859

WellGradedSand+Gravel(SW+Gravel)

4451,322

SandwithClay+Gravel(SWSC+Gravel)

4461,511

Gravel(GW)

334849

Table 36 summarizes the hydraulic conductivity estimates using the same approach as Table 35 but
separately for samples collected from CEMEX and samples collected from Moss Landing. Not all soil
typeswererepresentedatbothsites.Inthecasewhereasamplewasrepresentedatonlyonesite(i.e.,
GW:GravelatCEMEX)therangeofhydraulicconductivitywastakenfromTable35.Ifasoiltypewas
obtainedfrombothCEMEXandMossLandingsites(i.e.,SW:WellGradedSand),theaveragehydraulic
conductivity was calculated separately for each site from the range of values estimated from the
samplescollectedateachsite.FortheSW:WellGradedSandexample,therangeofaveragehydraulic
conductivityvaluesreportedinTable35fallsbetweentherangeofaveragevaluescalculatedfromeach
siteindividually,asshowninTable36.

23

CaliforniaAmericanWater&RBFConsulting

MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectHydrogeologicInvestigation
TechnicalMemorandum(TM1)SummaryofResultsExploratoryBoreholes8Jul14

Table 3-6. Range of Hydraulic Conductivity from Mechanical Grading Analysis (MGA)

Lithology

MGA, CEMEX1
Min Avg
Max Avg
Permeability, K Permeability, K
[ft/day]
[ft/day]

MGA, Moss Landing1


Min Avg
Max Avg
Permeability, K Permeability, K
[ft/day]
[ft/day]

GW:Gravel

334

849

SM:SiltySand

50

144

146

421

311

1,150

SP:Sand

113

331

112

356

SP:SandwithGravel

176

549

397

907

SPSM:SandwithSilt

33

135

SPSM:SandwithSiltandGravel

445

1,322

286

1,012

619

3,364

SW:WellGradedSandwithGravel

469

859

SWSC:SandwithClayandGravel

446

1,511

SM:SiltySandwithGravel

SW:WellGradedSand

Mechanicalgradinganalysisofformationsamples performedbyGEOSCIENCESupport Services,Inc.CEMEXMGAincludes


samplesfromboreholesCXB1,CXB2,CXB3,andCXB4.MossLandingMGAincludessamplesfromboreholesPR1,ML1,
ML2,ML3,ML4,andML6,andMDW1.

Onlyonehydraulicconductivityvaluecalculatedfrompumpingtestdataisavailablefortheaquiferunits
atCEMEX.Staal,Gardner,andDunne(SGD,1992)completedapumpingtestintheDuneSandAquifer
in 1992. Their reported hydraulic conductivity value is 1,750 gpd/ft2, or approximately 230 ft/day.
Table 37 provides a summary of the minimum and maximum hydraulic conductivity values for the
CEMEXarea.ThevaluereportedbySGDiscomparabletothevalueestimatedfortheCEMEXborehole
samplesfortheOlderDuneSand.
Table 3-7. Hydraulic Conductivity for Geologic Units at CEMEX

DuneSand(Qd)*

Minimum K-Value
(ft/day)
273

Maximum KValue(ft/day)
779

OlderDuneSand(Qod)

136

372

TerraceDeposits(Qt)

113

342

Geologic Unit

*DatafromMossLandingforQdusedhere.

Table 38 provides a summary of minimum and maximum hydraulic conductivity values for the Moss
Landingarea.

24

CaliforniaAmericanWater&RBFConsulting

MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectHydrogeologicInvestigation
TechnicalMemorandum(TM1)SummaryofResultsExploratoryBoreholes8Jul14

Table 3-8. Hydraulic Conductivity for Geologic Units at Moss Landing

Geologic Unit
DuneSand(Qd)
Perched"A"Aquifer(Qal)

3.2.3

Minimum K-Value
(ft/day)
227
194

Maximum K-Value
(ft/day)
619
717

Laboratory Permeameter Estimates

Undisturbed drive samples were collected from each exploratory boring. A total of 41 samples were
submitted for laboratory vertical and horizontal permeameter testing. Samples were selected to
representtheDuneSandAquifer,finegrainedunitssuchasclaylayers,andtheaquiferunitsunderlying
the Dune Sand Aquifer. The laboratory test reports are provided in Appendix C. Table 2 (attached)
summarizesthelaboratoryverticalandhorizontalpermeabilityresults.Table39belowsummarizesthe
rangeoflaboratorypermeabilityvaluesbasedonsoiltype.Thelaboratoryresultsingeneralaremuch
lowerthananticipated.Thehorizontalvaluesappearsignificantlylowerthanananticipatedincreaseof
10to20timestheverticalpermeabilityvalues.

Thevaluesprovidedfromboththelaboratorypermeametertestandthemechanicalgradinganalyses
areapproximateandwillberevisitedduringthelongtermaquifertest.However,thevaluesestimated
usingthemechanicalgradinganalysisaremuchclosertothoseanticipatedfromfutureaquifertesting
andwillformthestartingpointforrefinementstothemodelintheCEMEXandMossLandingarea.
Table 3-9. Summary of Laboratory Hydraulic Conductivity Results by Soil Type
Summary of Laboratory Hydraulic Conductivity Results by Soil Type
Vertical Hydraulic Horizontal Hydraulic
Soil Type
Conductivity Range Conductivity Range
(Unified Soils Classification System Designation)
(ft/day)
(ft/day)
OrganicClay(CH)

0.0030.014

NA

SiltyClay(CL)

0.0050.283

NA

0.03

0.02

SiltySand(SM)

0.201.38

0.374.34

PoorlySortedSand(SP)

0.2817.29

1.8036.56

Sand+Gravel(SP+Gravel)

0.2614.91

0.1714.51

Sand/SiltySand(SP/SM)

0.13

0.31

Sand/SiltySand/Gravel(SP/SM+Gravel)

24.15

17.74

WellGradedSand+Gravel(SW+Gravel)

13.18

11.34

Silt(ML)

25

CaliforniaAmericanWater&RBFConsulting

MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectHydrogeologicInvestigation
TechnicalMemorandum(TM1)SummaryofResultsExploratoryBoreholes8Jul14

4.0

GEOHYDROLOGIC SETTING

4.1

Historical Background

Thisstudyincludesaninvestigationofthegeohydrologicconditionsalongthecoastatthemouthofthe
SalinasRiverfromMossLandingsouthtotheCEMEXfacility(seeFigure1).Groundwaterispresentin
multiple aquifer systems in several subbasins in the project area. Data from this study indicates that
water quality is variable both in vertical and areal distribution. Historically, a large proportion of
groundwater was extracted for agricultural purposes in the Salinas Valley. The Salinas Valley
GroundwaterBasinunderliesthelonglinearSalinasValley,whichextendsapproximately100milesfrom
headwatersinthesoutheasttoMontereyBayinthenorthwestatMossLanding.

TherelativelyflatfertilefloodplainsalongtheSalinasRiverweredevelopedforfarming;therefore,wells
were drilled to supply water for the agricultural development. The hydrogeologic nomenclature and
hydrogeologic conceptual model was initially developed as a result of the subsurface information
obtainedfromthedrillingofthewellsforagriculture.

The California Department of Water Resources (1946) cites the Eleventh Census for 1890 regarding
irrigationinMontereyCounty:

near the mouth of the Salinas River there were reported to be 60 flowing wells upon farms in
1890 most of them being not far from Castroville. They range in depth from 60 to 189 feet, the
average being 136 feet..They are reported to fluctuate with the season, many of them ceasing
to flow in the summer.. At Salinas at about 10 miles from the coast, most deep wells are
pumped by windmills.

This historical description of groundwater use clearly conveys groundwater use in the Salinas Valley
startedearly,and,asisthecaseformanypartsofCalifornia,wellsweredrilledintotheshallowupper
aquifers first, followed by wells into deeper aquifers as greater quantitiesof waterwere required for
supply. The flowing wells described in 1890 confirm that these early wells were drilled beneath an
upperconfininglayer.DWR(1946) reportsthat the numberof farms intheValley increasedfrom21
farmsin1889to803farmsby1929.In1933,itwasreportedthatthequalityofwaterinSalinasValley
asawholewasexcellent.However,withtheadvancementinwellpumptechnology,manynewlarge
capacitypumpingplants(wells)werebroughtintouse.Thisresultedinanincreasingnumberofwells
beingplacedoutofusefromseawaterintrusionby1944.Thedescriptionofthedepthsofthewells
shows that the upper aquifer within the Salinas Valley was the first to be intruded by seawater, and
experiencedthefurthestmigrationofseawaterwithtime.Seawaterintrusionmapspublishedby the
MontereyCountyWaterResourcesAgency(MCWRA)supportthiscondition.

26

CaliforniaAmericanWater&RBFConsulting

MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectHydrogeologicInvestigation
TechnicalMemorandum(TM1)SummaryofResultsExploratoryBoreholes8Jul14

Thehistoricalconditionsaresignificanttothecurrentprojectbecauseseawaterwasintroducedintothe
freshwater aquifers beginning at the coast, with a continuous landward migration. This condition
appearstocorrelatewiththeloweringofinlandgroundwaterlevelsinducedfromagriculturalpumping.
It is our understanding, that a well at CEMEX has historically been included for monitoring seawater
intrusion.

4.2
Groundwater Subbasins
4.2.1

Pressure Subarea and 180/400-Foot Aquifer

BoththeMossLandingandCEMEXareasliewithinthe180/400FootAquiferSubbasinasdelineatedby
theDWR.DWRBulletin118describesthe180/400FootAquiferSubbasinasfollows:

180/400-Foot Aquifer Boundary with Corral de Tierra represents the contact between the
Quaternary Paso Robles Formation or Aromas Red Sands and the Quaternary Alluvium or
Terrace Deposits. Boundary with Seaside Area Subbasin represents seaward projection of the
King City Fault (may act as barrier to flow). Northern boundary is the Pajaro Valley Groundwater
Basin and coincides with inland projection of a 400-ft deep, buried clay-filled paleodrainage of
the Salinas River. Northeastern boundary generally coincides with the northeastern limit of
confining conditions in the 180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin and Highway 101. Southeastern
boundary is the approximate limit of confining conditions in an up-valley direction. Boundaries
generally coincide with those of the Pressure Subarea of MCWRA.

The 180/400Foot Aquifer Subbasin is characterized by confined groundwater conditions both


historicallyandasdescribedinDWRBulletin118.

The180/400FootAquiferSubbasinisboundedbygroundwaterdividesonthesouthbytheSeasideand
theCorraldeTierraSubbasins.

4.2.2 Seaside and Corral de Tierra Subbasins


TheSeasideSubbasinbordersthe180/400FootAquiferSubbasintothesouth.TheSeasideSubbasinis
describedbyDWRas:

TheSeasideSubbasin northeast boundary is the Salinas Valley proper (180/400-Foot Aquifer),


southeast boundary roughly represents the extent of Quaternary sand.
TheCorraldeTierraSubbasinbordersthe180/400FootAquiferSubbasinonthesouth,furtherinland
thantheSeasideSubbasin.TheCorraldeTierraSubbasinisdescribedbyDWRas:

27

CaliforniaAmericanWater&RBFConsulting

MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectHydrogeologicInvestigation
TechnicalMemorandum(TM1)SummaryofResultsExploratoryBoreholes8Jul14

The Salinas Valley-Corral de Tierra Area Subbasin comprises the eastern portion of the former
Fort Ord and other unincorporated areas. The subbasin includes outcrops of Plio-Pleistocene
nonmarine units, including the Aromas Sands, the Paso Robles Formation. The subbasin is
bounded on the northwest by the Seaside Area subbasin and on the northeast by the 180/400
foot aquifer subbasin. On the south and southwest the subbasin is bounded by Middle Miocene
marine rock units, and a portion of the eastern boundary is a small area of Mesozoic granitic
rocks (DWR, 2004).

4.4

Regional Geologic Setting

Older geologic maps from the 1970s are available which show the onshore and offshore area of
Monterey Bay andthe descriptionanddistributionofstratigraphicunitsinthearea.Seminalworkin
evaluatingtheQuaternarygeologyinthestudy areawascompletedbyJohnTinsley IIIandWilliamR.
Duprin1975asdoctoraldissertationssubmittedtoStanfordUniversity.Bothdissertationsaddressthe
distributionandgenesisofQuaternarygeologicunitsinthestudyareaandwillbereferredtolaterin
thissection.Morerecently,theCaliforniaGeologicalSurveypublishedareportin2002titledGeologic
MapoftheMonterey30x60QuadrangleandAdjacentAreas.Geologicmapsareavailableatscales
ranging from 1:100,000 to 1:24,000. Thesemaps form the basis for thecurrent conceptualmodel of
geologicconditionsinthevicinityoftheprojectsite.Ageologicmapoftheprojectareaisprovidedas
Figure6a.

Ingeneral,thegeologicunitsmappedatthesurfaceinthestudyareainclude,fromoldesttoyoungest:

AromasSand

QuaternaryMarineTerraceDeposits

QuaternaryTerraceDeposits

OlderDuneSand

OlderAlluvium

YoungerDuneDeposits

QuaternaryBasinFillAlluviumandFloodplainDeposits

Adiscussionofgeologicunitsisprovidedinthefollowingsections.

28

CaliforniaAmericanWater&RBFConsulting

MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectHydrogeologicInvestigation
TechnicalMemorandum(TM1)SummaryofResultsExploratoryBoreholes8Jul14

4.4.1

Aromas Sand (Qar, Qae, and Qaf)

TheAromasSanddesignatedasQar(undiffentiatedAromasSand),Qae(eolianlithofaciesoftheAromas
Sand)andQaf(fluviallithofaciesoftheAromasSand)ispresentnearthestudyarea.TheAromasSand
isearlyPleistoceneinageandcropsoutnorthoftheSalinasValleyproperonsouthwestfacingslopes
above Castroville. The Aromas Sand in this area is overlain by Older Dune Sand deposits, terrace
deposits, the Antioch Alluvial Fan, and the Chualar Alluvial Fan (see Figure 6a). Due to the current
uncertaintyassociatedwiththelocationand/orextentoftheAromasSandintheCEMEXareaandthe
regionaldunehighlands,theUSGS(Tinsley,2014)recommendsusingaquestionmark(?)followingthe
nameAromastodenotethatatypesectionfortheunitsformallydesignatedastheAromasSandinthe
MossLandingandWatsonvilleareashasnotbeenestablishedintheareasouthoftheSalinasRiverand
theAromas(?)unitsouthoftheSalinasRiverislikelyanequivalentunit.TheAromasSand(?)cropsout
intheeasternpartoftheFordOrdarea.TheunitinthisareaisunderlainbythePasoRoblesFormation
andoverlainbyOlderDuneSanddeposits.Overall,theoutcropsoftheAromasSandformanarcuate
shapefromsouthoftheSalinasRivertothenorth.TheunithasbeenerodedintheSalinasValleyduring
loweringofsealevelstoelevationsbetween200and300ftamsl(Kennedy/Jenks,2004)whichroughly
correspondswiththeWisconsinansealevellowstandoffshoreat300ftamslat17,000yearsbefore
present(bp;USGS,1991).WithsealevelriseintheHolocene(11,000yearsbp),theSalinasRiverValley
was backfilled with Valley Fill deposits. According to Tinsley, the Base of Holocene marine
transgressionatthislocality(LeonardiniWell)occursatapproximately150ftbelowmeansealevel(150
ftabovemeansealevel,amsl).

4.4.2 Quaternary Marine Terrace Deposits (Qmt)


According to Dupr, marine terraces flank both the northern and southernmargins of Monterey Bay.
Theyformedinresponsetoglacioeustaticfluctuationsinsealevel.TheyoungestterracesintheSanta
Cruz area were formed during the Sangamon sea level highstands (at 102,000 and 118,000 years bp;
Dupr,1990).QuaternaryMarineTerracesaremappednearMossLanding(seeFigure6aandFigure8)
andnorthofElkhornSlough.

4.4.3 Quaternary Terrace Deposits (Qt)


TerracedepositsarepresentalongandelevatedabovetheSalinasRiverfloodplain.Theterracedeposits
represent former alluvial fan and river floodplain surfaces, and range in age from early to
midPleistocene. Terrace surfaces and their relative stratigraphic positions were mapped by Tinsley
(1975)usingsoilstratigraphicmethods.Thestratigraphicpositionsoftheterracesassociatedwiththe
alluvialfansinthenorthernSalinasValleywereusedtointerpretthestratigraphicrelationshipsshown
onFigure8.AccordingtoTinsleyadistinguishingfeatureoftheSalinasRiverdepositsoriginatingfrom
belowtheArroyoSecodrainagewhichenterstheSalinasValleyapproximately40milesupstreamfrom

29

CaliforniaAmericanWater&RBFConsulting

MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectHydrogeologicInvestigation
TechnicalMemorandum(TM1)SummaryofResultsExploratoryBoreholes8Jul14

the south, is an abundance of porcellaneous chert from the Monterey Formation. The clast type can
occurbothinolderterracedeposits(Tinsley,2014)aswellasyoungerfluvialdepositswhichliebeneath
theSalinasValley.

4.4.4 Older Dune Sand (Qod)


TheOlderDuneSand(latePleistocene)isalsopresentinprojectarea.Thesedepositsaremuchmore
extensive in the project area south of the Salinas River Valley, extending inland as far as the East
Garrison of former Fort Ord (approximately 5 milesinland). However, north of the Salinas River, the
Older Dune Sand is limited in extent and crops out in small noncontiguous areas. Further north,
nearing the Watsonville area, Older Dune Sand deposits are again extensive, occupying much of the
coastal areas. Work completed by Dupr (1975) included study of the Manressa and Sunset Dunes,
whicharethecoastalduneslocatednorthoftheSalinasRiverintheWatsonvillearea.Thesedunesare
similartowhatiscalledtheFortOrdERGDuneComplexpresentintheCEMEXandFortOrdareas.The
termERGisusedtodescribethelandformwhichismadeupofalargedunefield.TheOlderDune
SanddepositsintheFortOrdareaarereportedtobeasmuchas250ftthick(HLA,2001).TheDupr
workhasshownthattheOlderDuneSanddepositsrestontopofterracedeposits(SantaCruzTerrace).

Dupr(1975)reports:

The Manressa Coastal Dunes conformably overlie the Santa Cruz coastal terrace deposits, hence
were deposited during lowering sea levelThe Manressa dunes are probably late
Sangamonian/early Wisconsinan. The Sunset Dunes are similar in form and probably in origin to
the Manressa Dunes, thus they record an interval of dropping sea level following a
mid-wisconsinan interstadial highstand.

Dupr notes that the Older Dune Sand deposits (in the Watsonville area) were deposited during a
loweringofsealevelbetweentheinterglacialSangamonsealevelhighstand(125,00085,000yearsbp)
andglacialWisconsinansealevel lowstand(85,000 11,000 yearsbp).Thecurrent Holocene(11,000
yearsbptopresent)representsthemostrecentinterglacialperiod.

4.4.5 Older Alluvium (Qo)


Older alluvial deposits are not mapped at the surface in the study area, but underlie the Holocene
deposits in the Salinas River Valley. These deposits are late Pleistocene and are likely in erosional
contactwithterracedeposits.TheOlderAlluviumcontainsorganicblueclayhorizonslocatedbeneath
theHolocenefloodplainoftheSalinasRiver,andistypicallyreferredto astheSalinasValleyAquitard
(SVA). According to Tinsley (1975), the presenceof this blue clay indicates that shallow marine to

30

CaliforniaAmericanWater&RBFConsulting

MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectHydrogeologicInvestigation
TechnicalMemorandum(TM1)SummaryofResultsExploratoryBoreholes8Jul14

brackish water estuarine environments prevailed during the deposition of the horizons, forming the
principleaquicludesandaquitardsinthe180/400FootAquiferSubbasin.

4.4.6 Younger Dune Deposits (Qd)


YoungerduneandbeachsanddepositsextendalongtheshorelineofMontereyBayfromthesouthern
endoftheBay,northwardtoMossLanding.Thedepositsareabsentintheimmediatevicinityofthe
mouthof theSalinasRiver(USGSOpenFile Report02373).The dunesanddeposits extendlandward
approximately 0.1 to 0.5 miles inland. The Younger Dune Sand is Holocene in age and overlies older
Dune Sand southof the Salinas River andolder alluvial deposits along themouth of the Salinas River
Valley.Itislikelythattherecentdunesandrestsoverfluvialdeposits(whichformashallowaquifer)in
the areawhere the Salinas River Valley meets the ocean. However, to the south of the Salinas River
ValleynearthecommunityofMarinaandFortOrd,therecentdunesanddirectlyoverliesolderdune
sanddeposits.

4.4.7 Quaternary Basin Fill (Qb) Alluvium (Q) and Floodplain Deposits (Qfl)
The Quaternary basin fill, alluvium, and floodplain deposits are Holocene in age, consisting of
sedimentary material deposited by the Salinas River and/or its tributaries. These units are mapped
withinthecentralportionoftheSalinasValley.
4.5

Local Geology

4.5.1

CEMEX Area

IntheCEMEXarea,youngerandolderdunedepositsoverlieQuaternaryterracedeposits.Theareais
withinthewesternedgeoftheOlderDuneComplex,whichisboundedbytheSalinasRiverValleytothe
north and extends from the coast to a maximum distance of five miles inland (see Figure 6a). The
CEMEXareahasbeendominatedbyeolian(windblown)depositionalprocesses,whiletheSalinasRiver
Valley is dominated by riverine fluvial depositional processes. The CEMEX area represents a distinct
geomorphicareafromtheSalinasRiverValley.

The conceptof the formation of coastal dunes during the lowering of sea level as reported byDupr
(1975)suggeststhattheOlderDunedepositsareeitherequivalentinageorolderthanthesand,silt,
and gravel which form the 180Foot Aquifer inthe Salinas Valley to the north. These fluvial deposits
whichmake upthe180Foot AquiferdepositswerelaiddownastheSalinasRiverValleydegradedits
channelduringWisconsinantime.The180FootAquiferwassubsequentlycappedassealevelsroseat
the beginning of the Holocene, forming an estuary and the SVA. The geologic units which form the
180FootAquiferarestratigraphicallyequivalentbutchronologicallyyoungerthantheterracedeposits
whichunderlietheOlderDunedepositsattheCEMEXsite.

31

CaliforniaAmericanWater&RBFConsulting

MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectHydrogeologicInvestigation
TechnicalMemorandum(TM1)SummaryofResultsExploratoryBoreholes8Jul14

DWR (2004) notes the 180Foot Aquifer may in part be correlative to older portions of Quaternary
terrace deposits or the upper Aromas Sand. CrossSection 11 (Figure 7a) depicts the relationship
betweenthegeologicunitsthatmakeupthe180FootAquiferpresentbeneaththeSalinasValleyand
thestratigraphicunitsencounteredintheCEMEXboreholes.Thedegreeofhydraulicconnectionwillbe
initiallyevaluatedusingtheCMandtheNMGWMbut,moresignificantly,willbefieldinvestigatedwith
thetestslantwellprogram.

4.5.1.1 Findings from CEMEX Boreholes


Fourboreholesweredrilledtodepthsbetween306and350ftbgs.ThelocationsareshownonFigure3.
BoringCXB1waslocatedclosesttotheocean.BoringCXB2waslocated600ftinlandfromCXB1along
the CEMEX haul road. Boring CXB3 was located near the CEMEX maintenance shop approximately
1,800feetfromBoringCXB1,andCXB4islocated500feeteastofCXB3andapproximately2,700feet
from the shoreline. Lithologic units were found to be similar in all four borings (see boring logs in
AppendixA1).ThetablebelowsummarizesthegeologicunitsencounteredintheCEMEXboringsCXB1,
CXB2,CXB3,andCXB4.

Table 4-1. Depths of Geologic Units in CEMEX Borings (ft bgs)


Depths of Geologic Units in CEMEX Borings (ft bgs)
Geologic Unit
Qd

Borehole
CX-B1

CX-B2

CX-B3

CX-B4

025

028

020

027

Qod

2585

2890

2090

2795

Qt

85245

90240

90253

95255

below287

below292

Qar

below265 below270

GeologicCrossSection11(Figure7a)illustratestheextentofthegeologicunitsinthesubsurfaceand
indicatesthehydrostratigraphicunitsassociatedwitheachgeologicunit.Figure7bisacloseupinthe
CEMEXarea.

4.5.2 Moss Landing Area


The investigation at Moss Landing is inclusive of the area from the Salinas River State Beach Molera
parkingLotatMontereyDunesWay(BoringMDW1)totheMontereyBayAquariumResearchInstitute
(MBARI) located at the northern terminal end of Sandholt Road (Boring ML6). The geologic units
includeYoungerDuneDeposits(Qd),recentalluvium(Qal),andbasinfilldeposits(Qb)nearthecoast.
TheareaaroundthePacificCoastHighwayisunderlainbyOlderDuneDeposits(Qod)andQuaternary
MarineTerraceDeposits(Qmt).Furthertothenortheast,aslandsurfaceelevationincrease,thealluvial

32

CaliforniaAmericanWater&RBFConsulting

MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectHydrogeologicInvestigation
TechnicalMemorandum(TM1)SummaryofResultsExploratoryBoreholes8Jul14

fan deposits (Qfa) predominate and are underlain by the Aromas Sand (Qar) which crops out near
ElkhornandPrunedale.ThedistributionofsurfacegeologicunitsisshownonFigure6a.

4.5.2.1 Findings from Moss Landing Boreholes


AtotalofsevenexploratoryboringsweredrilledattheMossLandingstudyarea.Thelocationsofallof
the borings are shown on Figure 2. The five borings drilled in Moss Landing Harbor are shown on
Figure4.LithologiclogsoftheboringsarepresentedinAppendixA1.GeologicCrossSections22and
33 provided as Figure 8 and Figure 9, respectively, depict the geologic relationships in the Moss
Landingarea.CrossSection22showsPleistoceneAlluvialFandepositsoverlainbyQuaternaryMarine
TerraceDeposits,andinerosionalcontactwithOlderAlluviumwhichcontainsthe180FootAquiferand
thePerchedAAquifer.TheOlderAlluvialdepositsareinterpretedtoextendseawardandbeexposed
inthewallsofMontereyCanyontothewest.

CrossSection33 parallels the coastextending from the City of Marinato Moss Landing Harbor, and
depicts mixed units of sand, silt, clay, and gravel which do not appear to be laterally or vertically
extensive.ThesandandgravelunitsencounteredinBoringPR1showedthegreatestthickness(99ft)
ofpermeablealluvium.Theunitappearstodecreaseinthicknesstothesouthandpinchoutsouthof
BoringMDW1.DepositsinterpretedastheSVAwerepenetratedinBoreholesMDW1,PR1,andML1
(seeFigure9).Figure41(Tinsley,1975)providesaschematicdepictingtherelationshipbetweenthe
PleistocenealluvialdepositsandthealluviumwhichcontainstheSVAand180FootAquiferbeneaththe
SalinasValleynearSalinas.

33

CaliforniaAmericanWater&RBFConsulting

MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectHydrogeologicInvestigation
TechnicalMemorandum(TM1)SummaryofResultsExploratoryBoreholes8Jul14

Figure 4-1. Reproduced from Figure IV-2 of Tinsley, 1975


4.6

Hydrostratigraphy

Traditionally,aquifersintheSalinasValleyGroundwaterBasinhavebeennamedfortheaveragedepth
at which they occur (e.g., 180Foot Aquifer). Waterbearing materials in the area, from oldest to
youngest,consist of thePliocenemarine Purisima Formation,PlioPleistocenePaso RoblesFormation,
PleistoceneAromasSands,andHoloceneValleyFillmaterials(Greene,1970).

Table 42 below providesa correlation of surfacemapped geologic units shown on Figure 6a andthe
hydrostratigraphic unit associated with the geologic unit. These units correlate with the CM and
NMGWM,andarediscussedinSection6.

34

CaliforniaAmericanWater&RBFConsulting

MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectHydrogeologicInvestigation
TechnicalMemorandum(TM1)SummaryofResultsExploratoryBoreholes8Jul14

Table 4-2. Correlation of Geologic and Hydrostratigraphic Units


180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin

CEMEX Area
Geologic Unit Map Hydrostratigraphic
Units
Symbol

Geologic Unit

Geologic Unit
Map Symbol

Hydrostratigraphic
Units

Geologic Units

BenthicZone

BenthicZone

BenthicZone

DuneSand

Qd

Alluvium

Qal

OlderDuneSand

Qod

OlderAlluvium

Qo

OlderAlluvium/
MarineTerrace

Qo/Qmt

OlderTerrace/
MarineTerrace

Qt(Qmt?)

OlderAlluvium/
Older

Qo/Qfa

OlderAlluvialFan
Placentia

Qfp

AromasSand
(undifferentiated)

Qar

AromasSand
Eolian/Fluvial
Lithofacies
PasoRobles
Formation

PerchedAAquifer

BenthicZone
DuneSandAquifer

SalinasValley
Aquitard

180FootAquifer

180/400Foot
Aquitard

400FootAquifer

180FTE

180/400Foot
Aquitard
AromasSand
(undifferentiated)
(?)

Qar(?)
400FootAquifer

Qae/Qaf

QT

400/900Foot
Aquitard
900FootAquifer

PasoRobles
Formation

QT

400/900Foot
Aquitard
900FootAquifer

SubsurfaceHolocenegeologicunitnotmappedatsurface
SeeSection4.6.4

Inthe180/400FootAquiferSubbasin,theaquiferunitsfromoldesttoyoungestincludethe900Foot
Aquifer,400FootAquifer(generallythoughttobecontainedintheupperpartoftheAromasSand),and
the 180Foot Aquifer present with the Older Alluvium and separated from the overlying Perched A
AquiferbytheSalinasValleyAquitard.Thicknessesofindividualaquiferunitsvaryinpreviousworkby
others. For example, Table 43 below provides the estimated thickness of the 180Foot Aquifer
suggestedbytheworkofpreviousinvestigators.TheinformationsummarizedintheTable43below
indicatesthatidentifyingtheelevationrangeandthicknessofthe180FootAquifervariesanddepends
onthespecificinvestigatorandlocation.

35

CaliforniaAmericanWater&RBFConsulting

MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectHydrogeologicInvestigation
TechnicalMemorandum(TM1)SummaryofResultsExploratoryBoreholes8Jul14

Table 4-3. Previous Estimates of Thickness and Elevation Ranges for the 180-Foot Aquifer
Previous Investigator

180-Foot Aquifer Near CEMEX


Thickness (ft)

Elevation Range (ft amsl)

Greene,1970

50250

20to220

DWR,1973

50150

0to300

Tinsley,1975

100150

Baseofaquiferat150

Staal,Gardner,Dunne*,
1991

Notreported

Topofaquiferat110

FugroWest,1996*

Notreported

Topofaquiferat135

HardingESE,2001

CombinesDuneSandwith180FootAquifer

Baseofaquiferat250

100

100to180

KennedyJenks,2004

*Thedepthtothe180FootAquiferwasdeterminedforasitesouthofCEMEX.

4.6.1

900-Foot Aquifer

The900FootAquiferiscontainedwithinthePlioPleistocenePasoRoblesFormation.HLA(2001)notes
thatthe900FootAquiferispartofaDeepaquifersystem,whichalsoincludeswhathasbeencalled
the 800Foot, 1,000Foot, and 1,500Foot Aquifers. For purposes of groundwater modeling, these
aquiferswillbecollectivelytermedandsimulatedasthe900FootAquifer.

4.6.2 400-Foot Aquifer


Within the project area, the 400Foot Aquifer is the aquifer unit which is contained in the upper and
lower portions of the Aromas Sand (USGS, 2003). The thicknessof the unit has been reported to be
approximately200ft(HLA,2001)butmaybeasthickas500feet(USGS,2003).Theunitisseparated
from the overlying 180Foot Aquifer by zones of discontinuous aquifers and aquitards which are
approximately10to70ftthick.Theaquitardsinthisareahavebeendesignatedasthe180/400Foot
Aquitard.

4.6.3 180-Foot Aquifer


As noted previously, the180Foot Aquifer hasvarious reported thicknesses. The aquifer is separated
fromtheoverlyingPerchedAAquiferbytheSVA.DWR(2003)statesthatthe180FootAquifermay,
in part, be correlative to older portions of Quaternary Terrace Deposits or the upper Aromas Sand.
Workcompletedforthisstudysuggeststhatthe180FootAquiferiscorrelativewithterracedepositsof
Quaternary age that are older but in erosional contact with younger Salinas River fluvial deposits
containingthe180FootAquiferintheSalinasValley.

36

CaliforniaAmericanWater&RBFConsulting

MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectHydrogeologicInvestigation
TechnicalMemorandum(TM1)SummaryofResultsExploratoryBoreholes8Jul14

AccordingtoTinsley(1975),extrapolationofthestratigraphicpositionofthe180FootAquiferoffshore
showsthatitlieswithintheseismicunitwhichrepresentsthedeltaicdepositsreportedbyGreenein
1970.TheworkpreparedbyGreenesuggestedapproximately200ft(60m)to280ft(85m)(maximum)
thicknessoftheHolocenedeltaicdeposits.Tinsley(1975)reportedthatforaminera5fromdatacollected
fromthewaterwellcuttingssuggestedthatthereis200ft(60m)to250ft(75m)ofHolocenesediments
near the coast in the southern Salinas River Valley, which correlates well with the work by Greene.
However, more recent work by Chin (USGS, 1988) using seismic methods suggests that the offshore
HoloceneDeltaicdepositsareabout70ftinthickness.

4.6.3.1
Historical Approaches for Identifying the 180-Foot Aquifer
The 180Foot Aquifer has been historically defined using four separate approaches. The four
approachesare:tradition,facies,groundwaterflowsystem,andinstitutional.Abriefdescriptionofthe
approachesappliedtowaterbearingdepositsencounteredbelowtheDuneSandatCEMEXisprovided
below.

Tradition:Traditionally,the180FootAquiferhasbeendescribedinnarrative,map,andcrosssectional
formats. While the descriptions differ among various authors, generally the 180Foot Aquifer is
described as resting beneath the SVA at an average depth of 180 ft bgs, extending offshore, and
cropping out on the floor of Monterey Bay. The mapping of seawater intrusion by the MCWRA
representsanimpliedextentofthetraditional180Footand400FootAquifers.AtCEMEX,theterrace
deposits which underlie dune sand are not capped by the SVA and therefore do not match the
traditionaldescriptionofthe180FootAquifer.

Facies:Someauthorshavedefinedthe180FootAquiferintermsoffacies.AccordingtoReading(1996)
a facies is a distinctive rock unit that forms under certain conditions of sedimentation, reflecting a
particularprocessorenvironment.Authorswhohavedescribedthe180FootAquiferasasedimentary
facieshaveassociatedthe180FootAquiferwithSalinasRiverfluvialdepositswhichweredepositedin
the preHolocene Salinas Valley. Some authors have extended the 180Foot Aquifer across facies
changes.

A facies change is a lateral or vertical variation in lithologic or paleontologic characteristics of


contemporaneous sedimentary deposits. It is caused by, or reflects, a change in depositional
environment(Neuendorfetal.,2005).Forexample,inafluvialsystem,thecenterofariverchannel
maycontainsandandgravelwhilethe edgesoftherivermay containsilt andclaydepositedinquiet
waterconditions.Afacieschange,orchangeinthesedimentaryenvironment,occurswithinthesame
5

Foraminifera(foraminifersor,informally,justforams)aresinglecelledorganisms(amoeboidprotists)withshells(plankton).

37

CaliforniaAmericanWater&RBFConsulting

MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectHydrogeologicInvestigation
TechnicalMemorandum(TM1)SummaryofResultsExploratoryBoreholes8Jul14

timestratigraphic unit. Therefore, including various facies changes in the 180Foot Aquifer is
appropriate.TheterracedepositswhichunderlietheCEMEXpropertyarenotafacieschangewithin
the fluvial sediments which contain the 180Foot Aquifer since they represent a different time
stratigraphicunit.Theterracedepositsareolderandareinerosionalcontactwithinthevariousfluvial
facieswhichcontainthe180FootAquifer.

Groundwater-flow system: Under predevelopment conditions, groundwater flowed horizontally


towardMontereyBaybothwithintheSalinasValleyandwithintheDuneHighlandareainthevicinityof
CEMEX. Under postdevelopment conditions, a reversal in groundwater gradient has resulted in
groundwater flowing from Monterey Bay inland, causing seawater intrusion. The groundwater flow
systemswillcrossdifferentfaciesaswellasdifferenttimestratigraphicunits.Theterracedepositsare
likelyinhydrauliccontinuitywiththe180FootAquifer.Therefore,groundwaterflowwilloccuracross
theerosionalcontactfromthe180FootAquiferintotheterracedeposits(referredtohereasthe180
FootEquivalentAquifer,or180FTEAquifer)andviceversa.Thedegreeofflowbetweentheaquifers
willbeassessedduringthetestslantwellprogram.

Institutional: The boundaries of the 180Foot Aquifer may be defined or implied by legislation or
ordinances. It is duly recognized that institutional boundaries have been prepared based on the
historical conceptual models of the regional hydrogeology and based on the historical data available.
Forpurposesofthisdocument,thealluvialmaterialsencounterednearthecoast(intheCEMEXarea)
arebasedsolelyonanalysesofboreholesamples(andgeophysicalboreholelogs).Asofyet,nodirect
correlationcanbe made betweenthese coastalalluvialdeposits andthe standardnamingconvention
foundfurtherinland(e.g.,180FootAquifer,400FootAquifer,SVA,etc.).Therefore,inthisdocument,
theuppermaterialshavebeenclassifiedastheDuneSandAquiferandthealluvialmaterialsbelowhave
beenreferredtoasstratigraphicallyequivalenttotheinland180FootAquifer(or180FTEAquifer)and
shouldnotbeconstruedtoalterinstitutionalinterpretations.

4.6.4 180-Foot Equivalent Aquifer (Terrace Deposits)


The terrace deposits are water bearing materials beneath the Dune Sand Aquifer in the CEMEX area.
The terrace deposits are approximately 160 ft thick at the CEMEX site, thinning seaward. Hydraulic
conductivity values are lower than those attributed to the 180Foot Aquifer. Based on the data
collected in this study, the terrace deposits are interpreted to be stratigraphically equivalent to the
180Foot Aquifer of the Salinas Valley, and may likely be in hydraulic continuity with the 180Foot
Aquifer. Therefore, for the purposes of this investigation, the aquifer interval within the terrace
depositsisreferredtoas180FootEquivalent(180FTE)Aquifer.The180FTEAquiferisbelievedtobe
in hydraulic continuity with the overlying Dune Sand Aquifer; both units extend seaward beneath
MontereyBayandhavesimilarwaterquality.

38

CaliforniaAmericanWater&RBFConsulting

MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectHydrogeologicInvestigation
TechnicalMemorandum(TM1)SummaryofResultsExploratoryBoreholes8Jul14

4.6.5

Salinas Valley Aquitard

TheSVAconsistsof discontinuouslayersof clays ranginginthicknessfrom 0 to 100 ft. Itdefinesthe


PressureAreafromChualartothecoast.Intheinlandareas,theSVAisgenerallypresentoverlyingthe
180FootAquifer,separatingthe180FootAquiferfromthePerchedAAquifer(discussedbelow).The
SVAispresentbeneaththeMossLandingareabutnotbeneaththeCEMEXsite.

4.6.6 Dune Sand Aquifer


The Dune Sand Aquifer is present beneath the CEMEX site and represents the water bearing units of
boththeYoungerandOlderDuneSand.BasedongroundwaterqualitydatacollectedattheCEMEXsite,
andtheabsenceoftheSVA,thegroundwaterintheDuneSandAquiferisbelievedtobehydraulically
connectedtotheunderlying180FTEAquifer(terracedeposits).ThehighsalinitysuggeststhattheDune
Sand Aquifer is also connected to the ocean. According to HLA (2001), the Dune Sand Aquifer is
hydrostratigraphicallyequivalenttothePerchedAAquifer.WorkcompletedbyEmcon(1991)forthe
Marina Peninsula Class III Landfill suggests that there are multiple perched aquifers within the Older
DuneSand.Theaquiferdesignatedasthe2FootAquiferatthelandfillappearstocorrelatewiththe
PerchedAAquiferoftheSalinasValley.Recentgroundwaterlevelsforthe2FootAquiferareshown
onCrossSection11(Figure7a).

4.6.7 Perched A Aquifer


ThePerchedAAquiferisfoundwithintheSalinasValleyoverlyingtheSVA.AccordingtoHLA(2001),
anequivalentunitdesignatedastheAaquiferisfoundexclusivelyintheOlderDuneSandbeneaththe
formerFortOrd.ThisrelationshipfurthersuggeststhatgroundwaterwithinthePerchedAAquiferin
theSalinasValleymaybehydraulicallyconnectedtothegroundwaterfoundintheOlderDuneSand.

4.7
Hydrostratigraphic Interpretation of CEMEX Borehole Data
TheCEMEXboringsencounteredgroundwaterfromslightlybelowgroundsurfacetothebottomofeach
borehole.TheDuneSandAquiferispresenttoadepthofapproximately90ftbgs.Groundwaterquality
dataindicatesthatTDSconcentrationsfortheDuneSandAquiferrangefromapproximately4,800mg/L
inlandto27,000mg/Lneartheocean.

Terracedepositsinthe180FTEAquiferunderlietheDuneSandAquiferandconsistofarangeoffluvial
lithologicunits,includingthingravelchannelsandlaminatedsiltandveryfinesanddeposits.Thebase
oftheterracedepositsappearstobemarkedbyatransitiontothickerclayunits(1015ftthick)with
interbedded sand and gravel units (about 10ft thick) above a distinct blue clay layer. TDS
concentrationsinthisunitvaryfrom16,000mg/Ltonearseawater(32,000mg/L).TDSconcentrations

39

CaliforniaAmericanWater&RBFConsulting

MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectHydrogeologicInvestigation
TechnicalMemorandum(TM1)SummaryofResultsExploratoryBoreholes8Jul14

intheterracedepositsappeartobesimilartothoseintheDuneSandAquifer.Thehighandlowvalues
ofTDSappeartorepresentgroundwaterwithinmoreisolatedchannelsandlenseswithintheunit.

The units below the blue clay6 are interpreted to be the 400Foot Aquifer within the Aromas Sand.
TDSconcentrationsobtainedfromtwoisolatedzonesinthisaquiferwereapproximately25,000mg/Lto
30,000 mg/L. Table 44 below provides a summary of water quality by geologic unit. The TDS
concentrationswithdepthandbygeologicunitareshownonFigures7aand7b.Adetaileddiscussion
ofgroundwaterqualityisprovidedinSection5.
Table 4-4. Summary of Laboratory Water Quality Results from Boreholes at CEMEX

Zone 1

Zone 2

Zone 3

Zone 4

Zone 5

Zone 6

Depth (ft bgs)

274284

237247

182192

134144

8494

5161

25,200

14,600

35,600

26,500

27,400

24,800

TDS
(mg/L)

Borehole CX-B2 WQ

TDS Concentrations by
Zone

Zone 1

Depth (ft bgs)

215225

TDS
(mg/L)

26,500

Zone 2

Zone 3

160.5170.5 104114
16,200

26,800

Zone 4
5565
26,700

Borehole CX-B4

TDS Concentrations by
Zone

Zone 1

Zone 2

Zone 3

Zone 4

Zone 5

Depth (ft bgs)

306316

248258

155165

110120

5868

29,800

27,200

20,500

24,000

4,815

TDS
(mg/L)

4.8

Borehole CX-B1 WQ

TDS Concentrations by
Zone

Hydrostratigraphic Interpretation of Moss Landing Boreholes Data

AtotalofsevenboringsweredrilledintheMossLandingstudyarea.Figure8andFigure9aregeologic
crosssectionsconstructedfromboreholedata,andwereusedtointerpretthesubsurfacestratigraphic
and hydrostratigraphic relationships in the Moss Landing area. CrossSection 22 is drawn
perpendiculartotheshorelineandmakesuseofthelithologiclogfromBoringPR1andmappedsurface
geology.Thegeologicrelationshipsdepictedincluderecentalluviumandolderalluviumcontainingthe
6

TheblueclayreferstoadistinctlithologicunitencounteredinCEMEXboringsthatwasdarkgreenishgray,aMunsellcolor
of5GY3/1.Munsellsoilcolorchartsarecommonlyusedintheindustrytodescribesoilcolors.

40

CaliforniaAmericanWater&RBFConsulting

MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectHydrogeologicInvestigation
TechnicalMemorandum(TM1)SummaryofResultsExploratoryBoreholes8Jul14

Perched A Aquifer, SVA, and the 180Foot Aquifer present beneath the Salinas River in erosional
contact with older alluvial fan deposits located on the northern portion of the Salinas Valley. This
relationshipwasreportedbyTinsley(1975)fortheareaaroundSalinasandindicatesthattheaquifersin
theSalinasValleymaybeinhydraulicconnectionwithgroundwaterinterraceandalluvialfandeposits.
The older alluvial deposits and alluvial fan deposits overlie the Aromas Sand which contains the
400FootAquifer.

CrossSection33isdrawnparalleltotheshorelineandextendsfromMossLandingsouthtotheCityof
Marina.CrossSection33makesuseofthelithologiclogsfromBoreholesMDW1,PR1,ML1,ML2,
and ML6. Further south, borehole information from previous studies and drillers logs and data
recently collected from CEMEX were used to construct the crosssection. The crosssection depicts a
thickersequenceofrecentalluviumconsistingofpermeablesandandgravelmaterialpresentatdepths
between58ftand139ftbgsinPR1.IntheMossLandingarea,therecentalluviumisinterbeddedwith
silt, silty sand, and clay. To the south of Boring PR1, the permeable deposits encountered in Boring
PR1 decrease in thickness and pinch out and the Older Alluvium which contains the SVA and the
180FootAquiferisinerosionalcontactwiththeterracedeposits.Thealluvialdepositsarechanneland
floodplain deposits near the mouth of the Salinas River. The alluvium is underlain by older alluvium
which contains the SVA, and the underlying 180Foot Aquifer. The 180Foot Aquifer is cut off to the
northbyclaygorgefillreportedbyDWR(1973)associatedwithElkhornSlough.

Table 45 below summarizes basic groundwater quality data for the Moss Landing borings. The zones
above approximately 100 ft bgs had TDS concentrations ranging from freshwater (423 mg/L) to near
seawater(29,000mg/L).BoringsML2,ML3ML4containedbrackishwater(approximately5,000mg/L
to9,000mg/L).WiththeexceptionofZone1fromML3,thelowerzonesconsistentlycontainedhigh
TDS concentrations ranging from approximately 19,000 mg/L to 34,000 mg/L (ML6). A detailed
discussionofgroundwaterqualityisprovidedinSection5.

41

CaliforniaAmericanWater&RBFConsulting

MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectHydrogeologicInvestigation
TechnicalMemorandum(TM1)SummaryofResultsExploratoryBoreholes8Jul14

Table 4-5. Summary of Laboratory Water Quality Results from the Moss Landing Borings
Water
Quality
Parameters
Depth
(ft bgs)
TDS
(mg/L)
Water
Quality
Parameters
Depth

(mg/L)

4.9

ML-1

Zone 1

Zone 2

Zone 3

Zone 4

Zone 1

Zone 2

Zone 1

Zone 2

237247

187197

152162

6070

190200

125135

113.5118.5

90100

31,000

30,200

26,600

21,900

630

34,000

22,000

3,200

ML-2

ML-3

ML-4

Zone 1

Zone 2

Zone 1

Zone 2

167177

90100

180190

103113

19,000

8,100

7,400

4,200

(ft bgs)
TDS

PR-1

MDW-1

Zone 1

ML-6
Zone 2

163.5173.5 74.584.5
21,000

8,600

Zone 1

Zone 2

152162

100110

34,000

28,000

Updated Conceptual Model

The geologic and hydrogeologic data collected during this investigation was used to prepare the
interpretationsofhydrostratigraphicrelationshipsintheMossLandingandCEMEXareas.Aconceptual
model of the hydrostratigraphic units in the Moss Landing to CEMEX area as interpreted from data
collectedfromthisinvestigationisshownonFigure42.

42

CaliforniaAmericanWater&RBFConsulting

MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectHydrogeologicInvestigation
TechnicalMemorandum(TM1)SummaryofResultsExploratoryBoreholes8Jul14

Figure 4-2. Hydrostratigraphic Model Moss Landing to CEMEX Area

43

CaliforniaAmericanWater&RBFConsulting

MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectHydrogeologicInvestigation
TechnicalMemorandum(TM1)SummaryofResultsExploratoryBoreholes8Jul14

5.0

GROUNDWATER QUALITY

5.1

General

5.1.1

Groundwater Levels

Groundwaterwasencounteredinalloftheboringsdrilledduringthisinvestigation.Groundwaterlevels
werenotestablishedwithcertaintyduringthisinvestigation.Thegroundwaterlevelwasmeasuredin
the well casing after aquifer zone testing if the zone was left over night to allow full recovery after
pumping.Insomecases,thezoneswereremovedattheendofpumpingtoallowforconstructionofa
subsequent zone or for borehole destruction to move the drilling rig to the next location. The
installationofpermanentmonitoringwellsduringthenextphaseofinvestigationwillallowanaccurate
evaluation of groundwater elevations. Table 51 below provides groundwater level measurements
(depth in ft, bgs) from most of the zones. These are provided as an estimate of depth to water
encounteredinthetemporarywell(zone)butmayvarywithtidalinfluencesorseasonally.Ingeneral,
thedepthtowatermeasuredintheboreholesreflectsagroundwatersurfaceelevationatornearsea
level.

Table 5-1. Depth to Water from Isolated Aquifer Test Zones

Borehole Zone 1
Moss Landing
PR1

ML1
ML2
3.3
ML3
12.57
ML4
28.68
ML6
8.09
MDW1
20.8
CEMEX
CXB1WQ
26
CXB2WQ
28.4

5.1.2

Depth to Water (ft bgs)


Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4

Zone 5

Zone 6

19.3

19.9

3.6
1.6
10.86
9.58
19.2

20.9

14.65

26.31

19.53
24.3

21.5
24.7

Groundwater Sampling and Analysis

Groundwater samples collected from the isolated aquifer zone tests were submitted for laboratory
analysis.Table52liststhesuiteofanalysesconductedoneachsample.Theresultsofthewaterquality
andagedatinganalyseswillpartiallyformthebasisfortheinterpretationsofthehydrogeologyinthe
studyareadiscussedinthesectionsbelow.ThelaboratoryanalyticaldataaresummarizedinTable3a

44

CaliforniaAmericanWater&RBFConsulting

MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectHydrogeologicInvestigation
TechnicalMemorandum(TM1)SummaryofResultsExploratoryBoreholes8Jul14

andTable3b.Copiesofthefielddatasheetsusedtorecordfieldparametersduringzonetestingare
providedinAppendixG.
Table 5-2. Water Quality Analyses for Exploratory Boreholes
Constituent

Units

Method
Reporting Limit

Method

SM2120B/EPA110.2

Physical Properties
Color
Odor

Color
Units
T.O.N.
mV

pH(Lab)

Units

0.1

pH(Field)

Units

Turbidity(Laboratory)

NTU

0.2

Turbidity(Field)

NTU

DissolvedOxygen(Field)

mg/L

SiltDensityIndex(Field)

EPA140.1
FieldMeterMyronL
6PII
SM4500H+B
FieldMeterYSIPro
Plus
EPA180.1/SM2130B
FieldMeterHach
2100P
FieldMeterYSIPro
Plus
FieldMeterYSIPro
Plus
ASTMD418907

ThresholdOdorNumber

T.O.N.

EPA140.1/SM2150

TotalDissolvedSolids(Lab)

mg/L

10

TotalDissolvedSolids(Field)

mg/L

SpecificConductance(Lab)

mhos/cm

SpecificConductance(Field)

S/cm

SM2540C
FieldMeterYSIPro
Plus
SM2510B
FieldMeterYSIPro
Plus

TotalCations

meq/L

Calculation

TotalAnions

meq/L

Calculation

AlkalinityasCaCO3

mg/L

SM2320B

BicarbonateAlkalinityasHCO3

mg/L

SM2320B

CarbonateAlkalinityasCaCO3

mg/L

SM2320B

HydroxideAlkalinityasCaCO3

mg/L

SM2320B

TotalHardnessasCaCO3

mg/L

Calculation

Aluminum

g/L

EPA200.7

Arsenic

g/L

EPA200.7/EPA200.8

Barium,Dissolved

g/L

0.01

EPA200.7

Boron,Dissolved

g/L

0.5

EPA200.8

OxidationReductionPotential(Field)

Temperature(Field)

General Minerals

45

CaliforniaAmericanWater&RBFConsulting

MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectHydrogeologicInvestigation
TechnicalMemorandum(TM1)SummaryofResultsExploratoryBoreholes8Jul14

Bromide,Dissolved

mg/L

0.1

EPA326.0

Calcium,Dissolved

mg/L

EPA200.7

Chloride,Dissolved

mg/L

EPA300.0

Copper,Total

g/L

50

EPA200.7

Fluoride,Dissolved

mg/L

0.1

Iodide,Dissolved

mg/L

0.1

Iron,Dissolved

g/L

100

EPA300.0/SM4500FC
USGSI2371/EPA
9056A
EPA200.7/EPA200.8

Iron,Total

g/L

100

EPA200.7/EPA200.8

Lithium

10

EPA200.7/EPA6010B

Magnesium,Dissolved

g/L
mg/L

EPA200.7

Manganese,Dissolved

g/L

20

EPA200.7/EPA200.8

Manganese,Total

g/L

20

EPA200.7/EPA200.8

MBAS

mg/L

0.05

SM5540C/EPA200.8

Nitrogen,NitrateasNO3

mg/L

EPA353.2/EPA300.0

Nitrogen,Nitrite,Dissolved

mg/LasN

SM4500NO2B

Nitrogen,NO2+NO3

mg/LasN

EPA300.0

Nitrogen,Ammonia,Dissolved

mg/LasN

0.1

SM4500NH3H/EPA
350.1

Nitrogen,Ammonia+Organic,Diss.(TKN)

mg/LasN

0.1

EPA351.2

Phosphorus,Dissolved

mg/LasP

0.01

EPA365.3

Phosphorus,ortho,Dissolved

mg/LasP

0.01

EPA365.3

Potassium,Dissolved

mg/L

EPA200.7

Silica,Dissolved

mg/L

SM4500SiE

Sodium,Dissolved

mg/L

EPA200.7

Strontium,Dissolved

mg/L

0.1

EPA200.7/EPA200.8

SulfateasSO4,dissolved

mg/L

0.5

EPA300.0

Zinc,Total

g/L

50

EPA200.7

Radiology / Age Dating Methods


DeltaDeuterium

d H

TC/EA/IRMS

DeltaOxygen18

dO
TU

TC/EA/IRMS

TU

g/L

varies

EPA524.2

EDBandDBCP

g/L

varies

EPA504.1

ChlorinatedPesticides&PCBsasDCP

g/L

varies

EPA508

ChlorinatedAcidHerbicides

g/L

varies

EPA515

Nitrogen&PhosphorusPesticidesDEHP,

g/L

varies

EPA525

Tritium
Tritium,prec.est.
Volatile Organic Compounds
VOCsplusOxygenates(MTBE)
EPA Organic Methods

DEHA,Benzo(a)Pyrene

46

CaliforniaAmericanWater&RBFConsulting

MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectHydrogeologicInvestigation
TechnicalMemorandum(TM1)SummaryofResultsExploratoryBoreholes8Jul14

Carbamates

g/L

varies

EPA531.1

Glyphosate

g/L

varies

EPA547

Endothall

g/L

varies

EPA548.1

Diquat

g/L

varies

EPA549.1

Dioxin(2,3,7,8TCDD)

g/L

varies

EPA1613

NTU=NephelometricTurbidityUnits
mg =Milligram
S =Microsiemens

Due to time constraints, the need to work through weekends, and the need to submit samples to
laboratories on the weekend, several laboratories were used for the analytical work. In addition,
specialist laboratories were used for age dating using the tritium and oxygen/deuterium isotope
analyses. The following are the State Certified Laboratories and specialist laboratories used for
analyticaltesting.

5.2

BSKAssociates

CeresAnalyticalLaboratory

MaxxamAnalytics

MontereyBayAnalyticalServices

PaceAnalytical

SIRFERStableIsotopeRatioFacilityforEnvironmentalResearch(UniversityofUtah)

WeckLaboratories,Inc.

GEOCHRONLaboratories

McCampbellAnalytical,Inc.
Groundwater Quality - CEMEX Area

Lithologic,geophysical,andgroundwaterqualitydatawascollectedfromboringsdrilledattheCEMEX
facility.Thegeologicdataandgeophysicaldatawereusedwithotherpublisheddataanddrillerslogsto
constructCrossSection11(seeFigures7aand7b).Thecrosssectionextendsfromoffshore,eastward,
throughtheCEMEXfacilityandtheMontereyPeninsulaLandfillintotheSalinasValley.Thestratigraphic
relationshipsindicatethatgroundwateraquifersbeneaththeCEMEXfacilityarepresentintheYounger
andOlderDuneSand,interracedepositsbelowtheDuneSand,andinwhatisinterpretedasAromas
Sand(?) below theterrace deposits.Theterracedepositsare separatedfrom theunderlyingAromas
Sand (?) by a distinct blue clay unit which suggests a change in depositional environment at an
elevationofapproximately220ftamsl.Thegroundwaterpresentintheterracedepositsappearstobe
hydrostratigraphically equivalent to the 180Foot Aquifer is therefore termed 180FTE Aquifer to be
consistentwiththenomenclatureusedinthisregion.Asinterpreted,the180FTEAquifertransitions

47

CaliforniaAmericanWater&RBFConsulting

MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectHydrogeologicInvestigation
TechnicalMemorandum(TM1)SummaryofResultsExploratoryBoreholes8Jul14

eastwardandisinerosionalcontactwiththeolderalluvium(whichcontainsthe180FootAquifer)inthe
Salinas Valley. The sedimentary transitioneastward towardsthe Salinas Valley isshown in Figure 7a.
The 180FTE and 180Foot Aquifers, although depositionally and chronologically different, are
hydrostratigraphicallyequivalent.Thedegreeofhydrostratigraphicequivalencewillbeevaluatedbythe
longtermtestslantwellaquifertestingprogram.

Table53summarizesTDSconcentrationsbydepthandinterpretedhydrostratigraphicunitatCEMEX.
TDSconcentrationsintheDuneSandAquiferrangefromapproximately28,000mg/Lneartheshoreto
approximately4,800mg/LinlandinthevicinityoftheCEMEXOffice(seeFigure3).

Table 5-3 Summary of Water Quality by Hydrostratigraphic Unit-CEMEX


CX-B1WQ

Hydrostratigraphic
Unit

CX-B2WQ

Zone Depth(ft, bgs) TDS (mg/L) Zone Depth(ft, bgs)


6
5161
24,452
4
5565
DuneSandAquifer
5
8494
28,111
4
134144
26,921
3
104114
180FTE
3
182192
32,034
2
160.5170.5
180400Aquitard(?)
400FTAquifer

237247

16,122

274284

24,888

215225

CX-B4
TDS
(mg/L)
26,700

Zone
5

26,800
16,200

4
3

110120
155165

24,000
20,500

26,500

2
1

248258
306316

27,200
29,800

Depth(ft, bgs) TDS (mg/L)


5868
4,815

ThisconditionindicatesthattheDuneSandAquiferisdirectlyinfluencedbytheocean.Thisinfluence
decreases inland where the infiltration of precipitation and applied agricultural water provide the
greaterinfluence.

Groundwaterinthe180FTEAquiferrangesinTDSconcentration,fromapproximately16,000mg/Lto
approximately32,000mg/L.TheTDSconcentrationisgenerallyconsistentfromthenearshoreareato
theinlandareaneartheCEMEXoffice.Thisconditionindicatesthatsurfacewaterdoesnotinfluence
theTDSconcentrationandthat thegroundwaterisinfluencedbyseawaterintrusion.TheoldCEMEX
well was reportedly screened in the 180FTE Aquifer and was abandoned due to high TDS content.
However,thedrillerslogshowsthatthewellwasperforatedfrom246to506ftbgs,whichwouldhave
placed the perforations in the 400Foot Aquifer based on the current interpretation. Similar TDS
concentrationsintheDuneSandAquiferwithinatleast1,500ftoftheshoreandtheunderlying180FTE
Aquifer, suggest that the two aquifers are in hydraulic connection. In addition, the range of TDS
concentrations in the lower portion of the 180FTE Aquifer suggests that groundwater is present in
sediment lenses that may be more isolated from each other and potentially locally isolated from the
overlyingaquifers.

48

CaliforniaAmericanWater&RBFConsulting

MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectHydrogeologicInvestigation
TechnicalMemorandum(TM1)SummaryofResultsExploratoryBoreholes8Jul14

TheDuneSandAquiferandupperportionofthe180FTEAquifercontaingroundwaterthatisenriched
in calcium and strontium, suggesting that geochemical transformation from seawater intrusion has
impactedthegroundwaterinapproximately theupper200 ft.Thetritium analysisforsamplesfrom
CXB1WQ and CXB2WQ is discussed in Section 5.8 and indicates that groundwater in the Dune Sand
Aquiferisyoungest,whichisconsistentwithinfluencefromrainfallandirrigation.Thegroundwaterin
the upper portion of the 180FTE Aquifer may be slightly older and apparently has not had time for
geochemicalprocessesfromseawaterintrusiontoimpactthequality.Thecompleteagedatinganalysis
willbeprovidedasanaddendumtothistechnicalmemorandum.

The Dune Sand Aquifer extends seaward and merges with Holocene deltaic deposits beneath the
seafloorofMontereyBay.Thebaseoftheterracedepositsinthe180FTEAquiferalsoextendseaward
andareunconformablyoverlainbytheHoloceneDeltaicdepositsatanelevationofapproximately220
ftamsl.

5.3
Groundwater Quality - Moss Landing Area
The Moss Landing area is located at the mouth of the Salinas River, which overlies the 180/400Foot
Aquifer Subbasin. The six exploratory borings primarily penetrated fluvial sediments associated with
HoloceneSalinasRiverdeposition.

The Perched A Aquifer is ascribed to the Holocene river alluvium and considered to be the
hydrostratigraphicequivalentoftheDuneSandAquiferlocatedtothesouth.ThePerchedAAquifer
intheMossLandingareaiscomposedofinterbeddedriverandfloodplaindeposits.Withtheexception
ofthesedimentspenetratedinBoringPR1,individualsandandsandandgravellensesdonotappearto
beeithervertically orareallyextensive.Significant variationsinTDSconcentrationssuggest that fresh
groundwaterismixedwithseawater,andislikelypresentinsemiisolatedlenticulardeposits.

Table 54 provides a summary of TDS concentrations by hydrostratigraphic unit in the Moss Landing
area.TDSconcentrationsinthePerchedAAquiferappeartobeinfluencedbyfreshorbrackishwater
intheMossLandingHarborarea,asindicatedbyTDSconcentrationsrangingfrom3,200mg/Lto8,600
mg/L in Borings ML1, Ml2, ML3 and ML4 located near waterways. Groundwater samples from
BoringsMDW1,PR1andML6wereatnearseawaterquality,reflectingproximitytotheocean.

BoringPR1penetratedaverypermeableunitinthePerchedAAquiferbetween58ftto139ftbgs.
Groundwater in this zone interval approximated seawater quality (i.e., 34,000 mg/L TDS). It is
interpreted that the lowest portionof BoringPR1 penetrated the SVA. Very low TDS concentrations
(630 mg/L)encountered in the lowest zone in Boring PR1 suggests that isolated zones of freshwater

49

CaliforniaAmericanWater&RBFConsulting

MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectHydrogeologicInvestigation
TechnicalMemorandum(TM1)SummaryofResultsExploratoryBoreholes8Jul14

may exist within the 180Foot Aquifer or that the sand unit is laterally discontinuous and may be
interbeddedwiththeSVA.Inthislastinterpretation,BoringPR1didnotcompletelypenetratetheSVA.

Table 5-4. Summary of Water Quality by Hydrostratigraphic Unit- Moss Landing


Hydrostratigraphic
Unit

MDW-1
Zone Depth(ft, bgs)
4
6070

PR-1
TDS
(mg/L)
21,900

PerchedAAquifer
3
2
1

180FTAquifer

Hydrostratigraphic
Unit
PerchedAAquifer

152162
187197
237247

26,600
30,200
31,000

ML-2
Zone Depth(ft, bgs)
2
90100
1

167177

ML-1

Zone Depth(ft, bgs)


2

125135

190200

ML-3

TDS
(mg/L)
34,000

Zone Depth(ft, bgs)


2
1

90100
113.5118.5

TDS
(mg/L)
3,200
22,000

630*

ML-6

ML-4

TDS
TDS
(mg/L) Zone Depth(ft, bgs) (mg/L) Zone Depth(ft, bgs)
8,100
2
103113
4,200
2
74.584.5

TDS
(mg/L) Zone Depth(ft, bgs)
8,600
2
100110

TDS
(mg/L)
28,000

19,000

21,000

34,000

189190

7,400

163.5173.5

152162

*GroundwaterfromZoneofPR1maybecontainedinanisolatedzonewithintheSVA

Boring MDW1 penetrated the 180Foot Aquifer. Groundwater collected from three depth intervals
withinthe180FootAquiferhadTDSconcentrationsclosetoseawater.

5.4
Determining Average Central California Coast Seawater Quality
AveragesalinityestimatesforthecentralCaliforniacoastalregionwereestablishedbasedonhistorical
salinity measurementstakenattheGranite CanyonmonitoringstationoperatedbytheMossLanding
MarineLaboratory(ShoreStationsMonitoringProgram,2014).Dailysalinitymeasurementsweremade
based on samples collected near the intake for the Marine Pollution Studies Laboratory. An average
33.69 Practical Salinity Units (PSU) salinity was calculated from the Granite Canyon monitoring data
basedontheaverageofdailysalinitymeasurementsfromJanuary1986throughJanuary2011.

The composition of major chemical constituents in central California coastal seawater was then
calculated from the major chemical constituent concentrations in standard seawater (JGOFS, 1997)
multipliedbytheratiooftheaveragelocalsalinity(approximately33.69)tostandardseawatersalinity
(approximately35.17).StandardseawatercompositionandaveragecentralCaliforniacoastalseawater
compositionislistedinTable55.

50

CaliforniaAmericanWater&RBFConsulting

MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectHydrogeologicInvestigation
TechnicalMemorandum(TM1)SummaryofResultsExploratoryBoreholes8Jul14

Table 5-5. Standard Seawater and Central California Coast Seawater


Units

Mean
Seawater
Values

Central California Coast


Average Seawater Values **

TotalDissolved
Solids

mg/L

35,176

33,694

Salinity

PSU*

35.17

33.69

Potassium

mg/L

399

382

Sodium

mg/L

10,784

10,329

Magnesium

mg/L

1,284

1,230

Calcium

mg/L

412

395

Strontium

mg/L

7.9

7.57

Bicarbonate

mg/L

108

103

Chloride

mg/L

19,352

18,537

Fluoride

mg/L

1.3

1.25

Sulfate

mg/L

2,712

2,598

TotalBoron

mg/L

4.55

4.35

Bromide

mg/L

67.3

64.5

Parameter

* PSU=PracticalSalinityUnit
**OceanwatercompositioncalculatedfrommeansalinitiesmeasuredattheGraniteCanyonMonitoringStation
byMossLandingMarineLaboratories.AverageSalinitybasedon19882011monitoringdata.

5.5

Borehole Water Quality Results

Table56liststheboreholeswherewaterqualitysampleswerecollectedandthecorrespondingdepth
intervals,measuredTDS,andcalculatedTDS.Completewaterqualityanalysisfromboreholetestingis
included in Appendix G. Measured TDS values listed in Table 56 were determined using Standard
Method2540,andthecalculatedTDSvaluesweredeterminedfromthewaterqualityanalysisforeach
borehole.Calculatedwaterqualityincludedbicarbonateandallothermajorandminorions.Trilinear
groundwaterplotsforthewaterqualitydatafromCEMEXborings(BoringCXB1WQ,CXB2WQ,andCX
B4) are presentedonFigure10.Trilineargroundwaterplotsfor the waterquality datafromtheMoss
Landing borings (ML1, ML2, ML3, ML4, ML6, PR1, and MDW1) are presented on Figure 11. The
water quality from the CEMEX borings and the Moss Landing borings plot similarly, suggesting a
commonsourcewater.

51

CaliforniaAmericanWater&RBFConsulting

MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectHydrogeologicInvestigation
TechnicalMemorandum(TM1)SummaryofResultsExploratoryBoreholes8Jul14

Table 5-6. Comparison of Measured TDS and Calculated TDS for Borehole Water Quality Samples
Zone

Depth Interval (ft)

Measured Total
Dissolved Solids
mg/L

Calculated Total
Dissolved Solids
mg/L

Agreement Between
Calculated and Measured TDS
% Difference

274284
237247
182192
134144
8494
5161
215225
161171
104114
5565
306316
248258
155165
110120
5868

25,200
14,600
35,600
26,500
27,400
24,800
26,500
16,200
26,800
26,700
29,800
27,200
20,500
24,000
4,815

24,606
15,177
32,719
25,547
26,458
23,663
23,041
12,599
24,790
25,153
25,130
25,072
18,293
19,744
3,884

2.4%
3.8%
8.8%
3.7%
3.6%
4.8%
15.0%
28.6%
8.1%
6.2%
18.6%
8.5%
12.1%
21.6%
24.0%

113.5123.5
90100
167177
90100
180190
103113
163.5173.5
74.584.5
152162
100110
190200
125135
237247
187197
152162
6070

22,000
3,200
19,000
8,100
7,400
4,200
21,000
8,600
34,000
28,000
630
34,000
31,000
30,200
26,600
21,900

21,399
3,094
21,870
6,872
6,732
4,229
18,542
8,002
33,230
28,580
760
33,767
28,789
29,778
24,772
20,814

2.8%
3.4%
13.1%
17.9%
9.9%
0.7%
13.3%
7.5%
2.3%
2.0%
17.1%
0.7%
7.7%
1.4%
7.4%
5.2%

CEMEX Boreholes
CXB1WQ1
CXB1WQ2
CXB1WQ3
CXB1WQ4
CXB1WQ5
CXB1WQ6
CXB2WQ1
CXB2WQ2
CXB2WQ3
CXB2WQ4
CXB41
CXB42
CXB43
CXB44
CXB45

Moss Landing Boreholes


ML11
ML12
ML21
ML22
ML31
ML32
ML41
ML42
ML61
ML62
PR11
PR12
MDW11
MDW12
MDW13
MDW14

5.6

Distinguishing Water Quality from Upper and Lower Aquifers

Oneoftheobjectivesofthesamplingeffortwastodetermineifwaterqualitymeasuredintheupper
aquiferscouldbedistinguishedfromthatintheloweraquifers.Severalwaterqualityanalyticalandage
datingmethodswereusedtoaidindifferentiatingtheupperaquifersfromtheloweraquifers.Vengosh
(2002)usedratiosofcalcium,magnesium,andlithiumtoevaluatethesourceofincreasedsalinityinthe
SalinasValley.ThemethodsemployedbyVengoshwereappliedtothewaterqualitysamplescollected
forthisinvestigation.Theresultsarediscussedbelow.

Groundwatersamplescollectedwereanalyzedfortritiumcontentfordeterminingrelativeageaswellas
oxygen (18O) and hydrogen (2H) isotopes to evaluate the relative contribution of different source
waters.TheresultsoftheseanalysesarediscussedinSection5.8and5.7.3,respectively.

52

CaliforniaAmericanWater&RBFConsulting

MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectHydrogeologicInvestigation
TechnicalMemorandum(TM1)SummaryofResultsExploratoryBoreholes8Jul14

5.7

Evaluation of Source Waters

5.7.1

CEMEX Boreholes

Prior work in Salinas Valley and coastal central California by Vengosh (2002) had evaluated the
geochemicalinteractions,whichoccurwhenseawaterintrudesintoinlandaquifers.Whencomparedto
the local seawater values, shifts in some chemical constituents including calcium, sodium, strontium,
andboronoccurinintrudedseawater.Vengoshreportedthatintrudedseawaterhadenrichedratiosof
calcium,magnesium,andlithiumwhencomparedtothoseseeninstandardseawater.

WaterqualitydatafromCEMEXboreholeswereanalyzedbycomparingchlorideratiosofthemajorion
groupswiththoseofstandardseawaterforthecentralCaliforniacoastalregion.Chlorideisusedasa
reference inthese comparisons, as it is generally conservative and has not been reported to undergo
water/rock exchange reactions. Figures 12 through 18 show the ratios of chloride to TDS, Sodium,
Calcium, Sulfate, Bromide, Boron, and Strontium measured at different depths in CEMEX borehole
CXB1WQ, CXB2WQ1, and CXB41. The dashed line shown in each figure represents the ratio of
chloridetothegivenionbasedontheaverageoceanwatervaluesmeasuredforthecentralCalifornia
coast(seeTable53).

TDSlevelsinCXB1WQzones1,4,5,and6aresimilar(approximately23,000to26,000mg/L)whereas
Zone2issubstantiallylower(15,177mg/L)andZone3issubstantiallyhigherat32,700mg/L(seeTable
53). The chloride/TDS ratio in all six of the zones measured in CEMEX Borehole CXB1 generally
corresponds to diluted seawater (Figure 12). With the exception of Zone 2, chloride/TDS ratios from
CX1B2WQ are similar and tightly clustered around 25,000 mg/L TDS. Each of the zones sampled in
Borehole CXB4isconsistentwithdilutedseawaterratios for chloride/TDSoverarangeofTDSvalues
rangingfromapproximately4,000mg/Lintheupperzoneto25,000mg/Linthetwolowerzones(Figure
12).

When comparing the relative ratios of chloride/sodium and chloride/calcium for Boreholes CXB1WQ,
CXB2WQ,andCXB4,thereisacleardeparturefromthelocalseawaterratiosformostoftheborehole
zonessampled.Figure13showsthatsodiumiscomparablydepletedinboreholewatersamplesasthe
chloride/sodiumratiosaregenerallybelowthelocalseawaterratio.Therelativedepletioninsodiumis
greaterinthelowerzonesamplesofallthreeboreholesascomparedtotheupperzones(Figure13).
Chloride/calcium ratios shown on Figure 14 indicate that calcium enrichment has occurred as
chloride/calcium ratios are well above the diluted seawater line. The trend in relative calcium
enrichment is greater at lower zone and decreases in the upper zones for all three boreholes in the
CEMEXarea.

53

CaliforniaAmericanWater&RBFConsulting

MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectHydrogeologicInvestigation
TechnicalMemorandum(TM1)SummaryofResultsExploratoryBoreholes8Jul14

Figure15showstherelativedepletionandenrichmentofsodiumandcalciuminthethreeCEMEXarea
boreholesascalculatedusingtheCaandNavalues,whicharedeterminedbasedonthemeasured
andcalculatedvaluesbasedonthestandardseawaterratio.

Calcium enrichment and sodium depletion was reported by Vengosh in intruded seawater and was
attributed to a baseexchange reaction with clay minerals where calcium is exchanged with sodium
betweenthesolidandliquidphase.Figure14suggeststhattheshallowerzonesinBoreholesCXB1WQ,
CXB2WQ,andCXB4haveundergonelesscalciumenrichmentandthelowermostzoneshaveseenthe
highestamountofcalciumenrichmentrelativetodilutedseawater.

Figures16and17showtheratioofchloride/boronandchloride/strontium,respectivelyintheCemex
areaboreholes.TheboronandstrontiumratiosintheupperzonesinBoreholeCXB1WQ(Zones4,5,
and 6) have similar depletion magnitudes (with respect to Boron, Figure 16) and enrichment with
respect to Strontium (Figure 17). Boreholes CXB4 and CXB2WQ shows a similar trend to that of
CXB1WQ where the lower zones show a greater departure from the seawater dilution line that the
upperzones.

In summary, the results fromBoreholes CXB1WQ,CXB2WQ, and CXB4 suggest that the water from
theshallowerzones(above144ft)maybedistinguishedfromwaterfromthedeeperzonesevenifthey
areatthesameTDSlevel.Waterfromthedeepestzone(274284ft)showsamarkeddistinctioninthe
amount of calcium and strontium enrichment, and sodium depletion when compared to shallower
zones. The difference in the amount of calcium and strontium enrichment and sodium depletion
between the upper zones and lower zones in the CEMEX area boreholes is likely a function of the
relativeabundanceofclayformationmaterialsinthelowerformationaswellasgroundwaterage.

5.7.2 Moss Landing Boreholes


MossLandingwaterqualityanalysisisdiscussedintwogeneralregions;theMossLandingHarborarea
(Borings ML1, ML2, ML3, ML4, and ML5) and the area south of Potrero Road (Borings PR1 and
MDW1). Water quality samples were collected from a shallow and deep zone in each of the five
boreholes drilled in the immediate Moss Landing area (ML boreholes). Results from water quality
samplesintheMossLandingAreaarelistedinTable56.

5.7.2.1 Moss Landing Harbor Area


Chloride ratios of the major ions were compared against the average coastal seawater values to
determineifwaterqualityfromtheupperandlowerzonescouldbedistinguishedfromeachother.

54

CaliforniaAmericanWater&RBFConsulting

MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectHydrogeologicInvestigation
TechnicalMemorandum(TM1)SummaryofResultsExploratoryBoreholes8Jul14

TDSresultsfortheMossLandingboreholesshowthatthedeeperzonesinBoreholesML1,ML2,and
ML4 have substantially higher TDS levels than the shallow zones. Borehole ML3 and ML6 both
showedlessvariationbetweenTDSmeasuredintheupperandlowerzones(Table54).

Figure 19 shows the chloride/TDS ratios from water samples collected from the Moss Landing area
boreholes.ThedashedlineonFigure19representsthechloride/TDSratioofaveragedilutedseawater
alongthecentralCaliforniacoast.TheTDS/chlorideratiosmeasuredintheMossLandingboreholesare
in relatively close agreement with the seawater dilution line, which indicates the water is consistent
withintrudedseawater,whichhasbeendiluted.

RelativesodiumdepletionandcalciumenrichmentisshownonFigure20andFigure21.Resultsindicate
thatarelativeenrichmentofcalciumanddepletionofsodiumhasoccurred,similartotrendsseeninthe
CEMEXareaboreholes.Figure21showsacomparisonofthenetcalciumenrichmentcomparedagainst
the net sodium depletion where it can be seen that this phenomena is occurring to some extent in
nearly all samples. These data do not show a clear trend with respect to relative enrichment values
seenintheupperandlowersamplesintheMLboreholes.

Figures 22 and 23 show the ratios of chloride to boron and strontium. Enrichment and depletion
relativetodilutedseawatermayalsobeseenintheseconstituentsintheMLboreholes.Therelative
depletion of boron and enrichment of strontium in lower zones of the Moss Landing Area boreholes
correlate with CEMEX area borehole results and suggest base ion exchange with underlying clay
formationmaterials.

The chloride/sulfate ratios (Figure 24) are generally lower in the Moss Landing boreholes, which may
indicatesulfatereductionorsomeothergeochemicaltransformationsareoccurring.

WaterqualitydatafromtheMossLandingareaboreholesdoshowsimilargeochemicaltransformations
asseenintheCEMEXarea,however,thereisnotacleartrendbetweentheupperandlowerzonesin
theMLboreholes.AlthoughasubstantialdifferenceinTDSbetweentheupperandlowerzonesisseen
insomeoftheMLboreholes,theratiosofchloridetotheothermajorionsdonotshowareliabletrend
withrespecttorelativeenrichmentordepletionattheMossLandingsite.

5.7.2.2 Molera and Potrero Road Parking Lots, Salinas River State Beach
WaterqualitysampleswerecollectedfromashallowzoneanddeepzoneatthePotreroRoadborehole
(PR1) and from four zones at the Molera Parking Lot located approximately one mile south of the
PotreroRoadparkinglot.

55

CaliforniaAmericanWater&RBFConsulting

MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectHydrogeologicInvestigation
TechnicalMemorandum(TM1)SummaryofResultsExploratoryBoreholes8Jul14

WaterqualitydataforBoreholePR1showthatthelowerzonesampleisfreshwater(TDS=630mg/L)
and the upper zone sample is consistent with undiluted seawater (TDS = 34,000 mg/L). When
comparing the chloride/major ion ratios in the high TDS sample at Potrero Road, there is not a
substantialenrichmentordepletionwithrespectto local seawaterratios(see Figures19 through24).
Thisindicatesthatthegeochemicaltransformationsofintrudedseawaterintofreshwater,whichresults
inenrichmentordepletion,arenotoccurringatthissite.

TDSvaluesintheMDW1boreholerangedfromapproximately21,000mg/Linthelowermostzoneto
approximately29,000mg/Lintheupperzone.Withrespecttorelativesodiumdepletionandcalcium
enrichment, a clear trend (Figure 21 and 22) is seen in the MDW1 borehole were relative sodium
depletionincreasesfromthelowerzonestotheupperzones

Ratiosofchloridetoboronandstrontium(Figures23and24)indicatethattheuppermostzoneinthe
MDW1borehole(MDW14,6070)isconsistentwithdilutedseawaterforchloride/boronratiosand
chloride/strontiumratios.ThelowerzonesintheMDW1boreholeshowagreaterdeparturefromthe
dilutedseawaterlineasafunctionofdepth.

Thechloride/sulfateratios(Figure25)fortheMDW1boreholesamplesshowcloseagreementwiththe
diluted seawater line suggesting that geochemical and/or biological sulfate transformations are not
occurring.

5.7.3 Results of 2H and 18O Analysis


Stable isotopes of oxygen and hydrogen were analyzed in water samples collected from the CEMEX
borehole (CXB1WQ), Moss Landing boreholes, and Potrero Road borehole. Isotope data were
measuredforallboreholewaterqualitysamplescollectedexceptML1Zone1andML1Zone2.Water
qualitysamplesfromML1werenotcollectedbecausethesamplescontainerswerenotmadeavailable
bythefirmresponsibleforthesampling.IsotopicresultsfromBoreholesCXB2WQ,CXB4andMDW1
isforthcomingandwillbeprovidedasanaddendumtothisreportwhentheyareavailable.Table57
lists the results of the available oxygen and hydrogen isotopic analyses for groundwater samples
collectedfromCEMEXandMossLanding.

56

CaliforniaAmericanWater&RBFConsulting

MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectHydrogeologicInvestigation
TechnicalMemorandum(TM1)SummaryofResultsExploratoryBoreholes8Jul14

Table 5-7. Results of Oxygen and Hydrogen Isotope Analyses


Borehole and
Zone
Designation
CXB1WQ1
CXB1WQ2
CXB1WQ3
CXB1WQ4
CXB1WQ5
CXB1WQ6
ML21
ML22
ML31
ML32
ML41
ML42
ML61
ML62
PR11
PR12

Delta-Deuterium
(d 2H)
()*
18.4
29.1
6.21
14
12
15.1
19.2
37.6
40.1
43.6
24.5
35.9
5.55
11
42.5
3

Delta-Oxygen 18
(d 18 O)
()*
2.6
4.26
0.84
2.03
1.56
2.08
3.07
5.3
6.04
6.43
3.57
5.23
0.59
1.33
6.35
0.4

Theratioof18Oand2Hmaybeusedingeochemicalanalysistoevaluatetherelativecontributionof
different source waters (e.g., surface water and ground water) when evaluating water mixtures. The
relativeenrichmentordepletionofagivensourcewaterwithrespectto2Hand18Omaybeusedasa
fingerprint. If there is a sufficient distinction between different water sources, then the relative
contributionfromagivensourcemaybeestimated.

ResultsfromisotopicanalysesofboreholewatersamplesfortheCEMEXboreholeareshowninFigure
26andresultsfromtheMossLandingboreholesandPotreroRoadboreholeisshowninFigure27.The
18O and 2H data in both Figures are plotted against the Global Meteoric Water Line (GMWL) for
reference.IsotopicdataarereferencedtoViennaStandardMeanOceanWater(VSMOW)values,which
isshownas18O=0and2H=0valuesonbothplots.

IsotopicdatameasuredattheCEMEXsiteandatMossLandingshowalineartrendwithrespectto18O
and 2H. At the CEMEX facility, 18O/2H data show a linear relationship with the upper end points
corresponding to Borehole CXB1WQ Zone 3, which had the highest TDS (32,700 mg/L) and Borehole
CXB1WQ Zone 2 which had the lowest TDS (14,600 mg/L) (see Figure 26). Data measured at Moss
Landingwerebracketedbyendpointscorrespondingto4,200mg/Land33,200mg/LTDSinBoreholes
ML3Zone2andML6Zone1,respectively(seeFigure27).

57

CaliforniaAmericanWater&RBFConsulting

MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectHydrogeologicInvestigation
TechnicalMemorandum(TM1)SummaryofResultsExploratoryBoreholes8Jul14

IsotopicresultsfromtherelativelylowTDSboreholes(BoreholesML3Zone2andPR1Zone1)indicate
thatgroundwaterhasnotundergonesignificantevaporation,orgeochemicalisotopicfractionation,as
the values are near the GMWL. For both the CEMEX site and Moss Landing sites, the trend of the
borehole data intercepts the GMWL at similar values (2H values ranging from 46 to
approximately 52 ), which suggests that the fresh groundwater, which is mixing with intruded
seawaterattheCEMEXfacility,closelycorrespondstotheGMWL.

IsotopicvaluesmeasuredinsamplesCXB1WQZone3,ML6Zone1,andPR1Zone2representalocal
endpointforintrudedseawater,whichvariesslightlybetweenthesites.SamplesfromPR1Zone2are
closesttoVSMOWvalues(18O=0.4and2H=3.0)whileML6Zone1andCXB1WQZone3show
slightlymoredepletioninboth18Oand2HwithrespecttoVSMOW.

5.8
Results of Tritium Analysis
5.8.1

Background: Tritium Source and Interpretation

Tritium istheradioactive isotopeof hydrogen,whichisoftenusedasatracerto target youngwaters


(less than about 50 to 60 years old) and to show if there is a presence of modern recharge. The
reportedhalflifeoftritiumvaries;thecurrentrecommendedhalflifeis12.32years,butsomesources
usetheolderhalflifeof12.43years(Kazemietal.,2006;TritiumLaboratory,2010).Tritiumisproduced
through the natural cosmic ray bombardment of nitrogen and deuterium in the upper atmosphere,
throughthenaturalneutronradiationoflithiuminrocks(especiallygraniticrocks),andthroughcertain
anthropogenicactivities.

One of themost important and significant sourcesof tritium is from thermonuclear tests whichwere
conductedinthenorthernhemispherebytheUnitedStates,UnitedKingdom,andformerSovietUnion
beginning in 1952 and peaking around 19631964. Additional French and Chinese tests were also
conducted in the late 1970s. At the northern hemisphere peak in 1963, the tritium concentrations
arising from thermonuclear weapons were three orders of magnitude greater than natural tritium
concentrations, which usually range between 310 TU in the northern hemisphere and 15 TU in the
southern hemisphere (Kazemi et al., 2006; Happle, 2010). This bomb pulse tritium signature can be
traced into the subsurface and is sometimes used to provide informationon the rate of groundwater
recharge.However,watersyoungerthanthemid1960swillnotshowthebombtritiumpeak.

Mostmethodsusedforanalyzingtritiumcontentyieldonlyqualitativeorsemiquantitativeresults;the
preciseagecannotbedetermined.Muchofthereasonforthisiscausedbyuncertaintyduetospatial
and temporal variations in initial tritium concentrations at the time of recharge. In addition, it is
possibletogetsimilartritiumresultsfromwatersrechargedbeforeandafterthetritiumpeak.Thisnon
uniqueness is another uncertainty that has to be taken into consideration when analyzing the tritium

58

CaliforniaAmericanWater&RBFConsulting

MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectHydrogeologicInvestigation
TechnicalMemorandum(TM1)SummaryofResultsExploratoryBoreholes8Jul14

results.Thepresenceoftritiumitself,however,indicatesthepresenceofyoungwater(i.e.,lessthan
about5060yearsold)duetorecharge,orpossiblyboreholeleakage.Watersolderthanaboutthemid
1950swillgenerallyyieldvaluesatorbelowthetritiumdetectionlevelof0.8TU.Theabsenceoftritium
doesnot initselfnecessarily indicateanabsenceofmodernrecharge.Allgroundwatersamplesfrom
wells represent a mixture of water molecules that may have a very wide range of age distributions
arisingfromdifferencesinflowpaths.Therefore,thereportedconcentrationsrepresentsomesortof
anaveragethatmaybeproducedfromthemixingofwaterofdifferentages.

MeasuredtritiumconcentrationsareexpressedinTritiumUnits(TU)whereoneTUistheequivalentof
onetritiumatom(oroneTHOmolecule)per1018atomsofhydrogen(or1018H2Omolecules).Tritium
concentrationsarealsocommonlyreportedintermsofTritiumRatios(TR),where1TR=1TU.OneTUis
alsoequivalentto0.1181Becquerelperkilogram(Bq/kg),where1Becquerelisequaltoonedecayper
second(TritiumLaboratory,2010).

5.8.2 Tritium Results CX-B1WQ and CX-B2WQ


Tritiumsamplesweretakenfromallboringsconductedduringthisinvestigation.Tritiumresultsforthe
Moss Landing borings are being rerun using a different method to reduce the detection limits. The
results from MossLanding and Borehole CXB4 from CEMEX will be provided as an addendum to this
report. Groundwater samples were analyzed for tritium at Geochron Laboratories in Chelmsford,
Massachusettsusingahalflifeof12.43years.ThemeasuredtritiumconcentrationsfromCXB1WQand
CXB2WQarepresentedinTable58.
Table 5-8. Results of Tritium Analyses CX-B1 WQ and CX-B2WQ
Boring

Water Quality
Zone Zone

Depth Interval (ft,


bgs)

Tritium Activity

Error

[TU] units

[TU] units

CXB1WQ

274284

0.35

0.09

CXB1WQ

237247

0.04

0.09

CXB1WQ

182192

0.01

0.09

CXB1WQ

134144

0.5

0.09

CXB1WQ

8494

0.48

0.09

CXB1WQ

5161

0.81

0.09

CXB2WQ

215225

0.1

0.09

CXB2WQ

161171

0.18

0.09

CXB2WQ

104114

0.44

0.09

CXB2WQ

5565

0.62

0.09

59

CaliforniaAmericanWater&RBFConsulting

MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectHydrogeologicInvestigation
TechnicalMemorandum(TM1)SummaryofResultsExploratoryBoreholes8Jul14

ThesevaluesarealsodisplayedgraphicallyonFigure51asthetritiumconcentrationversustheaverage
sampledepth.

Note:Layerdivisionsareapproximate,basedonCrossSection11(Figure7a)

Figure 5-1. Tritium Concentration vs. Sample Elevation CX-B1WQ and CX-B2WQ
Tritium concentration measured in groundwater samples from Boreholes CXB1WQ and CXB2WQ
generally decreases with depth, indicating that water possibly takes longer to reach these locations.
However,samplestakenfromelevationsbetween132and213ftamsl(CXB1WQZones2and3,and
CXB2WQZones1and2)havethelowesttritiumconcentrations.Thisdepthatthebaseofthe180FTE
Aquifer contains a higher percentage of finegrained materials and is underlain by the 180/400Foot
Aquitard. This implies that the presence of finegrained sediments in the lower zone of the 180FTE
Aquifer and the 180/400Foot Aquitard impedes the movement of water, resulting in water with an
olderage.

InastudyconductedbyMichelandothers(1997),tritiumconcentrationsalongthecoastoftheOxnard
PlaininCaliforniawereanalyzed.Allofthetritiumsamplescamebackwithverylowvaluesandthere
was no apparent tritium spike in the data, which is similar to the results seen here. Michel et al.
interpreted thisto mean that thewater at the sampled locations enteredthesubsurface prior to the
1963 tritium peak. Therefore, assuming there is no mixing with different source water, all of the

60

CaliforniaAmericanWater&RBFConsulting

MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectHydrogeologicInvestigation
TechnicalMemorandum(TM1)SummaryofResultsExploratoryBoreholes8Jul14

borehole tritium results from this study indicate that the water is older than the 1960s, with the
exceptionofCXB1WQZone6samplecollectedat51to61ftbgs.

61

CaliforniaAmericanWater&RBFConsulting

MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectHydrogeologicInvestigation
TechnicalMemorandum(TM1)SummaryofResultsExploratoryBoreholes8Jul14

6.0

NORTH MARINA AND CEMEX GROUNDWATER MODELS

GEOSCIENCE developedthe NMGWMwhich covers the regionof the current project, (see Figure 28).
The NMGWM has been used to evaluate several proposed projects in the region and will be used, in
part,tosimulatetheeffectsofslantwellpumping.Themodelwasdevelopedin2008usingcomputer
codes MODFLOW and MT3DMS. In order to accurately model local effects of slant well pumping, a
focused model, designated as the CM, is proposed. The CM will be located within the NMGWM
centered at the CEMEX site. It will be constructed using the SEAWAT computer code (SEAWAT is a
generic MODFLOW/MT3DMSbased computer program designed to simulate threedimensional
variabledensitygroundwaterflowcoupledwithsolutetransport)toallowthesimulationofseawater
intrusion.TheCMmodelwillconsistof540rowsandcolumnswithauniformcellsizeof20feettoa
side(seeFigure28),whichisasignificantrefinementovertheuniformgridsizeof200ftby200ftinthe
NMGWM. The decreased grid size will allow for a very accurate calibration by matching changes in
groundwaterlevelsandqualitywithhistoricaldata.

The exploratory boring information collected during this study has provided valuable data needed to
determine the thickness and extent of the Dune Sand Aquifer, Perched A Aquifer, and the 180FTE
Aquiferandhydraulicconductivitydataformodelinput.ThemodellayersrepresentingtheDuneSand
Aquifer, Perched A Aquifer, SVA, and 180FTE Aquifer will be refined using the new data. Aquifer
parameters used in the model will be updated during and after the test slant well program as
appropriate to reflect the water level changes occurring in the aquifers during the test slant well
pumping.

6.1
Aquifer Characteristics
Hydraulic conductivity values for sediments encountered in the borings were evaluated using both
laboratory permeameter test results and using grainsize distribution versus hydraulic conductivity
relationshipmethodspublishedbyfourdifferentworkers.TheresultsarediscussedinSection3.2.Our
experience has shown that laboratory permeameter testing typically results in much lower hydraulic
conductivity values than those determined by grainsize distribution. Work recently completed by
GEOSCIENCE in a coastal aquifer in Southern California, similar to the aquifers encountered in the
current study, showed that hydraulic conductivity values calculated from pumping test data closely
matchedthehydraulicconductivityvaluesusinggrainsizerelationships(GEOSCIENCE,2013).However,
the hydraulic conductivity values determined by grain size distribution can vary significantly from
pumping test results depending on the formation tested and selected grain size relationship used for
analysis. Nonetheless, the hydraulic conductivity values assigned to the various geologic and aquifer
units represent the best available data and will be used for constructing the CM and refining the

62

CaliforniaAmericanWater&RBFConsulting

MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectHydrogeologicInvestigation
TechnicalMemorandum(TM1)SummaryofResultsExploratoryBoreholes8Jul14

NMGWM.Thehydraulicconductivityvalueswillbeupdatedwithdataobtainedfromthetestslantwell
program.

Forgroundwatermodeling,typicalstorativityvalueswillbeassignedtotheaquiferunits.Sitespecific
storativity valueswillbecalculatedfrom datato becollectedfrom thelongterm pumpingtest which
willbeconductedduringasubsequentphaseoffieldinvestigations.
6.2

Model Layer Boundaries

Modellayerboundariesandlayerextentsweredefinedusingthecrosssectionspreparedfromborehole
data(seelocationmapFigure28,CrossSections11,22,and33onFigures7athrough9,andCross
Sections AA through GG on Figures 30 through 36) prepared using lithologic logs and wells from
Kennedy/Jenks (2004), DWR and USGS WRIR 024003 (2002). The correlation of geologic and
hydrostratigraphicunitswiththeregionalandlocalmodelsissummarizedinTable61.Asseeninthe
table,theNMGWMwillfurtherberefinedintheCEMEXModelthroughtheadditionofmodellayers.
TheNMGWMlayers2and4willeachbemodeledby3layersintheCEMEXModel(layers2through4
andlayers6through8,respectively).Thisdivisionallowsfortherefinementofaquiferparametersto
moreaccuratelyreflectthedifferentgeologiclayerspresentinthesehydrostratigraphicunits.

63

CaliforniaAmericanWater&RBFConsulting

MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectHydrogeologicInvestigation
TechnicalMemorandum(TM1)SummaryofResultsExploratoryBoreholes8Jul14

Table 6-1. Correlation of Geologic and Hydrostratigraphic with SVIGSM, NMGWM, CM Model Layers
180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin

Surface Geologic
Units

Surface
Geologic
Units
Map
Symbol

Hydrostratigraphic
Units

BenthicZone

BenthicZone

Alluvium

Qal

PerchedA
Aquifer

CEMEX Area

Surface Geologic
Units

Surface
Geologic
Units
Map
Symbol

Hydrostratigraphic
Units

BenthicZone

DuneSand

Qd

Qod

OlderDuneSand

SVIGSM
Layer1

NMGWM
Layer

CEMEX
Model
Layer

Constant
Head

1
2

DuneSand
Aquifer

1a

3
4

OlderAlluvium

Qo

SalinasValley
Aquitard

1a

5
6

OlderAlluvium/
MarineTerrace

Qo/Qmt

OlderAlluvium/
OlderAlluvium
FanAntioch

Qo/Qfa

OlderAlluvialFan
Placentia

Qfp

AromasSand
(undifferentiated)

Qar

AromasSand
Eolian/Fluvial
Lithofacies

PasoRobles
Formation

180Foot
Aquifer

OlderTerrace/
MarineTerrace

Qt(Qmt?)

180FTE
Aquifer

7
1

4
8

180/400
Foot
Aquitard

400Foot
Aquifer

AromasSand
(undifferenciated)
(?)

180/400
Foot
Aquitard

2a

400Foot
Aquifer

10

400/900
Foot
Aquitard

3a

11

900Foot
Aquifer

12

Qar(?)

Qae/Qaf

QT

400/900
Foot
Aquitard

PasoRobles
Formation

QT

900Foot
Aquifer
1

SVIGSMconsidersalayerstobeaquitards(verticalhydraulicconductivityandthicknessareinput)
SubsurfaceHolocenegeologicunitnotmappedatsurface

NinetyOne(91)controlpointswereusedtodevelopthethicknessofeachmodellayerandwerebased
ondatafromallofthecrosssections.Thepointswerethencontouredtoprovidetherestofthemodel
layersurface.Theelevationofeachmodellayeristhetopelevationminusthedeterminedthickness.

64

CaliforniaAmericanWater&RBFConsulting

MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectHydrogeologicInvestigation
TechnicalMemorandum(TM1)SummaryofResultsExploratoryBoreholes8Jul14

For example, the bottom elevation of model layer 1 is the surface elevation minus the thickness of
modellayer1;thebottomelevationofmodellayer2isthebottomelevationofmodellayer1minusthe
thicknessofmodellayer2,etc.ThelayerthicknessesfortheNMGWMareshownonFigures37through
43.

6.3
Hydraulic conductivity
Initialmodelvaluesfortherefinementofhorizontalhydraulicconductivitywereestimatedbasedonthe
descriptionsofboreholesamples,laboratorydata,andgrainsizedistributionandhydraulicconductivity
relationships. A discussion of the development of the horizontal hydraulic conductivity values is
providedinSection3.2.

6.3.1 Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity


Valuesfortherefinementof modellayerverticalhydraulicconductivity were estimatedbasedonthe
descriptions of borehole samples and a series of curves developed to show the relationship between
sediment texture and hydraulic conductivity. These curves, representing maximum and minimum
horizontal and vertical hydraulic conductivity values, were developed using the following equation
(Durbin,2013;Faunt,2009):

K = K

F , +K F,

where:

Ki

Hydraulicconductivityforcelli[ft/day]

Kc

Horizontalhydraulicconductivityforcoarsegrainedmaterial[ft/day]

Kf

Horizontalhydraulicconductivityforfinegrainedmaterial[ft/day]

Fc,i

Fractionofcoarsegrainedmaterialincelli[unitless]

Ff,i

Fractionoffinegrainedmaterialincelli[unitless]

Empiricalparameter

Lithologic log intervals from the borings were classified as either being coarsegrained or fine
grained based on the sediment texture described in the logs and texture classification procedures
observedintheUSGSProfessionalPaper1766(Faunted.,2009).Coarsegrainedsedimentwasdefined
as having a grain size of fine sand or greater (i.e., sand, gravel, pebbles, and cobbles). Finegrained
materialwasdefinedasanytexturethatconsistedpredominately(greaterthan50%)ofsiltorclay.

65

CaliforniaAmericanWater&RBFConsulting

MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectHydrogeologicInvestigation
TechnicalMemorandum(TM1)SummaryofResultsExploratoryBoreholes8Jul14

To determine theKc andKf, the individual lithologic intervals for each borehole were first assigned a
maximumorminimumhydraulicconductivityvaluebasedonthesoilclassificationforthatintervaland
theestimatesofhorizontalconductivitymadefromboreholesamplegrainsizedistributioncurves.The
methodsusedtoestimatethesamplehydraulicconductivitiesaredescribedingreaterdetailinSection
3.2.1.TheweightedKcandKfwerethencalculatedforeachboreholeandeachmodellayerusingboth
theminimumandmaximumhydraulicconductivitiesinordertoprovideapossiblerangeofKcandKf
that could be expected for each area (i.e., CEMEX area and Moss Landing area). The results for the
CEMEXareaareprovidedinTables6and7forthemaximumandminimumhydraulicconductivityvalues
respectivelyandtheresultsfortheMossLandingareaareprovidedinTables8and9forthemaximum
andminimumhydraulicconductivityvalues,respectively.

The empirical parameter shown in the equation above imparts a particular textural structure to help
approximateflowinaheterogeneousanisotropicgroundwatersystem.Pvaluesof0.93and0.62were
used for calculating horizontal and vertical hydraulic conductivity, respectively, based on numerical
experimentsconductedbyDurbin(2013).

Figures44through47 showthedifferent curvesforthecalculationof hydraulicconductivity, andthe


rangesshownrepresenttheinitialvaluesforhorizontalandverticalhydraulicconductivitywhichwillbe
used for the refinement of model aquifer parameters. These values will be modified during model
calibration.Figures44and45showthesedimenttextureversushydraulicconductivityattheCEMEX
site for the Dune Sand Aquifer and 180FTE Aquifer, respectively. For the Dune Sand Aquifer, it was
estimatedthattheaveragepercentageofcoarsegraineddepositswas98%.Therefore,thehorizontal
hydraulicconductivityisexpectedtorangefrom109to304ft/daywithanaverageof207ft/day,while
the vertical hydraulic conductivity is expected to range from approximately 8 to 12 ft/day with an
average of approximately 10 ft/day. It was estimated that for the 180FTE Aquifer, the average
percentageofcoarsegraineddepositswas78%.Thiscorrelateswithahorizontalhydraulicconductivity
valuerangingfrom 71 to216 ft/day andaveraging143 ft/day.Theverticalhydraulicconductivity for
thisaquiferisexpectedtorangefrom0.11to0.21ft/daywithanaverageof0.16ft/day.

ThesedimenttextureversushydraulicconductivitycurvesfortheDuneSand/PerchedAAquifernear
theMossLandingsiteisshownonFigure46.Thesetwoaquifersarecombinedbecausetheyrepresent
a single model layer. Based on the borehole grain size analysis presented above, the average
percentage of coarsegrained deposits is estimated at 49%. As shown, this correlates to a horizontal
hydraulic conductivity ranging from 101 to 333 ft/day with an average of 217 ft/day and a vertical
hydraulicconductivityrangingfrom0.04to0.06ft/daywithanaverageof0.05ft/day.

Figure 47 shows the sediment texture versus hydraulic conductivity at the Potrero Road site for the
Dune Sand/Perched A Aquifer. It was estimated that the average percentage of coarsegrained

66

CaliforniaAmericanWater&RBFConsulting

MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectHydrogeologicInvestigation
TechnicalMemorandum(TM1)SummaryofResultsExploratoryBoreholes8Jul14

depositsherewas93%.Therefore,thehorizontalhydraulicconductivityisexpectedtorangefrom367
to 1,205ft/day withanaverage of 786 ft/day,whiletheverticalhydraulicconductivity isexpectedto
rangefrom0.92to1.5ft/daywithanaverageof1.2ft/day.

67

CaliforniaAmericanWater&RBFConsulting

MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectHydrogeologicInvestigation
TechnicalMemorandum(TM1)SummaryofResultsExploratoryBoreholes8Jul14

7.0

FINDINGS

7.1

General

The conceptual hydrogeologic model developed from this investigation suggests that a
feedwatersupplysystemusingslantwellsattheCEMEXsiteisfeasibleandcanutilizetheDune
Sand Aquifer and the underlying terrace deposits as conduits to extract water through the
seafloorbeneathMontereyBay.

ThisopinionwillbetestedusingthenewlyconstructedCEMEXModelandtherefinedNMGWM
and should be field tested using a test slant well and groundwater monitoring system as
describedintheHydrogeologicInvestigationWorkplan.

A permeable unit of significant thickness containing groundwater of seawater quality was


penetratedintheMossLandingBoringPR1nearBoringML1.Tothenorth,thisunitpinches
out and mixes with finegrained sediments. To the south, the unit decreases in thickness to
approximately25feetinboringMDW1overadistanceofapproximatelyonemile.

The conceptual model also indicates that the Perched A Aquifer between the Molera and
Sandholt Road Salinas River State Beach parking lots could provide an alternative target for
constructionofasubsurfacefeedwatersupplysystem.

7.2

CEMEX Area

The CEMEX facility is located on the westernmost edge of the 180/400Foot Aquifer Subbasin of the
Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin, as currently mapped by DWR (2003) and the MCWRA (2011). The
findingsoftheinvestigationatCEMEXaresummarizedbelow:

A significant clay layer is not present beneath the Dune Sand Aquifer at the CEMEX site at
elevations commonly attributed to the SVA, suggesting a different depositional environment
than that of the 180Foot Aquifer in the Salinas Valley. The water quality data suggests
groundwater in the Dune Sand Aquifer may be in hydraulic continuity with the underlying
aquiferunits.Thedegreeofhydrauliccontinuitywillbedeterminedbyconstructionofaquifer
specificmonitoringwellsandthelongtermpumpingtestofthetestslantwell.

Stratigraphic relationships and lithologic observations indicate that the aquifer system
underlying the Dune Sand Aquifer consists of terrace deposits that are older than the inland
180FootAquiferdeposits,sincetheyunderlietheOlderDuneSand.

68

CaliforniaAmericanWater&RBFConsulting

MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectHydrogeologicInvestigation
TechnicalMemorandum(TM1)SummaryofResultsExploratoryBoreholes8Jul14

The terrace deposits appear to be a distinct lithologic unit in terms of geologic history and
depositional environment in the Dune Highland area and may be hydrostratigraphically
equivalenttothe180FootAquiferintheSalinasValley.

Forpurposesofthisdocumentthealluvialmaterialsencounterednearthecoast(intheCEMEX
area)arebasedsolelyonanalysesofboreholesamples(andgeophysicalboreholelogs).Asof
yet,nodirectcorrelationcanbemadebetweenthesecoastalalluvialdepositsandthestandard
namingconventionfoundfurtherinland(e.g.,180FootAquifer,400FootAquifer,SVA,etc.).

As a hydrogeologic unit, the terrace deposits will be designated as the 180FTE Aquifer. The
extentofhydrostratigraphicequivalencewillbeevaluatedthroughapumpingtestutilizingthe
testslantwellsandamonitoringnetwork.

The current interpretation of the distinctive dark greenishgray clay found at depths ranging
from241to282ftbgsatCEMEXisthatitmayrepresentachangeinthedepositionalhistory
andisunderlainbyaunitequivalenttotheAromasSand(?)/400FootAquifer.However,results
of groundwaterqualitysamplingfrom the400FootAquiferhave resultssimilarto thatof the
overlyingDuneSandAquiferand180FTEAquifer.

BoththeDune Sand Aquifer and the underlying180FTE Aquiferextend seaward beneaththe


MontereyBay.

Groundwater in the Dune Sand Aquifer and most of the groundwater in the 180FTE Aquifer
exhibithighconcentrationsofTDS,rangingfrom24,000to32,000mg/L.

Hydraulic conductivity fortheDune Sand at CEMEX ranged from an average low value of 273
ft/daytoanaveragehighvalueof779ft/day.

HydraulicconductivityfortheOlderDuneSandatCEMEXrangedfromanaveragelowvalueof
136ft/daytoanaveragehighvalueof372ft/day.

Hydraulicconductivityforthe180FTEterracedepositsrangedfromanaveragelowvalueof113
ft/daytoanaveragehighvalueof342ft/day.

Hydraulic conductivity values will be further refined based on the longterm test slant well
pumpingtest.

Analysis of cation/anion ratios indicates that groundwater in the lower portion of 180FTE
Aquiferandinthe400FootAquiferhavebeengeochemicallyalteredduetoseawaterintrusion.

Tritium results indicate that groundwater in the lower portionof the180FTEAquifer is older
thangroundwaterintheupperportionofthe180FTEAquiferandtheDuneSandAquifer.

69

CaliforniaAmericanWater&RBFConsulting

MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectHydrogeologicInvestigation
TechnicalMemorandum(TM1)SummaryofResultsExploratoryBoreholes8Jul14

AnalysisofoxygenandhydrogenisotopessuggeststhatinboththeCEMEXandMossLanding
sites, saltwater from the ocean is mixing with a freshwater source that has not undergone
significantevaporation(aswouldbeexpectedofasurfacewatersource).

HydrostratigraphicrelationshipsindicatethatslantwellsdrilledintotheDuneSandAquiferand
180FTE Aquifer will receive recharge primarily from ocean sources through vertical leakage
fromtheseafloorandhorizontalrechargefromoffshoresubseaaquifers.Thiswillbetestedby
theCMandrefinedNMGWMaswellasfieldpumpingtests.

7.3

Moss Landing Hydrogeologic Conditions

The Moss Landing area is located north of the mouth of the Salinas River, which overlies the
westernmost edge of the 180/400Foot Aquifer Subbasin. Borings were drilled and sampled at Moss
LandingHarborandattheMolera,PotreroRoad,andSandholtRoadparkinglotsofSalinasRiverState
Beach. The exploratory borings primarily penetrated fluvial sediments associated with Holocene and
LatePleistoceneSalinasRiverdeposition.

The Perched7 A Aquifer is ascribed to the Holocene river alluvium and considered to be the
hydrostratigraphicequivalentoftheDuneSandAquiferlocatedtothesouth.

The Perched A Aquifer in the Moss Landing area is composed of interbedded river and
floodplaindeposits.

WiththeexceptionofthesedimentspenetratedinBoringPR1andMDW1,individualsandand
sandandgravellensesdonotappeartobeeitherverticallyorareallyextensiveinMossLanding.

Significant variations in TDS concentrations suggestthat groundwater ismixedwith seawater,


andislikelypresentinsemiisolatedlenticulardeposits.

In general, the upper isolated aquifer test zones were above a depth of 110 ft bgs. TDS
concentrationsrangedfrom3,200mg/Lto34,000mg/L.

The lower isolated aquifer zones were generally constructed at depths exceeding 150 ft bgs.
With the exception of Zone 1 of PR1 (190200 ft bgs) at 630 mg/L, the TDS concentrations
rangedfrom7,400mg/Lto34,000mg/L.

ThetermPerchedAAquiferreferstotheshallowaquiferabovetheSalinasValleyAquitard.Traditionally,theterm
perchedaquiferreferstoahydrogeologicconditionwhereanaquiferisformedbygroundwaterbeingpresentabove
(perchingon)animpermeableunitsuchasclaybutwithanunsaturatedportionofanaquiferbetweenthebottomofthe
clayandtheunderlyingsaturatedportionofaloweraquifer.

70

CaliforniaAmericanWater&RBFConsulting

MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectHydrogeologicInvestigation
TechnicalMemorandum(TM1)SummaryofResultsExploratoryBoreholes8Jul14

7.4

BoringPR1penetratedaverypermeableunitinthePerchedAAquiferfrom54to139ftbgs.
Groundwater in this interval approximated seawater quality (i.e., 34,000 mg/L). This unit is
interpretedto continue,but decreaseinthicknesssouthwardtowardsBoringMDW1.To the
north,theunitisinterbeddedwithfinegrainedunits.

It is interpreted that the lowest portion of Boring PR1 penetrated the SVA. Very low TDS
concentrations(630mg/L)encounteredinthelowestzoneinBoringPR1suggestthatisolated
zones of freshwater may exist within the 180Foot Aquifer or that the sand unit is laterally
discontinuousandmaybeinterbeddedwiththeSVA.Inthislastinterpretation,BoringPR1did
notcompletelypenetratetheSVA.

HydraulicconductivityvaluesforthepermeableportionofthePerchedAAquiferpenetrated
in PR1 ranged from 194 ft/day to 717 ft/day, based upon relationships between grain size
distributionandhydraulicconductivity.

ThepermeableunitbetweenBoringPR1andMDW1representsapotentiallocationforslant
wells.

The Moss Landing Borings (ML1, ML2, ML3, ML4, and ML6) did not penetrate significant
thicknesses of permeable deposits to produce the required feedwater supply volume for the
MPWSP.
Groundwater Models

The geologic and hydrogeologic data collected during this investigation was used to prepare the
interpretationsofhydrostratigraphicrelationshipsintheMossLandingandCEMEXareaswhichwillbe
used to refine the NMGWM and to develop the CEMEX focused groundwater model. Table 61
summarizesthecorrelationofgeologicandhydrostratigraphicunitswithmodellayers.

71

CaliforniaAmericanWater&RBFConsulting

MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectHydrogeologicInvestigation
TechnicalMemorandum(TM1)SummaryofResultsExploratoryBoreholes8Jul14

8.0

REFERENCES

CaliforniaDepartmentofPublicWorks,DivisionofWaterResources,1946.SalinasBasinInvestigation,
BulletinNo.52.
California Department of Water Resources, 1969. Geology of the Lower Portion of the Salinas Valley
Ground Water Basin.OfficeReport,CentralDistrictOffice.
CaliforniaDepartmentofWaterResources,1973.LowerSalinasValleySeawaterIntrusionInvestigation.
CaliforniaDepartmentofWaterResources,1977.NorthMontereyWaterResourcesInvestigation.
Prepared pursuant to cooperative agreement between Department of Water Resources and
MontereyCountyFloodControlandWaterConservationDistrict,March23,1977.
California Department of Water Resources (DWR), 2003. Californias Groundwater Bulletin 118,
Update2003.DatedOctober,1,2003.
CDM,2004.Monterey Peninsula Water Management District Sand City Desalination Project Feasibility
Study Executive Summary.DatedMarch25,2004.
CaliforniaGeologicalSurvey, 2002.GeologicMapoftheMonterey30x 60 Quadrangle andAdjacent
Areas
Carman,P.C.,1956."Flowofgasesthroughporousmedia."
Chin, John, L., and Steven C. Wolf, 1988 Reconnaissance highresolution geophysical survey of the
Monterey Bay, California, inner shelf: Implications for sand resources USGS OpenFile Report
88410
CoastalGroundwaterConsulting,2012.Natural Isotope Tracer Study Test Slant Well Phase 3 Extending
Pumping Test, South Orange County Desalination Project. Prepared for Metropolitan Water
DistrictofOrangeCounty.
Durbin, T.J, G.W. Kapple, and J.R. Freckleton, 1978. Two Dimensional and Three Dimentional Digital
Flow Models of the Salinas Valley GroundWater Basin, California. United States Geological
SurveyWaterResourcesInvestigations78113.
Durbin,T.J.,2012.CaliforniaAmericanWaterCompanyCommentsonproposaltopumpgroundwater
fromtheSalinasValleygroundwaterbasin.PreparedfortheSalinasValleyWaterCoalition.
Durbin,T.,2013,ConawayRanchGroundwaterModelPowerLawAveragingofHydraulicConductivity.
DraftTechnicalMemorandum,November2013.
Dupr,WilliamR.,1975.Quaternary History of the Watsonville Lowlands North-Central Monterey Bay
Region, California.

72

CaliforniaAmericanWater&RBFConsulting

MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectHydrogeologicInvestigation
TechnicalMemorandum(TM1)SummaryofResultsExploratoryBoreholes8Jul14

Dupr, William R., 1990. Quaternary Geology of the Monterey Bay Region California. AAPG Pacific
Section,2009GeologyandTectonicsoftheCentralCaliforniaCoastRegion.
Eittreim, S. L.; Anima, R. J.; Stevenson, A. J., 2002. Seafloor Geology of the Monterey Bay Area
ContinentalShelf.MarineGeology,181:334.
Emcon, 1991. Monterey Regional Waste Management District, Marina Class III Landfill Geologic and
HydrogeologicStudy,MontereyCounty,California
Faunt,C.C.,ed.,2009,GroundwaterAvailabilityoftheCentralValleyAquifer,California:U.S.Geological
SurveyProfessionalPaper1766,225p.
Fetter,C.W.,1994.Applied Hydrogeology
Feeney and Rosenberg, 2002. Deep Aquifer Investigation Hydrogeologic Data Inventory, Review,
Interpretation and Implications(TECHNICALREVIEWDRAFT).
Freeze,R.AllenandJohnA.Cherry,1979.Groundwater
FugroWest,Inc.,1995.Volume I Hydrogeologic Study Seawater Intake/Brine Disposal System, Marina,
California.PreparedforMarinaCoastWaterDistrict.
FugroWest,Inc.,1996a.Marina Coast Water District Seawater Desalination Project: Initiation of Inland
Groundwater Monitoring.
Fugro West, Inc., 1996b. Marina Coast Water District Seawater Desalination Project: Establishment of
Monitoring Well Network.
FugroWest,Inc.,1996c.Summary of Operations Construction and testing of Seawater Intake Well and
Brine Injection Well prepared for Marina Coast Water District.
GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc., 2004. Feasibility of Using HDD Wells to Supply Water for the
CoastalWater Project Desalination Plant at Moss Landing. Prepared for RBF Consulting /
CaliforniaAmericanWater,August3,2004.
GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc., 2005. Feasibility of Using HDD Wells for Water Supply and
BrineDischarge for the Coastal Water Project Desalination Plant, North Marina Site.
GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc., 2008. North Marina Groundwater Model Evaluation of Potential
Projects.
GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc., 2010. Summary of Historical Erosion Rates in the Vicinity of the
Marina Coast Water District Office - Marina State Beach, Marina California.
GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc., 2010. Sonic Exploratory Soil Borings and Monitoring Well
Completion, preparedfortheSouthCoastWaterDistrict.

73

CaliforniaAmericanWater&RBFConsulting

MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectHydrogeologicInvestigation
TechnicalMemorandum(TM1)SummaryofResultsExploratoryBoreholes8Jul14

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc., 2013 Hydrogeology Investigation and Subsurface Intake System
Feasibility Evaluation Proposed Camp Pendleton Seawater Desalination Project Technical
Studies
Greene,GaryH.,1970.Geology of Southern Monterey Bay and its Relationship to Ground Water Basin
and Sea Water Intrusion.U.S.GeologicSurveyOpenFileReport.
Greene,GaryH.,1977.Geology of the Monterey Bay Region.U.S.GeologicSurveyOpenFileReport77
718.
Greene,GaryH.,1990.Regional Tectonics and Structural Evolution of the Monterey Bay Region, Central
California. Geology and Tectonics of the Central California Coast Region, San Francisco to
Monterey.PacificSectionoftheAmericanAssociationofPetroleumGeologists.June.
Greene,GaryH,etal,1991.OffshoreandonshoreliquefactionatMossLandingspit,centralCalifornia
result of the October 17, 1989 Loma Prieta earthquakeGeology, v19 p. 945949, September
1991.
Grossman,E.E.;Eittreim,S.L.;Field,M.E.;Wong,F.L.,2006.ShallowStratigraphyandSedimentation
History During Highfrequency Sealevel Changes on the Central California Shelf. Continental
ShelfResearch,26:12171239.
Happle,J.,2010.PersonalCommunication.ResearchAssociateProfessorandDirector,RosentielSchool
ofMarineandAtmosphericScienceTritiumLaboratory,UniversityofMiami,Florida.
HardingLawsonAssociates(HLA),1994.Final Basewide Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS),
Fort Ord, California, Volume II, Remedial Investigation Basewide Hydrogeologic Characterization,
Appendixes, Appendix D: Ford Ord Groundwater Model.
HardingLawsonAssociates(HLA),2001.Final Report: Hydrogeologic Investigation of the Salinas Valley
Basin in the Vicinity of Fort Ord and Marina, Salinas Valley, California.
Hornberger,MichelleI,1991.Paleoenvironment of Elkhorn Slough and Surrounding Wetland Habitats: a
geological study using an ecological approach.SanJoseStateMaster'sThesis.
JGOFS(JointGlobalOceanFluxStudy).1997.Chapter 5, Physical and Thermodynamic Data. Version 2.13.
Johnson,M.,1983.GroundWaterinNorthMontereyCounty,California,1980.U.S.G.S.WaterResources
InvestigationsReport834023.
Kazemi,G.A.,Lehr,J.H.,andPerrochet,Pierre,2006.GroundwaterAge:Hoboken,NJ,JohnWiley&Sons,
Inc.
KennedyJenksConsultants,2004.Hydrostratigraphic Analysis of the Northern Salinas Valley.

74

CaliforniaAmericanWater&RBFConsulting

MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectHydrogeologicInvestigation
TechnicalMemorandum(TM1)SummaryofResultsExploratoryBoreholes8Jul14

KozenyJ.,1927."UeberkapillareLeitungdesWassersimBoden."SitzungsberAkad.Wiss.
Krumbein,W.C.,andG.G.Monk,1942.PermeabilityasaFunctionoftheSizeofUnconsolidatedSand.
Monterey County Water Resources Agency, 2011. Salinas Valley Basin Lines of Equal Groundwater
ElevationinthePressure180FootandEastSideShallowAquifers
Monterey County Water Resources Agency, 2011. Salinas Valley Basin Lines of Equal Groundwater
Elevationinthe400FootandEastSideDeepAquifers
MontgomeryWatson,1994.Salinas River Basin Water Resources Management Plan Task 1.09 Salinas
Valley Groundwater Flow and Quality Model Report. Prepared for Monterey County Water
ResourcesAgency.DatedFebruary1994.
Montgomery Watson, 1997. Final Report Salinas Valley Integrated Ground Water and Surface
ModelUpdate.PreparedforMontereyCountyWaterResourcesAgency.DatedMay1997.
Neuendorf, Klaus K.E., James P. Mehl Jr., Julia A. Jackson, 2005. Glossary of Geology, Fifth Edition,
AmericanGeologicalInstitute.
RBFConsulting,2012.Contingency Planning for the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project.Prepared
forCaliforniaAmericanWater.
Reading, H.G. editor, 1978. Sedimentary EnvironmentsProcesses, Facies, and Stratigraphy. Third
edition.PublishedbyBlackwellScience.
Reading,H.G.(1996).SedimentaryEnvironmentsandFacies.BlackwellScientificPublications.
RMC Geoscience, 2013. Monterey Peninsula Landfill Second 2013 Semiannual Water Quality
MonitoringReport,April2013September2013
Shlemon,R.J.,1978. Late Quaternary Evolution of the Camp Pendleton-San Onofre State Beach Coastal
Area, Northwestern San Diego County, California. Prepared for: Southern California Edison
CompanyandSanDiegoGasandElectricCompany.
Shlemon, R.J., 1979. Late Pleistocene Channel of the Lower Santa Margarita River, San Diego County,
California. Geological Guide of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station and Adjacent Regions
of Southern California.PacificSections,AmericanAssociationofPetroleumGeologistsSociety.
Shore Stations Monitoring Program. 2014. Active Stations. Granite Canyon Monitoring Station.
fttp://ccsweb1.ucsd.edu/shore/active_data/granite_canyon/salinity
Staal, Garner, and Dunne, Inc. (SGD), 1991. Feasibility Study Seawater Intake Wells Marina County
WaterDistrictWastewaterTreatmentFacility,Marina,California.PreparedforMarinaCounty
WaterDistrict.February.
Staal, Garner, and Dunne, Inc. (SGD), 1992. Feasibility Study Saline Ground Water Intake System

75

CaliforniaAmericanWater&RBFConsulting

MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectHydrogeologicInvestigation
TechnicalMemorandum(TM1)SummaryofResultsExploratoryBoreholes8Jul14

Monterey Sand Company Site, Marina, California. Prepared for Monterey Peninsula Water
ManagementDistrict.February.
Tinsley,JohnIII,1975.Quaternary Geology of the Northern Salinas Valley, Monterey County, California.
Tinsley,JohnIII,(2014)PersonalCommunication.
Tritium Laboratory, 2010. General Comments on Tritium Results. University of Miami Tritium
Laboratory, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, Miami, Florida.California
Department of Public Works, Water Resources Division, 1946. Salinas Basin Investigation,
Bulletin52.
United States Department of Commerce (DOC), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA),NationalOceanService(NOS),andNationalGeodeticSurvey(NGS),2011.Continually
UpdatedShorelineShapefile.
United States Geological Survey, 1983. Ground Water in North Monterey County, California, 1980.
U.S.G.S. Water-Resources Investigations. Report 834023. Prepared in cooperation with the
MontereyCountyFloodControlandWaterConservationDistrict.DatedJuly1983.
United States Geological Survey, 1988. Reconnaissance High-resolution Geophysical Survey of the
Monterey Bay, California, Inner Shelf--Implications for Sand Resources. Chin, J. L.; Wolf, S. C.,
USGSOpenFileReport:88410.
UnitedStatesGeologicalSurvey,1991.Molluscan and Foraminerferal Evidence of Late Pleistocene Sea
Level lowstand in Monterey Bay, Central California.
United States Geological Survey, 2002a. Seafloor Rocks and Sediments of the Continental Shelf from
Monterey Bay to Point Sur, California.byEittreim,S.L.,Anima,R.J.,Stevenson,A.J.,andWong,
F.L.USGSMiscellaneousFieldStudiesMap2345.
UnitedStatesGeologicalSurvey,2002b.Geohydrology of a Deep-Aquifer System Monitoring Well Site in
Marina, Monterey County, California.WaterResourcesInvestigationReport024003.
UnitedStatesGeologicalSurvey,2003.Geohydrologic Framework of Recharge and Seawater Intrusionin
the Pajaro Valley, Santa Cruz and Monterey Counties, California. U.S.G.S. WaterResources
Investigations.Report034096.
United States Geological Survey, Hapke C., Reid, D., 2006. National Assessment of Shoreline Change:
AGIS Compilation of Vector Shorelines and Associated Shoreline Change Data for the Sandy
Shorelines of the California Coast. OpenFileReport1251,2006.
United States Geological Survey, Hapke C., Reid, D., and Borrelli, M., 2007 revised 2008.
NationalAssessment of Shoreline Change: A GIS Compilation of Vector Cliff Edge and Associated
Cliff Erosion Data for the California Coast.OpenFileReport1112,2008.

76

CaliforniaAmericanWater&RBFConsulting

MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectHydrogeologicInvestigation
TechnicalMemorandum(TM1)SummaryofResultsExploratoryBoreholes8Jul14

UnitedStatesGeologicalSurvey,2009.Map of the Rinconada and Reliz Fault Zones, Salinas River Valley,
California.ScientificInvestigationsReport3059.
UnitedStatesGeologicalSurvey,2002.Isostatic Gravity Map of the Monterey 30'x60' Quadrangle and
Adjacent Areas, CaliforniaUSGSOpenFileReport02373.
Vengosh,A.et.Al.2002.AMultiisotope (B,Sr,O,H,andC)andage dating(3H3Heand 14C)study of
ground water from Salinas Valley, California: Hydrochemistry, dynamics, and contamination
processes.WaterResourcesResearch,Vol.38,No.1.
Water Resources and Information Management Engineering, Inc. (WRIME), 2003. Deep Aquifer
Investigative Study.PreparedfortheMarinaCoastWaterDistrict.
Wong,F.L.;Eittreim,S.L.,2001.ContinentalShelfGISfortheMontereyBayNationalMarineSanctuary.
USGSOpenFileReport01179.

77

CaliforniaAmericanWater&RBFConsulting

FIGURES

CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER &


RBF CONSULTING

MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT HYDROGEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION


ATTACHMENT 1 - TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM (TM 1) - SUMMARY OF RESULTS - EXPLORATORY BOREHOLES
SLU
ELKHORN

Su
Monterey

ny
bmarine Ca

GENERAL
PROJECT LOCATION

Slou gh

Elkhorn

Elkhorn

I
Prunedale

on

Moss Landing
Project Area

?
Castroville

ero
blad
Tem

g
Slou

ific

Oce

an

Salin
as

Rive
r

Old Salin
as River

Pac

z
A
CEMEX Project Area

Salinas

Monterey Bay

l
Sa

Marina

in
as
Ri
r
ve

8-Jul-14
Prepared by: DWB. Map Projection: State Plane 1983, Zone IV.

2014, GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc. All rights reserved.


GIS_proj/mcwsp_cal_am/rbf_boring_tech_memo_7-14/4_Fig_1_gen_loc_8x11_7-14.mxd

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.


P.O. Box 220, Claremont, CA 91711
Tel: (909) 451-6650 Fax: (909) 451-6638
www.gssiwater.com

NORTH

4
Miles

Figure 1

CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER &


RBF CONSULTING

MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT HYDROGEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION


ATTACHMENT 1 - TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM (TM 1) - SUMMARY OF RESULTS - EXPLORATORY BOREHOLES

Elkh or

n Slou
gh

Elkhorn

To
w

Prunedale

jo
Co

dC

h
ug

re e
k

S lo

al

in

il
Gab

as
R

ive

Langley Area

Mu

Moss
Landing

ne

Cr

ee
k

o
oj
M

Montere y

Canyon
Submarine

dS

ek
C re

Ol

an

Castroville

b
Tem
lad
S
ero
loug
h

v
Na ti

z
A

C
idad

re e k

Eastside Aquifer

CEMEX
Project Area
sa
Ali

l Slo

u gh

Eastside Area

180/400 Foot Aquifer

Marina

Salinas
Da
vi s

Rd

Pressure Area
R
as
in
ive

Alisa l Creek

l
Sa

I
r

?
Sali
nas
R iv

Seaside Area

Monterey Bay

er

Monterey

Corral De Tierra Area

El

o
Tor

e
Cre

Ha rp er

Cr eek

Water Supply Areas per


DWR Bulletin 52, (1946)
Groundwater Subbasin Boundaries
(Source: DWR Bulletin 118, version 4.1. 2012)
r
Ca

k
n Cree
Wat so

el
m
Riv
er

180/400 Foot Aquifer

Limekiln Cree

Corral De Tierra Area

DWR 1946 AND 2012


GROUNDWATER
SUBBASIN BOUNDARIES

Eastside Aquifer
Langley Area
Seaside Area
NORTH

8-Jul-14

2014, GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc. All rights reserved.


GIS_proj/mcwsp_cal_am/rbf_boring_tech_memo_7-14/4_Fig_5_subbasin_bndys_8X11_7-14.mxd

4
Miles

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.


P.O. Box 220, Claremont, CA 91711
Tel: (909) 451-6650 Fax: (909) 451-6638
www.gssiwater.com

Figure 5

MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT HYDROGEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION


ATTACHMENT 1 - TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM (TM 1) - SUMMARY OF RESULTS - EXPLORATORY BOREHOLES
-4

CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER & RBF CONSULTING


8

10
Qms

14

Qar
Qaf

Ppu?

Qls

Qar

Qms

Qt

Qar

3'

Qt

Qls

Qaf

Qaf

Qar
Qls

Qt

Ppu

10

Qcf

12

Qar

Qar

ho
r

Qt?

Kgr

2'

Qae
Qaf

Qf?

Qae

Qe

Qt

Pzls

Kgr

Prunedale

Qe

Qb Kgr
Q
Q
Pzls Qb Pzls

Qb

Qod Qmt? Qb

Ppu

PzMz
Kgr Qae

Qe

Qfa

Montere

Kgr

Qd

Qe

Orb

Qae

Elkhorn

Qmt?

Qf?

Qct

Mv

Qb Q

Qar

Qtw?

Qd

Qar

e Canyon
y Subm arin

QarQar
KgrQfl Kgr Qfl
Qf

Qe?

Qd

Ppu

Ppu

Qod

Ovq

Qar
Qe

Qcf

Qcf
Qls

Qt

Qar

Ovq
Qar

Qfa
Qe Qod

Qls

Qaf

Qaf

EXPLANATION

Qae

Qt?

Qae

Qfg

14

Qls

Castroville

22

16

Qfp

Q
Qae
Q

Qfp

Q
Qfp

30

Qb

Qms

z
A

Pipeline Outfall

Qf?

Qfp

Qfa

24

ct
io

Rog
ge
Rd

Qt?

Qfp
Q

Qb

Qb

Qfp
Qt?

CEMEX
Project Area

8
Qrb

Qms

Ppu

3
U

Mmy

Qfp?

Qt?

Qfl

Bla
nc o

Qfg?

sec
tio n

Qfa

Qb
Qb
Qb

Qt?

Geology from: (California Geological


Survey. "Geologic Map of the
Monterey 30'x60' Quadrangle
and Adjacent Areas, California.
Regional Geologic Map Series,
1:100,000 Scale. Map No. 1. 2002).
See Figure 2b for Geologic Legend.

Qfc

Salinas

Qs
Qfa

Mmy

Qod
Qms

Qs
Qs

Qs

Qms

Qd

Mmy
Qms

a
lin
Sa

Kgr

Qmt

Qmt KgdQod
Kgd
Qd
Qmt

Qb

Qms

Mmy
Qms

2014, GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc. All rights reserved.


GIS_proj/mcwsp_cal_am/rbf_boring_tech_memo_7-14/4_Fig_6a_geology_7-14.mxd

Qfc?
Qfa

Qms
Qs
Qs
Qs Qs

Qae

Qb
Q

Qms

Qae

8-Jul-14
Prepared by: DWB. Map Projection: State Plane 1983, Zone IV.

Qfc

Qfa

Qb

Qs

QmtQ?
Qd

i ve

Kgr

Qs

Mmy
Mmy

sR

Fort Ord
Qs

Qms

Qms

I
Qfc?

Qms

Kgr

Elevation of Sea Floor, meters


(Wong, F.L. and
Eittreim, S.L., 2001)
Mean High Tide
(DOC et al., 2011)

Qfc

Marina

Mmy

Qfg?
Qfc

Qfp

1'

Ppu
Mmy

Qfp

Qfc

Qae

Qms

-10

Qfp

Qfa

Ppu

North Marina Groundwater


Model Boundary

Kgr
Qfp

Qfc

10

Mmy

Kgr

Qfc?

12

Qms

Pipeline Outfall

Pzls
Qfp
Qfc? Qf Qf
Qfp
Pzls
QfpQfp?

Qfc

Qfc
Qd

Qms

Kgr

Qfc?

Qt

Qfp

Qt

Qod?

14

se

Qd

Qfp
Qfp?
Qfp
Qfc
Qfp Qfc?

Qfl

Qfc

Qfl

Qb

Bl
an
co

Pzls

Qt

Qb

an
Oce

Pac

Qms

Fault - Blanco Section of


the Reliz Fault
(Source: USGS SIM 3059)

Kgr

ific

QmsQrb

KgrPzls
Kgr
Pzls
Pzls

Pzls

Qrb
Ppu

Qms

Pzls

Qfg

Qfc

Qe?

o
cti
se

Qms
Ppu

Qms
Ppu

Qd

Holocene Sediment Thickness


(meters)
Source (USGS OFR 01-179)

Qls Kgr

Qaf

Qfa

Qrb
Qms

Qfc

Qae

Qf?

Ppu

Kgr

32

Qfl
Q

Qfg

Qfc

Qae

28

o
nc

Qrb
Ppu

Kgr

Qae

a
Bl

Ppu
Qms

Qaf

Qb

26

Qrb

12

Qb

Qaf

Qf

Qls PzMz

20

Ppu
Qrb
Qrb
Ppu

Qaf

Qfg
Qt?

Qfa

18

Qrb

Qrb

Qrb

(See Figures 7a-9)

Qfg

Ppu

Qe?

Qls

Qfg

Qaf

Qe

1' Cross-Section Location

Qfg
Qaf

Qmt
Kgr

GEOLOGIC SETTING

Ovq
Orb

Qo

Qt Qfa
Qt

Elk

Ppu?
Qar

Qd

Moss Landing
Project Area

Mv
Qar

Kgr

Q
Kgr

Qtw?

Qs

Ppu

Qar

Qfa
Q

Qd

Ppu

Qls

Kgr

Qar

Qmt

Qmt

Qod

12

Qcf
Qms

-2

Ppu

Qar
Qaf

Qar

Q
Qfa

Qb

Qcf
Mmy

Qar

Qe

Qmt

nS
loug

Ppu

NORTH

4
Miles

Qfl
Qb Qt
Q Qae

af

Qfa

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.


P.O. Box 220, Claremont, CA 91711
Tel: (909) 451-6650 Fax: (909) 451-6638
www.gssiwater.com

Figure 6a

MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT HYDROGEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION


ATTACHMENT 1 - TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM (TM 1) SUMMARY OF RESULTS - EXPLORATORY BOREHOLES

CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER &


RBF CONSULTING

California Geological Survey


GEOLOGIC MAP OF THE MONTEREY 30'x60' QUADRANGLE
AND ADJACENT AREAS, CALIFORNIA
Compiled by David L. Wagner, H. Gary Greene, George J. Saucedo
and Cynthia L. Pridmore. 2002
af - Artificial Fill
Holocene

Qfl - Flood Plain Deposits

Qb - Basin Deposits

Qd - Dune Sand

Qcf - Canyon Fill (offshore)

Qo - Older Alluvium

Qls - Landslide Deposits

Qms - Marine Sediments

Qt - Terrace Deposits

Qod - Older Dune Sand

Q - Alluvium
Qs - Sand
Qe - Eolian Sand
Qal (*) - River Alluvium

Qmt - Marine Terrace Deposits


Qf - Alluvial Fan Deposits
(Deltaic deposits offshore)
Pleistocene

Qrb - Relict Beach Deposits (offshore)


Qtw - Terrace Deposits of
Watsonville Terrace

Qct - Submarine Canyon Terrace

Qfa - Fan Deposits of Antioch


Qfc - Fan Deposits of Chular
Qfp - Fan Deposits of Placentia
Qfg - Fan Deposits of Gloria
Qar - Aromas Sand (undivided)
Qae - Eolian Facies
Qaf - Fluvial Facies

* NOTE: Qal is not shown as a map unit.


Stratigraphic relationships indicate
its position in the subsurface.

QT - Plio-Pleistocene Continental Deposits


Pliocene

Ppu - Purisma Formation


MPe - Etchegoin Formation
Mv - Unnamed Miocene Volcanic Rocks

Miocene

Mmy - Monterey Formation


Tv - Tertiary Volcanic Rocks
Mus - Unnamed Miocene Sandstone
Orb - Red Beds

Oligocene

Ovq - Vaqueros Sandstone


EOsj - San Juan Bautista Formation

PaleoceneEocene

Ebu - Unnamed Eocene Sedimentary Rocks


Ec - Carmelo Formation
Kgr - Granitic Rocks

Cretaceous

Kqm - Quartz Monzonite


Kgd - Granodiorite

Jurassic

PzMz - Prebatholithic Metasedimentary Rocks


Pzls - Carbonate Rocks
Tectonic Disturbance

GEOLOGIC MAP
LEGEND

Pipeline
water
8-Jul-14
2014, GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc. All rights reserved.
GIS_proj/mcwsp_cal_am/rbf_boring_tech_memo_7-14/4_Fig_6b_geology_legend_7-14.mxd

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.


P.O. Box 220, Claremont, CA 91711
Tel: (909) 451-6650 Fax: (909) 451-6638
www.gssiwater.com

Figure 6b

<

>

<

'

&

'

&

&

'

&

'

&

&

'

&

&

&

&

&

'

<

<

'

&

'

>

<

&

&

'

'

'

X
[

&

&

&

'

'

&

&

'

&

>

>

~


&

'

"

&

'

&

<

>

>

'

'

&

&

'

&

'

'

>

<

&

&

'

'

&

&

&

&

>

"

&

&

"

"

t b

<

&

K
L

x
2


D

F


E
D

>

<


?

E
D

G




<

E
D

E
D

F


<

F


N
D

>


D




>

"

"

&

"

&

'

<

<

'

s ,

"

'

>

"

<

p )

<

'

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

6
G

<

<

"

&

'

&




0
7

j
h

=
5

1


>

<

w


w


w


w


<

<

<

<

>

w


>

>

<

'

<

>

'

<

<

<

>

<

'

<

>

<

0

|v

j
a

<

|y

<

>

<

&

f Z

'

`
a

"

<

'

"

<

>

<

<

"

<

"

>

<

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

"

&

"

"

&

"

"

"

"

&

"

&

"

&

&

"

&

>

>

>

>

>

&

'

"

&

&

"

'

"

"

&

&

"

"

'

&

"

"

&

"

&

&

"

'

"

"

&

"

"

&

<

"

"

&

"

"

"

"

"

"

&

'

&

"

&

"

"

"

&

"

"

&

"

Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Attachment 1 - Technical Memorandum (TM 1) - Summary of Results - Exploratory Boreholes

Figure 10

Trilinear Diagram
CEMEX Isolated Aquifer Zone Tests
CX-B1WQ Zone 1
CX-B1WQ Zone 2
CX-B1WQ Zone 3
CX-B1WQ Zone 4

Water quality results from:


BSK Labs, Weck Labs, and Monterey Bay Analytical
Services.

CX-B1WQ Zone 5

75

75

CX-B1WQ Zone 6
CX-B2WQ Zone 1
CX-B2WQ Zone 2
CX-B2WQ Zone 3
CX-B2WQ Zone 4

25

25

CX-B4 Zone 1
CX-B4 Zone 2
CX-B4 Zone 3

SO4

Mg

CX-B4 Zone 4
CX-B4 Zone 5

75

25

25

75

25

Ca

8-Jul-14

75

Ca

25

75

25

75

Na+K

HCO3

25

Cl

75

Cl

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.

Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Attachment 1 - Technical Memorandum (TM 1) - Summary of Results - Exploratory Boreholes

Figure 11

Trilinear Diagram
Moss Landing Isolated Aquifer Zone Tests

PR-1 Zone 1

Water quality results from:


BSK Labs, Weck Labs, and Monterey Bay
Analytical Services.

PR-1 Zone 2
ML-1 Zone 1
ML-1 Zone 2
ML-2 Zone 1

75

75

ML-2 Zone 2
ML-3 Zone 1
ML-3 Zone 2
ML-4 Zone 1
ML-4 Zone 2

25

25

ML-6 Zone 1
ML-6 Zone 2
MDW-1 Zone 1

SO4

Mg

MDW-1 Zone 2
MDW-1 Zone 3
MDW-1 Zone 4

25

75

25

25

Ca

8-Jul-14

75

75

Ca

25

75

75

Na+K

HCO3

25

25

Cl

75

Cl

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.

Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Attachment 1 - Technical Memorandum (TM 1) - Summary of Results - Exploratory Boreholes

CEMEX Area Water Quality Plot


TDS versus Chloride
40,000

35,000
CX-B1WQ-3

TDS (mg/L)

30,000

CX-B1WQ-4
CX-B4-1

25,000

CX-B4-2
CX-B1WQ-6

20,000

CX-B4-4
CX-B4-3

CX-B1WQ-5
CX-B2WQ-4
CX-B1WQ-1

CX-B2WQ-3

CX-B1WQ-2

15,000

CX-B2WQ-2

10,000
Diluted Seawater Line

5,000
CX-B4-5

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

Chloride (mg/L)

8-Jul-14

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

20,000

Figure 12

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.

Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Attachment 1 - Technical Memorandum (TM 1) - Summary of Results - Exploratory Boreholes

CEMEX Area Water Quality Plot


Sodium versus Chloride
12,000

10,000

Sodium (mg/L)

CX-B1WQ-3

8,000

CX-B1WQ-4
CX-B1WQ-5
CX-B4-2

6,000
CX-B4-4
CX-B4-3

CX-B2WQ-3
CX-B2WQ-4
CX-B1WQ-6

CX-B2WQ-1
CX-B4-1
CX-B1WQ-1

4,000
CX-B1WQ-2
CX-B2WQ-2

2,000

Diluted Seawater Line


CX-B4-5

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

Chloride (mg/L)

8-Jul-14

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

20,000

Figure 13

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.

Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Attachment 1 - Technical Memorandum (TM 1) - Summary of Results - Exploratory Boreholes

CEMEX Area Water Quality Plot


Calcium versus Chloride
3,500
CX-B4-1

3,000

Calcium (mg/L)

CX-B1WQ-1

2,500

CX-B1WQ-3

2,000

CX-B2WQ-1

CX-B1WQ-2

1,500

CX-B4-2

CX-B4-4

CX-B2WQ-2

CX-B2WQ-4

1,000

CX-B4-3
CX-B1WQ-6

CX-B2WQ-3
CX-B1WQ-5

500

CX-B1WQ-4
CX-B4-5
Diluted Seawater Line

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

Chloride (mg/L)

8-Jul-14

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

20,000

Figure 14

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.

Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Attachment 1 - Technical Memorandum (TM 1) - Summary of Results - Exploratory Boreholes

CEMEX Area Water Quality Plot


Sodium versus Calcium
0.0

CX-B4-5

CX-B1WQ-4

-20.0
CX-B4-2

CX-B4-3
CX-B1WQ-5

D Sodium

-40.0

CX-B4-4
CX-B2WQ-3
CX-B1WQ-6

-60.0

1:1 Line

CX-B2WQ-4

CX-B1WQ-3

CX-B2WQ-2

-80.0
CX-B1WQ-2
CX-B2WQ-1

-100.0

-120.0
CX-B4-1

-140.0
CX-B1WQ-1

10

20

30

40

50
D Calcium

8-Jul-14

60

70

80

90

Figure 15

-160.0

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.

Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Attachment 1 - Technical Memorandum (TM 1) - Summary of Results - Exploratory Boreholes

CEMEX Area Water Quality Plot


Total Boron versus Chloride
5.0
4.5

Total Boron (mg/L)

4.0
3.5
3.0

CX-B1WQ-4
CX-B1WQ-5
CX-B2WQ-3

2.5

Diluted Seawater Line

CX-B1WQ-6

CX-B2WQ-4

2.0
CX-B4-2
CX-B1WQ-3

CX-B2WQ-1

CX-B4-3

1.5

CX-B4-4
CX-B2WQ-2

1.0

CX-B1WQ-2

CX-B1WQ-1

0.5

CX-B4-1
CX-B4-5

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000
Chloride (mg/L)

8-Jul-14

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

20,000

Figure 16

0.0

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.

Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Attachment 1 - Technical Memorandum (TM 1) - Summary of Results - Exploratory Boreholes

CEMEX Area Water Quality Plot


Strontium versus Chloride
20
18

CX-B4-1
CX-B1WQ-1

16
14

Strontium (mg/L)

CX-B2WQ-1

12

CX-B1WQ-3
CX-B1WQ-2

CX-B4-2

CX-B4-4
CX-B2WQ-4
CX-B1WQ-6

10

CX-B4-3

CX-B1WQ-5
CX-B1WQ-4

CX-B2WQ-2
CX-B2WQ-3

6
Diluted Seawater Line

4
CX-B4-5

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000
Chloride (mg/L)

8-Jul-14

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

20,000

Figure 17

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.

Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Attachment 1 - Technical Memorandum (TM 1) - Summary of Results - Exploratory Boreholes

CEMEX Area Water Quality Plot


Sulfate versus Chloride
3,000

CX-B1WQ-3

2,500

2,000

CX-B1WQ-4

Sulfate (mg/L)

CX-B1WQ-5
CX-B1WQ-6

CX-B1WQ-1

1,500

1,000

CX-B1WQ-2
Diluted Seawater Line

500

8-Jul-14

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000
Chloride (mg/L)

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

20,000

Figure 18

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.

Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Attachment 1 - Technical Memorandum (TM 1) - Summary of Results - Exploratory Boreholes

Moss Landing Area Water Quality Plot


TDS versus Chloride
40,000

35,000

PR-1-2
ML-6-1
MDW-1-2
MDW-1-1
ML-6-2

30,000

TDS (mg/L)

25,000

MDW-1-3
ML-2-1
MDW-1-4

20,000

ML-1-1

ML-4-1

15,000
Diluted Seawater Line

10,000
ML-3-1

5,000

ML-4-2
ML-2-2

ML-3-2
ML-1-2
PR-1-1

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000
Chloride (mg/L)

8-Jul-14

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

20,000

Figure 19

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.

Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Attachment 1 - Technical Memorandum (TM 1) - Summary of Results - Exploratory Boreholes

Moss Landing Area Water Quality Plot


Sodium versus Chloride
12,000

PR-1-2

10,000

ML-6-1
MDW-1-2
ML-6-2
MDW-1-1

Sodium (mg/L)

8,000
MDW-1-3
MDW-1-4

6,000

ML-2-1
ML-1-1

ML-4-1
Diluted Seawater Line

4,000

2,000

ML-3-1

ML-2-2
ML-4-2

ML-3-2
ML-1-2

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000
Chloride (mg/L)

8-Jul-14

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

20,000

Figure 20

PR-1-1

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.

Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Attachment 1 - Technical Memorandum (TM 1) - Summary of Results - Exploratory Boreholes

Moss Landing Area Water Quality Plot


Calcium versus Chloride
1,400

1,200

MDW-1-1

MDW-1-3

1,000

Calcium (mg/L)

ML-4-1

800
ML-4-2
MDW-1-2

ML-2-1

600

ML-6-2

ML-1-1

ML-6-1
ML-2-2

400

PR-1-2

ML-3-1
MDW-1-4
Diluted Seawater Line

ML-3-2

200

ML-1-2

PR-1-1

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000
Chloride (mg/L)

8-Jul-14

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

20,000

Figure 21

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.

Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Attachment 1 - Technical Memorandum (TM 1) - Summary of Results - Exploratory Boreholes

Moss Landing Area Water Quality Plot


Sodium versus Calcium
0.0

MDW-1-3

ML-1-2

-10.0
ML-3-2

ML-3-1

-20.0

ML-2-1

D Sodium

PR-1-2

-30.0

1:1 Line

ML-4-1

ML-2-2

MDW-1-2
ML-1-1
ML-6-2

-40.0

-50.0
ML-6-1

ML-4-2
MDW-1-1

10

15

20
D Calcium

8-Jul-14

25

30

35

Figure 22

-60.0

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.

Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Attachment 1 - Technical Memorandum (TM 1) - Summary of Results - Exploratory Boreholes

Moss Landing Area Water Quality Plot


Total Boron versus Chloride
5.0
4.5

PR-1-2

4.0
ML-6-1

3.5

Total Boron (mg/L)

ML-6-2

3.0

MDW-1-2
MDW-1-4

2.5
ML-1-1

2.0

Diluted Seawater Line


ML-2-1

MDW-1-3

1.5

MDW-1-1

ML-4-1

1.0

0.5

ML-1-2
ML-3-2

ML-3-1
ML-2-2
ML-4-2

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000
Chloride (mg/L)

8-Jul-14

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

20,000

Figure 23

0.0

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.

Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Attachment 1 - Technical Memorandum (TM 1) - Summary of Results - Exploratory Boreholes

Moss Landing Area Water Quality Plot


Strontium versus Chloride
14

ML-6-1

12

ML-6-2

Strontium (mg/L)

10

MDW-1-1
MDW-1-3

ML-4-1

MDW-1-2
ML-2-1

PR-1-2

ML-1-1

6
ML-4-2
MDW-1-4

ML-2-2

ML-3-1

ML-3-2
ML-1-2

Diluted Seawater Line

PR-1-1

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000
Chloride (mg/L)

8-Jul-14

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

20,000

Figure 24

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.

Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Attachment 1 - Technical Memorandum (TM 1) - Summary of Results - Exploratory Boreholes

Moss Landing Area Water Quality Plot


Sulfate versus Chloride
3,000

PR-1-2

2,500
MDW-1-2
MDW-1-1

ML-6-1

2,000
Sulfate (mg/L)

ML-6-2
MDW-1-3
MDW-1-4

1,500

ML-1-1

1,000

ML-4-1

ML-2-1

Diluted Seawater Line

500
ML-3-1
ML-4-2
ML-2-2
ML-3-2

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000
Chloride (mg/L)

8-Jul-14

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

20,000

Figure 25

PR-1-1 ML-1-2

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.

Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Attachment 1 - Technical Memorandum (TM 1) - Summary of Results - Exploratory Boreholes

CX-B1WQ Plot of d2H () versus d18O ()


0
Vienna Standard Mean Ocean Water
CX-B1WQ-3

-10
CX-B1WQ-5
CX-B1WQ-4
CX-B1WQ-6
CX-B1WQ-1

d2H ()

-20

CX-B1WQ-2

-30
Global Meteoric Water Line

-40

-50

-8

-7

-6

-5

-4
d18O ()

8-Jul-14

-3

-2

-1

Figure 26

-60

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.

Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Attachment 1 - Technical Memorandum (TM 1) - Summary of Results - Exploratory Boreholes

Moss Landing Area Plot of d2H () versus d18O ()


0
PR-1-2
ML-6-1
ML-6-2

-10

Vienna Standard
Mean Ocean Water
ML-2-1

-20

d2H ()

ML-4-1

-30

ML-4-2
ML-2-2

Global Meteoric Water Line


-40

ML-3-1
PR-1-1
ML-3-2

-50

-8

-7

-6

-5

-4
d18O

8-Jul-14

-3
()

-2

-1

Figure 27

-60

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.

MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT HYDROGEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION


ATTACHMENT 1 - TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM (TM 1) - SUMMARY OF RESULTS - EXPLORATORY BOREHOLES

CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER & RBF CONSULTING

GROUND WATER
MODEL BOUNDARIES

Correlation of Geologic and Hydrostratigraphic with SVIGSM and NMGWM Layers


180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin
Surface
HydroSurface Geologic
Geologic
stratigraphic
Units
Units Map
Units
Symbol

North Marina
Ground Water
Model Boundary

Ocean Floor

Monterey
Bay

z
A

Alluvium

Qal2

Older Alluvium

Qo

Older Alluvium/
?

Marine Terrace

Proposed
CEMEX Model
Boundary
(see inset below
at right)

Older Alluvium/
Older
Older Alluvial Fan
Placentia
Aromas Sand
(undifferentiated)
Aromas Sand
Eolian Lithofacies
Paso Robles
Formation

Qf?

Qo/Qmt

Ocean Floor
Perched A
Aquifer

CEMEX Area
Surface
Surface Geologic
Geologic
Units
Units Map
Symbol

Me
r

ced
Ocean Floor
C

Qf?

Dune Sand

Qd

Older Dune Sand

Qod

NMGWM
Layer

CEMEX Model
Layer

Ocean Floor

Constant
Head

Dune Sand
Aquifer

1a

1a

Fr
es
no

Salinas Valley
180-Foot
Aquifer

SVIGSM
Layer1

Hydrostratigraphic
Units

Older Terrace/
Marine Terrace

Qt (Qmt?)

$
^
"
!

C180-Foot
o
Aquifer
Equivalent

2
3
4
5
6
7

Qo/Qfa
Qfp
Qar
Qae

QT

8
180/400-Foot
Aquitard
400-Foot
Aquifer
400/900-Foot
Aquitard
900-Foot
Aquifer

Aromas Sand
(undifferentiated)

Qar

Paso Robles
Formation**

QT

O
Pacific

SVIGSM considers a layers to be aquitards (vertical hydraulic conductivity and thickness are input)

Subsurface Holocene geologic unit not mapped at surface

180/400-Foot
Aquitard

2a

400-Foot
Aquifer

10

3a

11

12

400/900-Foot
Aquitard
900-Foot
Aquifer

MODEL DETAILS
SVIGSM

NMGWM

CEMEX Model

Computer Code

IGSM

MODFLOW &
MT3DMS

SEAWAT

Cell Size

Approx.
0.4 sq.
miles

200 ft X 200 ft

20 ft X 20 ft

Number of
Model Layers

12

cean

SVIGSM Model Boundary


Sa
n

Be
M
ni
on
to
te
Co
re
yC
o

DETAILED VIEW OF
PROPOSED CEMEX MODEL GRID
(20ft X 20ft Model Cell)

Proposed
CEMEX Model

1
j-dire
ct ion

(See Inset at Left


for Detailed View)

->

54 0

!
(!
(!
(

MW-1M

<- idirec
t ion

MW-1S MW-1D
MW-2M MW-2S
!
(!
(!
(MW-2D

(
!

MW-3S MW-3D
!
(!
(!
(

Slant Well Pods

MW-3M

Monitoring
Well Locations
!
(!
(!
(
(
!

Slant Well Pods

!
(

!
(

!
(

20ft x 20ft Model Cell


(
!

2 0 ft

MW-4S MW-4D
!
(
!
(
!
(

540

20 f t

MW-4M

200

400
Feet

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, Earthstar Geographics,


CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN,
IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

8-Jul-14
Prepared by: DWB. Map Projection: State Plane 1983, Zone IV.

2014, GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc. All rights reserved.


GIS_proj/mcwsp_cal_am/rbf_boring_tech_memo_7-14/4_Fig_28_model_bndys_7-14.mxd

NORTH

10

20
Miles

2,000

4,000
Feet

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, icubed, Earthstar Geographics,


CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX,
Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP,
swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.


P.O. Box 220, Claremont, CA 91711
Tel: (909) 451-6650 Fax: (909) 451-6638
www.gssiwater.com

Figure 28

MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT HYDROGEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION


ATTACHMENT 1 - TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM (TM 1) - SUMMARY OF RESULTS - EXPLORATORY BOREHOLES

CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER & RBF CONSULTING


8

WELL AND
CROSS-SECTION
LOCATIONS

3'

-300

0
-9

0
-30
-20
8

E
-150

-130

(
!
14

-100

30-36)

20

Holocene Sediment Thickness


(meters)
Source (USGS OFR 01-179)

z
A

16

-20

26

30

32

-70

tio
ec

28

s
co

C'

n
24

-50

14S/2E-6L1

14

14S/2E-6J3

an
Pac

ific

-90

-9
0

Oce

-16 0

14S/2E-7F2

14S/2E-7A2

14S/2E-17B2

14S/2E-7J
14S/2E-07L5

Bl
an
co

Armstrong #1
14S/2E-18E1

ct
io

14S/2E-17D
14S/2E-18H

14S/2E-15C2
14S/2E-16A2

-20

MW-5

14S/1E-24L53

DMW-2

MW-BW-54-180
14S/2E-32D4
14S/1E-25D

Marina

14S/2E-21F

MP-BW-37

MP-BW-39
14S/2E-28C1
Airfield
MP-BW-38
MP-BW-40
MW-BW-21-180

-40

MW-BW-43-180
MW-BW-19-180R
MW-BW-44-180
MW-BW-45-180
14S/2E-31H1
PZ-12-04-180
MW-BW-55-A
PS-CT-08
MW-BW-53-180
MP-BW-48
MW-BW-47-180
MW-0U2-07-400 MW-BW-71-A

14S/2E-24J3
APN-227062005

14S/2E-22P2

14S/2E-26A6

14S/2E-25D3

14S/2E-24P2

Mean High Tide


(DOC et al., 2011)

14S/2E-27G3

14S/2E-28H3

E'

14S/2E-25E2
14S/2E-27C2
APN-414013005

14S/2E-12E1

14S/2E-26J3

Salinas

MW-BW-22-180

MW-BW-57-A

Elevation of Sea Floor, meters


(Wong, F.L. and
Eittreim, S.L., 2001)

APN-414021010

MW-BW-25-A

MW-BW-56-A
MP-BW-46

MW-BW-53-A
MW-BW-52-180

14S/2E-33P1
14S/2E-33Q1

MW-BW-23-A
MP-BW-42
MW-OU2-30-180

MW-BW-51-180

F'

MW-BW-56-180

MW-BW-50-180

-20

15S/1E-7B

i ve

-3 0

15S/2E-4C1

MW-BW-49-180

sR

MW-BW-62-A

MW-BW-64-A

a
lin
Sa

MW-BW-61-A

-50

1'

-10

14S/2E-24E1

14S/2E-23J50

MW-0U2-10-400

-7 0

14S/2E-13P50

14S/2E-28J50

MCWD 5
MCWD 4
MW-BW-33-A

MW-BW-25-180

-90

14S/2E-24D50

14S/2E-23H4

14S/2E-30G3
MW-BW-32-A
14S/2E-21E1
MW-BW-27-A
14S/2E-21L1
MW-BW-20-180
MCWD 2
MP-BW-32
14S/2E-21N1
MCWD 1
MW-BW-15-A
14S/2E-28C
MW-BW-55-180
MCWD 6
MW-B-13-180

MCWD-08A
MW-BW-30-A
MCWD 3

14S/2E-13F2

14S/2E-22K1

MCWD 7

14S/1E-24L5

APN-227021014

North Marina Groundwater


Model Boundary

D'

14S/2E-15B1
14S/2E-15P1

14S/2E-20B1-3 (?)

MW-4

Pipeline Outfall

14S/2E-13G1

14S/2E-14L3

14S/2E-17K2
14S/2E-16H1

14S/2E-21F2

DMW-1
MW-2

MW-1

14S/3E-07P2
14S/2E-12Q1

14S/2E-15A1

14S/2E-17B3

14S/2E-17R1
BIW

-90

14S/2E-16G1

14S/2E-17L1

14S/2E-17C
14S/2E-17K1

14S/1E-13J2

14S/2E-10M2

14S/2E-8L
14S/2E-07L4

se

Fault - Blanco Section of


the Reliz Fault
(Source: USGS SIM 3059)

14S/2E-09D4

CEMEX
Project Area

12

-80

1' (See Figures 7-9 and

18

-60

4
-80

-10
0

n
Bla

0
-8

12

10

-6
0

Cross-Section Location

Castroville

Monterey Dunes Colony Well

MW-BW-63-A
15S/2E-9E

Fort Ord

-40

-40

G'

-30

-20

-40

Well Location

MDW-1

-80

-50
0

-70
0

-10 0

EXPLANATION

2'

-40

-400

Prunedale
4

12

22
-80

Elk

B'

10

-400

-190

ine Canyon

Elkhorn

-400

-400

Subm ar
Monterey

0
-3

A'

-11

-180

0
-60

Moss Landing
Project Area

0
-17

-8
0

-90

0
-14

-70

ho
r

2
-12

nS
loug

-2

14

-90

-50

-20

-4

12

-60

4 2

-70

10

8-Jul-14
Prepared by: DWB. Map Projection: State Plane 1983, Zone IV.

2014, GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc. All rights reserved.


GIS_proj/mcwsp_cal_am/rbf_boring_tech_memo_7-14/4_Fig_29_wells_and_x-secs_7-14.mxd

NORTH

4
Miles

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.


P.O. Box 220, Claremont, CA 91711
Tel: (909) 451-6650 Fax: (909) 451-6638
www.gssiwater.com

Figure 29

South

North

200

200

100

100

Pacic Ocean

Dune
Sand Aquifer

Perched

Aquifer

Salinas
Valley
Aquitard

-100

Legend

-100

-200

-200

-300

-300

-400

-400

-500

-500

-600

-600

-700

-700

-800

-800

-900

-900

Hydrogeologic Contact
(approximate)

-1,000

-1,000

-1,100

-1,100

-1,200

-1,200

6,000

12,000

18,000

24,000

30,000

36,000

42,000

48,000

54,000

60,000

Note:
Wells and logs from
Kennedy/Jenks (2004),
MACTEC (2005), and
USGS WRIR 2-4003 (2002)
Bolded well names are wells
shown on Figure 29; other logs
from previous cross-sec ons

200

400

Ver cal Approximate Scale Feet


0

6,000

12,000

Horizontal Approximate Scale Feet


Projects\ESA_and_ESA-CalAm\01) MPWSP\11) Logs_x-sec ons\x-sec on_A-A'_scale_MW

Legend

South

North

300

300

200

200

100

100
0

0
-100

-100

-200

-200

-300

-300

-400

-400

-500

-500
-600

-600
-700

-700

-800

-800

6,000

12,000

18,000

24,000

30,000

36,000

42,000

48,000

54,000

60,000

Hydrogeologic Contact
(approximate)
Note:
Wells and logs from
Kennedy/Jenks (2004),
MACTEC (2005), and
USGS WRIR 2-4003 (2002)
Bolded well names are wells
shown on Figure 29; other logs
from previous cross-sec ons

200

400

Ver cal Approximate Scale Feet


0

6,000

12,000

Horizontal Approximate Scale Feet


Projects\ESA_and_ESA-CalAm\01) MPWSP\11) Logs_x-sec ons\x-sec on_B-B'_MW

South

North

400

400

300

300

200

200

100

Dune Sand
Aquifer

-100

100
Perched A

0
180-Foot Equivalent
Aquifer

Legend

Aquifer

Salinas Valley
Aquitard

-100
180-Foot
Aquifer

-200

-200

-300

-300

-400

-400
400-Foot Aquifer

-500

Hydrogeologic Contact
(approximate)

-500

-600

-600

-700

-700

6,000

12,000

18,000

24,000

30,000

36,000

42,000

48,000

Note:
Wells and logs from
Kennedy/Jenks (2004),
MACTEC (2005), and
USGS WRIR 2-4003 (2002)
Bolded well names are wells
shown on Figure 29; other logs
from previous cross-sec ons

200

400

Ver cal Approximate Scale Feet


0

6,000

12,000

Horizontal Approximate Scale Feet


Projects\ESA_and_ESA-CalAm\01) MPWSP\11) Logs_x-sec ons\x-sec on_C-C'_MW

Legend

South

200

200

100

100

Pacic Ocean

Dune Sand Aquifer

-100

-100
180-Foot Aquifer

-200

-200

-300

-300

-400

-400
400-Foot Aquifer

-500

-500

-600

-600

-700

Hydrogeologic Contact
(approximate)

-700

-800

-800

-900

-900

6,000

12,000

18,000

24,000

30,000

36,000

42,000

48,000

Note:
Wells and logs from
Kennedy/Jenks (2004),
MACTEC (2005), and
USGS WRIR 2-4003 (2002)
Bolded well names are wells
shown on Figure 29; other logs
from previous cross-sec ons

200

400

Ver cal Approximate Scale Feet


0

6,000

12,000

Horizontal Approximate Scale Feet


Projects\ESA_and_ESA-CalAm\01) MPWSP\11) Logs_x-sec ons\x-sec on_D-D'_MW.ai

North

South

100

100
0

Legend

Pacic Ocean

0
Salinas Valley Aquitard

-100

-100
180-Foot Aquifer

-200

-200
-300

-300

-400

-400

400-Foot Aquifer

-500

-500

-600

-600

-700

-700

-800

-800

Hydrogeologic Contact
(approximate)
Note:
Wells and logs from
Kennedy/Jenks (2004),
MACTEC (2005), and
USGS WRIR 2-4003 (2002)

-900

-900

-1,000

-1,000

6,000

12,000

18,000

24,000

30,000

36,000

42,000

48,000

54,000

60,000

Bolded well names are wells


shown on Figure 29; other logs
from previous cross-sec ons

200

400

Ver cal Approximate Scale Feet


0

6,000

12,000

Horizontal Approximate Scale Feet


Projects\ESA_and_ESA-CalAm\01) MPWSP\11) Logs_x-sec ons\x-sec on_E-E'_rev

North

South

Perched A
Aquifer

100

100

Pacic Ocean

Perched A Aquifer

Salinas Valley Aquitard

SVA

-100

-100
180-Foot Equivalent Aquifer

180-Foot Aquifer

-200

-200
-300

-300
-400

-400

400-Foot Aquifer

-500

-500
-600

Legend

-600
-700

-700
Hydrogeologic Contact
(approximate)

-800

-800

Note:
Wells and logs from
Kennedy/Jenks (2004),
MACTEC (2005), and
USGS WRIR 2-4003 (2002)

-900

-900

Bolded well names are wells


shown on Figure 29; other logs
from previous cross-sec ons

-1,000

6,000

12,000

18,000

24,000

30,000

-1,000

36,000

42,000

48,000

54,000

200
Ver cal Approximate Scale Feet

Projects\ESA_and_ESA-CalAm\01) MPWSP\11) Logs_x-sec ons\x-sec on_F-F'_rev

66,000

60,000

400

72,000

6,000

12,000

Horizontal Approximate Scale Feet

North

South
Salinas Valley
Aquitard

200
100

200
100

Dune Sand Aquifer


Pacic Ocean

0
180-Foot Equivalent Aquifer

-100
-200

-100
-200

180/400-Foot Aquitard

-300

-300

-400

-400
400-Foot Aquifer

-500

-500

-600

-600

-700

Legend

-700

-800

-800
Hydrogeologic Contact
(approximate)

-900

-900

Note:
Wells and logs from
Kennedy/Jenks (2004),
MACTEC (2005), and
USGS WRIR 2-4003 (2002)

-1,000

-1,000

Bolded well names are wells


shown on Figure 29; other logs
from previous cross-sec ons

-1,100

6,000

12,000

18,000

24,000

30,000

-1,100

36,000

42,000

48,000

54,000
0

200
Ver cal Approximate Scale Feet

Projects\ESA_and_ESA-CalAm\01) MPWSP\11) Logs_x-sec ons\Fig_7_x-sec on_G-G'_monterey

400

72,000

66,000

60,000
0

6,000

12,000

Horizontal Approximate Scale Feet

MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT HYDROGEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION


ATTACHMENT 1 - TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM (TM 1) - SUMMARY OF RESULTS - EXPLORATORY BOREHOLES

CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER & RBF CONSULTING

THICKNESS OF
DUNE SAND, PERCHED "A",
AND DELTAIC
DEPOSIT AQUIFERS
(MODEL LAYER 2)

3'
Moss Landing
Project Area

120

Ca
Subm arine
Monterey

80

Elkhorn

140

100

A'

B'
Prunedale

nyon

20

140

EXPLANATION

2'

Boundary of Dune Sand,


Perched "A", and
Deltaic Deposit Aquifers
Castroville

Aquifer Thickness (ft)

20

G
C'
100

80

1' Cross-Section Location

z
A

(See Figures 7-9 and


30-36)

40

North Marina Groundwater


Model Boundary

20

Pac

ific

Oce

an

Pipeline Outfall

Mean High Tide


(DOC et al., 2011)

D'
0
10

CEMEX
Project Area

140
12
0

20

1'

60

60

E'

40

Marina
0
10
40

Salinas

80

Fort Ord
260

240

28 0

220

?
300

32
0

Prepared by: DWB. Map Projection: State Plane 1983, Zone IV.

2014, GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc. All rights reserved.


GIS_proj/mcwsp_cal_am/rbf_boring_tech_memo_7-14/4_Fig_37_layer2_Thickness_7-14.mxd

NORTH

4
Miles

120

8-Jul-14

20

14
0

F'

r
ive

200

180

sR

a
lin
Sa

16 0

G'

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.


P.O. Box 220, Claremont, CA 91711
Tel: (909) 451-6650 Fax: (909) 451-6638
www.gssiwater.com

Figure 37

MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT HYDROGEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION


ATTACHMENT 1 - TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM (TM 1) - SUMMARY OF RESULTS - EXPLORATORY BOREHOLES

CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER & RBF CONSULTING

THICKNESS OF
SALINAS VALLEY
AQUITARD
(MODEL LAYER 3)

3'
40

140

10
0

22 0

B'

60

nyon

Elkhorn

Prunedale

40 20

20

Ca
Subm arine
Monterey

A'

260

18
0

300

80

Moss Landing
Project Area

EXPLANATION

2'

Boundary of Salinas Valley


Aquitard
Castroville

Aquitard Thickness (ft)

20

G
C'

z
A

1' Cross-Section Location

Pipeline Outfall

40

an

60

80

North Marina Groundwater


Model Boundary

Mean High Tide


(DOC et al., 2011)

Pac

80

ific

Oce

(See Figures 7-9 and


30-36)

D'
CEMEX
Project Area

1'

E'
Marina
Salinas

0
10

a
lin
Sa
sR
r
ive

Fort Ord

8-Jul-14
Prepared by: DWB. Map Projection: State Plane 1983, Zone IV.

2014, GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc. All rights reserved.


GIS_proj/mcwsp_cal_am/rbf_boring_tech_memo_7-14/4_Fig_38_layer3_Thickness_7-14.mxd

NORTH

I
F'

4
Miles

G'

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.


P.O. Box 220, Claremont, CA 91711
Tel: (909) 451-6650 Fax: (909) 451-6638
www.gssiwater.com

Figure 38

MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT HYDROGEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION


ATTACHMENT 1 - TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM (TM 1) - SUMMARY OF RESULTS - EXPLORATORY BOREHOLES

CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER & RBF CONSULTING

THICKNESS OF
180-FOOT AND
180-FOOT EQIVALENT
AQUIFERS
(MODEL LAYER 4)

3'
Moss Landing
Project Area

Elkhorn

2
E

nyon

16
0
200

12
0

Ca
Subm arine
Monterey

A'

B'

14
0

Prunedale
10
0

EXPLANATION

40

2'

60
140

Boundary of 180-Foot and


180-Foot Equivalent Aquifers

80

320

Castroville

120

140

z
A
32

C'

1' Cross-Section Location

an

200
36
0

Pac

260

D'

240

24 0

CEMEX
Project Area

Mean High Tide


(DOC et al., 2011)

380

220

ific

North Marina Groundwater


Model Boundary

34
0

100

(See Figures 7-9 and


30-36)

Pipeline Outfall

0
30
0

40

Oce

Aquifer Thickness (ft)

20

1'

280

20

E'
0
Marina
20

Salinas

F'

sR

0
16

280

r
ive

a
lin
Sa

220

26
0

16
0

80

18
0

60

Fort Ord

B
18
0

8-Jul-14
Prepared by: DWB. Map Projection: State Plane 1983, Zone IV.

2014, GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc. All rights reserved.


GIS_proj/mcwsp_cal_am/rbf_boring_tech_memo_7-14/4_Fig_39_layer4_Thickness_7-14.mxd

NORTH

4
Miles

G'

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.


P.O. Box 220, Claremont, CA 91711
Tel: (909) 451-6650 Fax: (909) 451-6638
www.gssiwater.com

Figure 39

MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT HYDROGEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION


ATTACHMENT 1 - TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM (TM 1) - SUMMARY OF RESULTS - EXPLORATORY BOREHOLES

CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER & RBF CONSULTING

THICKNESS OF
180/400-FOOT AQUITARD
(MODEL LAYER 5)

?
3'
Moss Landing
Project Area

A'

Elkhorn

B'
Ca
Subm arine
Monterey

Prunedale

nyon

EXPLANATION

2'

Boundary of 180/480-Foot
Aquitard
Castroville

Aquitard Thickness (ft)

20

G
C'

z
A

1' Cross-Section Location


(See Figures 7-9 and
30-36)

20

40

North Marina Groundwater


Model Boundary

60

ific

Oce

an

60

Pipeline Outfall

Mean High Tide


(DOC et al., 2011)

Pac

40

D'
0
12

140

1'
60

160

18 0

CEMEX
Project Area

80

10
0

E'
Marina
Salinas

20

40

a
lin
Sa

sR

F'

r
ive

Fort Ord

8-Jul-14
Prepared by: DWB. Map Projection: State Plane 1983, Zone IV.

2014, GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc. All rights reserved.


GIS_proj/mcwsp_cal_am/rbf_boring_tech_memo_7-14/4_Fig_40_layer4_Thickness_7-14.mxd

NORTH

4
Miles

G'

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.


P.O. Box 220, Claremont, CA 91711
Tel: (909) 451-6650 Fax: (909) 451-6638
www.gssiwater.com

Figure 40

MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT HYDROGEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION


ATTACHMENT 1 - TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM (TM 1) - SUMMARY OF RESULTS - EXPLORATORY BOREHOLES

CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER & RBF CONSULTING

THICKNESS OF
400-FOOT AQUIFER
(MODEL LAYER 6)

?
3'
Moss Landing
Project Area

A'

Elkhorn

B'
nyon

Prunedale
400

Ca
Subm arine
Monterey

E
0
25

550

EXPLANATION

2'
0
35

250

500

Boundary of 400-Foot Aquifer


450

Castroville

Aquifer Thickness (ft)

20

G
30
0

z
A

C'

1' Cross-Section Location


(See Figures 7-9 and
30-36)

100

North Marina Groundwater


Model Boundary

Pac

350

100

ific

Oce

150

0
20

an

15 0

Pipeline Outfall

Mean High Tide


(DOC et al., 2011)

40 0

D'

300

200

CEMEX
Project Area

1'

20 0

E'

Marina
50

Salinas
300

a
lin
Sa

350

F'

sR

Fort Ord

250

r
ive

40
0

45 0

8-Jul-14
Prepared by: DWB. Map Projection: State Plane 1983, Zone IV.

2014, GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc. All rights reserved.


GIS_proj/mcwsp_cal_am/rbf_boring_tech_memo_7-14/4_Fig_41_layer6_Thickness_7-14.mxd

NORTH

4
Miles

G'

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.


P.O. Box 220, Claremont, CA 91711
Tel: (909) 451-6650 Fax: (909) 451-6638
www.gssiwater.com

Figure 41

MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT HYDROGEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION


ATTACHMENT 1 - TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM (TM 1) - SUMMARY OF RESULTS - EXPLORATORY BOREHOLES

CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER & RBF CONSULTING

THICKNESS OF
400/900-FOOT AQUITARD
(MODEL LAYER 7)

?
3'
60

A'

100

10
0

Moss Landing
Project Area

Elkhorn

B'
Ca
Subm arine
Monterey

Prunedale

nyon

EXPLANATION

2'
80

0
12

Boundary of 400/900-Foot
Aquitard and
North Marina Groundwater
Model Boundary

0
10

Castroville

Aquitard Thickness (ft)

20

C'

100

z
A

1' Cross-Section Location

80

160

(See Figures 7-9 and


30-36)

Pipeline Outfall
Mean High Tide
(DOC et al., 2011)

Pac

ific

Oce

an

60

D'
CEMEX
Project Area

1'

E'
Marina
60

100

140

80

I
F'

r
ive

40

sR

20

a
lin
Sa

12 0

Salinas

Fort Ord

8-Jul-14
Prepared by: DWB. Map Projection: State Plane 1983, Zone IV.

2014, GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc. All rights reserved.


GIS_proj/mcwsp_cal_am/rbf_boring_tech_memo_7-14/4_Fig_42_layer7_Thickness_7-14.mxd

NORTH

4
Miles

G'

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.


P.O. Box 220, Claremont, CA 91711
Tel: (909) 451-6650 Fax: (909) 451-6638
www.gssiwater.com

Figure 42

MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT HYDROGEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION


ATTACHMENT 1 - TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM (TM 1) - SUMMARY OF RESULTS - EXPLORATORY BOREHOLES

CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER & RBF CONSULTING

THICKNESS OF
900-FOOT AQUIFER
(MODEL LAYER 8)

?
500

3'
800

300

0
90

Moss Landing
Project Area

A'

400
700

Elkhorn

0
50

600

B'
nyon

Prunedale

2'

EXPLANATION

300

Ca
Subm arine
Monterey

40 0

Boundary of 900-Foot Aquifer


and North Marina Groundater
Model Boundary

Castroville

Aquifer Thickness (ft)

20

G
200

C'

500

z
A

1' Cross-Section Location


(See Figures 7-9 and
30-36)

700

600

Mean High Tide


(DOC et al., 2011)

Pac

ific

800

Oce

an

Pipeline Outfall

D'
CEMEX
Project Area

1'

600

300

E'

Marina
800

700

400

900

Salinas

10
0

Prepared by: DWB. Map Projection: State Plane 1983, Zone IV.

2014, GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc. All rights reserved.


GIS_proj/mcwsp_cal_am/rbf_boring_tech_memo_7-14/4_Fig_43_layer8_Thickness_7-14.mxd

NORTH

60
0

Fort Ord

4
Miles

F'

r
ive

20
0

8-Jul-14

800

sR

a
lin
Sa

70
0

?
40
0

500
300

G'

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.


P.O. Box 220, Claremont, CA 91711
Tel: (909) 451-6650 Fax: (909) 451-6638
www.gssiwater.com

Figure 43

Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Attachment 1 - Technical Memorandum (TM 1) - Summary of Results - Exploratory Boreholes

Sediment Texture versus Horizontal and Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity Values


Dune Sand/Perched "A" Aquifer near Potrero Road Site
1000

Percentage of coarse-grained deposits is 93% for Dune


Sand/Perched "A" Aquifer near the Potrero Road Site. Therefore,
the horizontal hydraulic conductivity was calculated ranging from
367 to 1,205 ft/day with an average of 786 ft/day.

Hydraulic Conductivity, ft/day

100

Percentage of coarse-grained deposits is 93% for Dune Sand/Perched


"A" Aquifer near the Potrero Road Site. Therefore, the vertical
hydraulic conductivity was calculated ranging from 0.92 to 1.52
ft/day with an average of 1.22 ft/day.

10

1
Horizontal K - High Estimate
Horizontal K - Low Estimate
Vertical K - High Estimate
Vertical K - Low Estimate

0.1

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Percentage of Coarse-Grained Deposits


8-Jul-14

70%

80%

90%

100%

Figure 47

0.01

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.

Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Attachment 1 - Technical Memorandum (TM 1) - Summary of Results - Exploratory Boreholes

Sediment Texture versus Horizontal and Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity Values


Dune Sand/Perched "A" Aquifer near Moss Landing Site
1000

Hydraulic Conductivity, ft/day

100
Percentage of coarse-grained deposits is 49% for Dune
Sand/Perched "A" Aquifer near the Moss Landing Site.
Therefore, the horizontal hydraulic conductivity was
calculated ranging from 101 to 333 ft/day with an
average of 217 ft/day.

10

Percentage of coarse-grained deposits is 49%


for Dune Sand/Perched "A" Aquifer near the
Moss Landing Site. Therefore, the vertical
hydraulic conductivity was calculated ranging
from 0.04 to 0.06 ft/day with an average of
0.05 ft/day.

0.1
Horizontal K - High Estimate
Horizontal K - Low Estimate
Vertical K - High Estimate

0.01
0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Percentage of Coarse-Grained Deposits


8-Jul-14

70%

80%

90%

100%

Figure 46

Vertical K - Low Estimate

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.

Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Attachment 1 - Technical Memorandum (TM 1) - Summary of Results - Exploratory Boreholes

Sediment Texture versus Horizontal and Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity Values


180-Foot Equivalent Aquifer near CEMEX Site
1000
Percentage of coarse-grained deposits is 78% for 180-Foot Equivalent Aquifer near the CEMEX
Site. Therefore, the horizontal hydraulic conductivity was calculated ranging from 71 to 216
ft/day with an average of 143 ft/day.

Hydraulic Conductivity, ft/day

100

Horizontal K - High Estimate

10

Horizontal K - Low Estimate


Vertical K - High Estimate
Vertical K - Low Estimate

Percentage of coarse-grained deposits is 78% for 180-Foot Equivalent Aquifer near the
CEMEX Site. Therefore, the vertical hydraulic conductivity was calculated ranging from
0.11 to 0.21 ft/day with an average of 0.16 ft/day.

0.1

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Percentage of Coarse-Grained Deposits


8-Jul-14

70%

80%

90%

100%

Figure 45

0.01

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.

Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Attachment 1 - Technical Memorandum (TM 1) - Summary of Results - Exploratory Boreholes

Sediment Texture versus Horizontal and Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity Values


Dune Sand Aquifer near CEMEX Site
1000
Percentage of coarse-grained deposits is 98% for Dune Sand Aquifer near the CEMEX Site. Therefore, the
horizontal hydraulic conductivity was calculated ranging from 109 to 304 ft/day with an average of 207 ft/day.

Hydraulic Conductivity, ft/day

100

10
Percentage of coarse-grained deposits is 98% for Dune Sand Aquifer near the CEMEX
Site. Therefore, the vertical hydraulic conductivity was calculated ranging from 8.16 to
11.87 ft/day with an average of 10.02 ft/day.

1
Horizontal K - High Estimate
Horizontal K - Low Estimate
Vertical K - High Estimate
Vertical K - Low Estimate

0.1

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Percentage of Coarse-Grained Deposits


8-Jul-14

70%

80%

90%

100%

Figure 44

0.01

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.

TABLES

Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Attachment 1 - Technical Memorandum (TM 1) - Summary of Results - Exploratory Boreholes

Table 1

Hydraulic Conductivity Calculations

Method

Sample Type

K Direction

Hydraulic
Conductivity, K
[ft/day]

Lithology

79-79.5

Hazen

MGA

Horizontal

86

SM: Silty Sand

79-79.5

Krumbein-Monk

MGA

Horizontal

45

SM: Silty Sand

79-79.5

Kozeny-Carman

MGA

Horizontal

130

SM: Silty Sand

Borehole

Interval
[ft bgs]

CX-B1
CX-B1
CX-B1

Average :
CX-B1

88-88.5

Hazen

MGA

Horizontal

535

SW: Well-Graded Sand

CX-B1

88-88.5

Krumbein-Monk

MGA

Horizontal

491

SW: Well-Graded Sand

CX-B1

88-88.5

Kozeny-Carman

MGA

Horizontal

2,115

SW: Well-Graded Sand

Average :

1,047

CX-B1

104.5-105

Hazen

MGA

Horizontal

79

SM: Silty Sand

CX-B1

104.5-105

Krumbein-Monk

MGA

Horizontal

40

SM: Silty Sand

CX-B1

104.5-105

Kozeny-Carman

MGA

Horizontal

112

SM: Silty Sand

Average :

77

CX-B1

115-116

Hazen

MGA

Horizontal

351

SW: Well-Graded Sand

CX-B1

115-116

Krumbein-Monk

MGA

Horizontal

249

SW: Well-Graded Sand

CX-B1

115-116

Kozeny-Carman

MGA

Horizontal

624

SW: Well-Graded Sand

CX-B1

187-188

Hazen

MGA

Horizontal

150

SM: Silty Sand

CX-B1

187-188

Krumbein-Monk

MGA

Horizontal

127

SM: Silty Sand

CX-B1

187-188

Kozeny-Carman

MGA

Horizontal

344

SM: Silty Sand

CX-B1

245-245

Hazen

MGA

Horizontal

399

GW: Gravel

CX-B1

245-245

Krumbein-Monk

MGA

Horizontal

334

GW: Gravel

CX-B1

245-245

Kozeny-Carman

MGA

Horizontal

849

GW: Gravel

CX-B1

295-296

Hazen

MGA

Horizontal

176

SP: Sand with Gravel

CX-B1

295-296

Krumbein-Monk

MGA

Horizontal

176

SP: Sand with Gravel

CX-B1

295-296

Kozeny-Carman

MGA

Horizontal

549

SP: Sand with Gravel

CX-B2

53

Hazen

MGA

Horizontal

371

SW: Well-Graded Sand

CX-B2

53

Krumbein-Monk

MGA

Horizontal

292

SW: Well-Graded Sand

CX-B2

53

Kozeny-Carman

MGA

Horizontal

770

SW: Well-Graded Sand

CX-B2

116

Hazen

MGA

Horizontal

24

SM: Silty Sand

CX-B2

116

Krumbein-Monk

MGA

Horizontal

16

SM: Silty Sand

CX-B2

116

Kozeny-Carman

MGA

Horizontal

65

SM: Silty Sand

CX-B2

141

Hazen

MGA

Horizontal

117

SP: Sand

CX-B2

141

Krumbein-Monk

MGA

Horizontal

95

SP: Sand

CX-B2

141

Kozeny-Carman

MGA

Horizontal

241

SP: Sand

Average :

Average :

Average :

Average :

Average :

Average :

Average :
CX-B2

8-Jul-14

87

203

Hazen

MGA

Horizontal

1 of 6

408

207

527

300

477

35

151
102

SP: Sand

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.

Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Attachment 1 - Technical Memorandum (TM 1) - Summary of Results - Exploratory Boreholes

Table 1

Hydraulic Conductivity Calculations

Borehole

Interval
[ft bgs]

Method

Sample Type

K Direction

Hydraulic
Conductivity, K
[ft/day]

Lithology

CX-B2

203

Krumbein-Monk

MGA

Horizontal

72

SP: Sand

CX-B2

203

Kozeny-Carman

MGA

Horizontal

181

SP: Sand

Average :
CX-B2

273

Hazen

MGA

Horizontal

258

SW: Well-Graded Sand

CX-B2

273

Krumbein-Monk

MGA

Horizontal

206

SW: Well-Graded Sand

CX-B2

273

Kozeny-Carman

MGA

Horizontal

725

SW: Well-Graded Sand

CX-B3

45

Hazen

MGA

Horizontal

99

SP: Sand

CX-B3

45

Krumbein-Monk

MGA

Horizontal

74

SP: Sand

CX-B3

45

Kozeny-Carman

MGA

Horizontal

224

SP: Sand

CX-B3

121

Hazen

MGA

Horizontal

26

SM: Silty Sand

CX-B3

121

Krumbein-Monk

MGA

Horizontal

21

SM: Silty Sand

CX-B3

121

Kozeny-Carman

MGA

Horizontal

69

SM: Silty Sand

CX-B3

240

Hazen

MGA

Horizontal

191

SP: Sand

CX-B3

240

Krumbein-Monk

MGA

Horizontal

130

SP: Sand

CX-B3

240

Kozeny-Carman

MGA

Horizontal

509

SP: Sand

CX-B3

291

Hazen

MGA

Horizontal

373

SW: Well-Graded Sand

CX-B3

291

Krumbein-Monk

MGA

Horizontal

191

SW: Well-Graded Sand

CX-B3

291

Kozeny-Carman

MGA

Horizontal

829

SW: Well-Graded Sand

CX-B3

312

Hazen

MGA

Horizontal

258

SP: Sand

CX-B3

312

Krumbein-Monk

MGA

Horizontal

206

SP: Sand

CX-B3

312

Kozeny-Carman

MGA

Horizontal

725

SP: Sand

CX-B4

46-47

Hazen

MGA

Horizontal

374

SP: Sand

CX-B4

46-47

Krumbein-Monk

MGA

Horizontal

230

SP: Sand

CX-B4

46-47

Kozeny-Carman

MGA

Horizontal

628

SP: Sand

Average :

Average :

Average :

Average :

Average :

Average :

Average :

396

132

39

277

464

396

411

CX-B4

72-73

Hazen

MGA

Horizontal

45

SP: Sand

CX-B4

72-73

Krumbein-Monk

MGA

Horizontal

40

SP: Sand

CX-B4

72-73

Kozeny-Carman

MGA

Horizontal

102

SP: Sand

Average :

62

CX-B4

115-116

Hazen

MGA

Horizontal

31

SP: Sand

CX-B4

115-116

Krumbein-Monk

MGA

Horizontal

25

SP: Sand

CX-B4

115-116

Kozeny-Carman

MGA

Horizontal

74

SP: Sand

Average :

8-Jul-14

118

43

CX-B4

190-191

Hazen

MGA

Horizontal

121

SP: Sand

CX-B4

190-191

Krumbein-Monk

MGA

Horizontal

97

SP: Sand

2 of 6

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.

Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Attachment 1 - Technical Memorandum (TM 1) - Summary of Results - Exploratory Boreholes

Table 1

Hydraulic Conductivity Calculations

Borehole

Interval
[ft bgs]

Method

Sample Type

K Direction

Hydraulic
Conductivity, K
[ft/day]

Lithology

CX-B4

190-191

Kozeny-Carman

MGA

Horizontal

248

SP: Sand

CX-B4

248-249

Hazen

MGA

Horizontal

202

SP: Sand

CX-B4

248-249

Krumbein-Monk

MGA

Horizontal

163

SP: Sand

CX-B4

248-249

Kozeny-Carman

MGA

Horizontal

380

SP: Sand

Average :

Average :

248

MDW-1

22-23

Hazen

MGA

Horizontal

163

SP: Sand

MDW-1

22-23

Krumbein-Monk

MGA

Horizontal

135

SP: Sand

MDW-1

22-23

Kozeny-Carman

MGA

Horizontal

300

SP: Sand

Average :

199

MDW-1

59-60

Hazen

MGA

Horizontal

113

SP: Sand

MDW-1

59-60

Krumbein-Monk

MGA

Horizontal

90

SP: Sand

MDW-1

59-60

Kozeny-Carman

MGA

Horizontal

224

SP: Sand

Average :

142

MDW-1

70-71

Hazen

MGA

Horizontal

385

SP: Sand

MDW-1

70-71

Krumbein-Monk

MGA

Horizontal

250

SP: Sand

MDW-1

70-71

Kozeny-Carman

MGA

Horizontal

730

SP: Sand

Average :

455

MDW-1

153-154

Hazen

MGA

Horizontal

394

SP: Sand with Gravel

MDW-1

153-154

Krumbein-Monk

MGA

Horizontal

302

SP: Sand with Gravel

MDW-1

153-154

Kozeny-Carman

MGA

Horizontal

984

SP: Sand with Gravel

Average :

560

MDW-1

181-182

Hazen

MGA

Horizontal

202

SP: Sand

MDW-1

181-182

Krumbein-Monk

MGA

Horizontal

161

SP: Sand

MDW-1

181-182

Kozeny-Carman

MGA

Horizontal

553

SP: Sand

Average :

305

ML-1

52-53

Hazen

MGA

Horizontal

411

SP: Sand

ML-1

52-53

Krumbein-Monk

MGA

Horizontal

227

SP: Sand

ML-1

52-53

Kozeny-Carman

MGA

Horizontal

951

SP: Sand

Average :
ML-1

58-59

Hazen

MGA

Horizontal

ML-1

58-59

ML-1

58-59

Krumbein-Monk

MGA

Kozeny-Carman

MGA

530
75

SP: Sand

Horizontal

51

SP: Sand

Horizontal

124

SP: Sand

Average :
ML-1

65-66

Hazen

MGA

Horizontal

ML-1

65-66

Krumbein-Monk

MGA

ML-1

65-66

Kozeny-Carman

MGA

83
85

SP: Sand

Horizontal

57

SP: Sand

Horizontal

140

SP: Sand

Average :

8-Jul-14

156

94

ML-1

88-89

Hazen

MGA

Horizontal

185

SP: Sand

ML-1

88-89

Krumbein-Monk

MGA

Horizontal

134

SP: Sand

ML-1

88-89

Kozeny-Carman

MGA

Horizontal

521

SP: Sand

3 of 6

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.

Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Attachment 1 - Technical Memorandum (TM 1) - Summary of Results - Exploratory Boreholes

Table 1

Hydraulic Conductivity Calculations

Borehole

Interval
[ft bgs]

Method

Sample Type

K Direction
Average :

Lithology

280

ML-1

104-106

Hazen

MGA

Horizontal

125

SP: Sand

ML-1

104-106

Krumbein-Monk

MGA

Horizontal

93

SP: Sand

ML-1

104-106

Kozeny-Carman

MGA

Horizontal

312

SP: Sand

Average :
ML-1

108-109

Hazen

MGA

Horizontal

ML-1

108-109

Krumbein-Monk

MGA

ML-1

108-109

Kozeny-Carman

MGA

SP-SM: Sand with Silt and Gravel

Horizontal

445

SP-SM: Sand with Silt and Gravel

Horizontal

1,322

SP-SM: Sand with Silt and Gravel

ML-1

117-118

Hazen

MGA

Horizontal

ML-1

117-118

Krumbein-Monk

MGA

ML-1

117-118

Kozeny-Carman

MGA

24-24.5

Hazen

ML-2

24-24.5

ML-2

24-24.5

ML-2

738
469

SP: Sand with Gravel

Horizontal

654

SP: Sand with Gravel

Horizontal

1,175

SP: Sand with Gravel

Average :
ML-2

177
445

Average :

766

MGA

Horizontal

Krumbein-Monk

MGA

Horizontal

383

SW: Well-Graded Sand

Kozeny-Carman

MGA

Horizontal

1,090

SW: Well-Graded Sand

50-50.5

Hazen

MGA

Horizontal

ML-2

50-50.5

Krumbein-Monk

MGA

ML-2

50-50.5

Kozeny-Carman

MGA

Average :

497

SW: Well-Graded Sand

656
92

SP: Sand

Horizontal

56

SP: Sand

Horizontal

151

SP: Sand

Average :

100

ML-2

110.5-111

Hazen

MGA

Horizontal

517

SW: Well-Graded Sand with Gravel

ML-2

110.5-111

Krumbein-Monk

MGA

Horizontal

484

SW: Well-Graded Sand with Gravel

ML-2

110.5-111

Kozeny-Carman

MGA

Horizontal

949

SW: Well-Graded Sand with Gravel

Average :

650

ML-2

152-152.5

Hazen

MGA

Horizontal

21

SP: Sand

ML-2

152-152.5

Krumbein-Monk

MGA

Horizontal

12

SP: Sand

ML-2

152-152.5

Kozeny-Carman

MGA

Horizontal

53

SP: Sand

Average :

29

ML-2

188.5-189

Hazen

MGA

Horizontal

30

SP-SM: Sand with Silt

ML-2

188.5-189

Krumbein-Monk

MGA

Horizontal

18

SP-SM: Sand with Silt

ML-2

188.5-189

Kozeny-Carman

MGA

Horizontal

93

SP-SM: Sand with Silt

Average :

47

ML-3

109.5-110

Hazen

MGA

Horizontal

95

SP: Sand

ML-3

109.5-110

Krumbein-Monk

MGA

Horizontal

60

SP: Sand

ML-3

109.5-110

Kozeny-Carman

MGA

Horizontal

214

SP: Sand

Average :

123

ML-3

111.5-112

Hazen

MGA

Horizontal

337

SP: Sand

ML-3

111.5-112

Krumbein-Monk

MGA

Horizontal

273

SP: Sand

ML-3

111.5-112

Kozeny-Carman

MGA

Horizontal

914

SP: Sand

Average :

8-Jul-14

Hydraulic
Conductivity, K
[ft/day]

4 of 6

508

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.

Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Attachment 1 - Technical Memorandum (TM 1) - Summary of Results - Exploratory Boreholes

Table 1

Hydraulic Conductivity Calculations

Borehole

Interval
[ft bgs]

Method

Sample Type

K Direction

Hydraulic
Conductivity, K
[ft/day]

Lithology

ML-3

182.5-183

Hazen

MGA

Horizontal

446

SW-SC: Sand with Clay and Gravel

ML-3

182.5-183

Krumbein-Monk

MGA

Horizontal

452

SW-SC: Sand with Clay and Gravel

ML-3

182.5-183

Kozeny-Carman

MGA

Horizontal

1,511

SW-SC: Sand with Clay and Gravel

Average :
ML-3

189-189.5

Hazen

MGA

Horizontal

118

SP: Sand

ML-3

189-189.5

Krumbein-Monk

MGA

Horizontal

95

SP: Sand

ML-3

189-189.5

Kozeny-Carman

MGA

Horizontal

355

SP: Sand

Average :

189

ML-3

195-195.5

Hazen

MGA

Horizontal

192

SW: Well-Graded Sand with Gravel

ML-3

195-195.5

Krumbein-Monk

MGA

Horizontal

367

SW: Well-Graded Sand with Gravel

ML-3

195-195.5

Kozeny-Carman

MGA

Horizontal

480

SW: Well-Graded Sand with Gravel

Average :

346

ML-4

28-28.5

Hazen

MGA

Horizontal

164

SP: Sand

ML-4

28-28.5

Krumbein-Monk

MGA

Horizontal

171

SP: Sand

ML-4

28-28.5

Kozeny-Carman

MGA

Horizontal

468

SP: Sand

Average :

268

ML-4

71-71.5

Hazen

MGA

Horizontal

25

SP: Sand

ML-4

71-71.5

Krumbein-Monk

MGA

Horizontal

21

SP: Sand

ML-4

71-71.5

Kozeny-Carman

MGA

Horizontal

79

SP: Sand

Average :

42

ML-4

112-112.5

Hazen

MGA

Horizontal

152

SP: Sand

ML-4

112-112.5

Krumbein-Monk

MGA

Horizontal

129

SP: Sand

ML-4

112-112.5

Kozeny-Carman

MGA

Horizontal

345

SP: Sand

Average :

208

ML-4

152-152.5

Hazen

MGA

Horizontal

189

SP: Sand

ML-4

152-152.5

Krumbein-Monk

MGA

Horizontal

229

SP: Sand

ML-4

152-152.5

Kozeny-Carman

MGA

Horizontal

785

SP: Sand

Average :

401

ML-4

180-180.5

Hazen

MGA

Horizontal

89

SP: Sand

ML-4

180-180.5

Krumbein-Monk

MGA

Horizontal

63

SP: Sand

ML-4

180-180.5

Kozeny-Carman

MGA

Horizontal

296

SP: Sand

ML-6

94-94.5

Hazen

MGA

Horizontal

48

SP-SM: Sand with Silt

ML-6

94-94.5

Krumbein-Monk

MGA

Horizontal

49

SP-SM: Sand with Silt

ML-6

94-94.5

Kozeny-Carman

MGA

Horizontal

178

SP-SM: Sand with Silt

ML-6

104-104.5

Hazen

MGA

Horizontal

306

SW: Well-Graded Sand

ML-6

104-104.5

Krumbein-Monk

MGA

Horizontal

149

SW: Well-Graded Sand

ML-6

104-104.5

Kozeny-Carman

MGA

Horizontal

610

SW: Well-Graded Sand

ML-6

121-121.5

Hazen

MGA

Horizontal

Average :

Average :

Average :

8-Jul-14

803

5 of 6

149

91

355
37

SP: Sand

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.

Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Attachment 1 - Technical Memorandum (TM 1) - Summary of Results - Exploratory Boreholes

Table 1

Hydraulic Conductivity Calculations

Borehole

Interval
[ft bgs]

Method

Sample Type

K Direction

Hydraulic
Conductivity, K
[ft/day]

Lithology

ML-6

121-121.5

Krumbein-Monk

MGA

Horizontal

28

SP: Sand

ML-6

121-121.5

Kozeny-Carman

MGA

Horizontal

83

SP: Sand

Average :
ML-6

141-141.5

Hazen

MGA

Horizontal

36

SP: Sand

ML-6

141-141.5

Krumbein-Monk

MGA

Horizontal

29

SP: Sand

ML-6

141-141.5

Kozeny-Carman

MGA

Horizontal

88

SP: Sand

ML-6

166-166.5

Hazen

MGA

Horizontal

43

SP: Sand

ML-6

166-166.5

Krumbein-Monk

MGA

Horizontal

38

SP: Sand

ML-6

166-166.5

Kozeny-Carman

MGA

Horizontal

106

SP: Sand

PR-1

56-57

Hazen

MGA

Horizontal

271

SP: Sand

PR-1

56-57

Krumbein-Monk

MGA

Horizontal

165

SP: Sand

PR-1

56-57

Kozeny-Carman

MGA

Horizontal

396

SP: Sand

PR-1

66-67

Hazen

MGA

Horizontal

328

SP: Sand with Gravel

PR-1

66-67

Krumbein-Monk

MGA

Horizontal

302

SP: Sand with Gravel

PR-1

66-67

Kozeny-Carman

MGA

Horizontal

561

SP: Sand with Gravel

PR-1

76-77

Hazen

MGA

Horizontal

311

SM: Silty Sand with Gravel

PR-1

76-77

Krumbein-Monk

MGA

Horizontal

836

SM: Silty Sand with Gravel

PR-1

76-77

Kozeny-Carman

MGA

Horizontal

1,150

SM: Silty Sand with Gravel

PR-1

110-111

Hazen

MGA

Horizontal

699

PR-1

110-111

Krumbein-Monk

MGA

Horizontal

703

SW: Well-Graded Sand with Gravel

PR-1

110-111

Kozeny-Carman

MGA

Horizontal

1,148

SW: Well-Graded Sand with Gravel

PR-1

124-125

Hazen

MGA

Horizontal

1,055

SW: Well-Graded Sand

PR-1

124-125

Krumbein-Monk

MGA

Horizontal

9,561

SW: Well-Graded Sand

PR-1

124-125

Kozeny-Carman

MGA

Horizontal

2,579

SW: Well-Graded Sand

Average :

Average :

Average :

Average :

Average :

Average :

Average :

51

62

277

397

766
SW: Well-Graded Sand with Gravel

850

4,398

PR-1

188-189

Hazen

MGA

Horizontal

160

SM: Silty Sand

PR-1

188-189

Krumbein-Monk

MGA

Horizontal

160

SM: Silty Sand

PR-1

188-189

Kozeny-Carman

MGA

Horizontal

429

SM: Silty Sand

Average :

249

PR-1

197-198

Hazen

MGA

Horizontal

170

SM: Silty Sand

PR-1

197-198

Krumbein-Monk

MGA

Horizontal

132

SM: Silty Sand

PR-1

197-198

Kozeny-Carman

MGA

Horizontal

413

SM: Silty Sand

Average :

8-Jul-14

49

6 of 6

238

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.

Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Attachment 1 - Technical Memorandum (TM 1) - Summary of Results - Exploratory Boreholes

Summary of Horizontal and Vertical Permeability Test


Permeability, K
[ft/day]

Lithology

Core

Vertical

0.782

SM: Silty Sand

Core

Horizontal

4.337

SM: Silty Sand

Core

Vertical

1.380

SM: Silty Sand

Core

Horizontal

1.729

SM: Silty Sand

EPA9100

Core

Vertical

0.005

CL: Clay

207.5-208

EPA9100

Core

Vertical

10.657

SP: Sand

CX-B2

207.5-208

EPA9100

Core

Horizontal

3.997

SP: Sand

CX-B2

259-259.5

EPA9100

Core

Vertical

0.005

CL: Clay

CX-B3

107.5-108

EPA9100

Core

Vertical

14.909

SP: Sand with Gravel

CX-B3

107.5-108

EPA9100

Core

Horizontal

14.512

SP: Sand with Gravel

CX-B3

129-129.5

EPA9100

Core

Vertical

0.008

CH: Fat Clay

CX-B3

197.5-198

EPA9100

Core

Vertical

0.283

SP: Sand

CX-B3

197.5-198

EPA9100

Core

Horizontal

1.797

SP: Sand

ML-1

76-76.5

EPA9100

Core

Vertical

0.014

CH: Fat Clay

ML-1

107.5-108

EPA9100

Core

Vertical

24.149

SP-SM: Sand with Silt and Gravel

ML-1

107.5-108

EPA9100

Core

Horizontal

17.744

SP-SM: Sand with Silt and Gravel

ML-1

147-147.5

EPA9100

Core

Vertical

0.006

CL: Clay

ML-2

87-87.5

EPA9100

Core

Vertical

0.283

CL: Clay

Interval
[ft bgs]

Method

Sample Type

CX-B1

66.5-67

EPA9100

CX-B1

66.5-67

EPA9100

CX-B1

166.5-167

EPA9100

CX-B1

166.5-167

EPA9100

CX-B1

257.5-258

CX-B2

ML-2

117.5-118

EPA9100

Core

Vertical

0.133

SP-SM: Sand with Silt

ML-2

117.5-118

EPA9100

Core

Horizontal

0.312

SP-SM: Sand with Silt

ML-2

157.5-158

EPA9100

Core

Vertical

0.312

SP: Sand

ML-2

157.5-158

EPA9100

Core

Horizontal

9.099

SP: Sand

ML-3

106.5-107

EPA9100

Core

Vertical

5.300

SP: Sand

ML-3

106.5-107

EPA9100

Core

Horizontal

2.387

SP: Sand

ML-3

166.5-167

EPA9100

Core

Vertical

0.027

ML: Silt

1 of 2

Table 2

8-Jul-14

K Direction

Borehole

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.

Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Attachment 1 - Technical Memorandum (TM 1) - Summary of Results - Exploratory Boreholes

Summary of Horizontal and Vertical Permeability Test


Borehole

Interval
[ft bgs]

Method

Sample Type

K Direction

Permeability, K
[ft/day]

Lithology

ML-3

166.5-167

EPA9100

Core

Horizontal

0.021

ML: Silt
SP: Sand

ML-4

76.5-77

EPA9100

Core

Vertical

2.690

ML-4

76.5-77

EPA9100

Core

Horizontal

2.460

SP: Sand

ML-4

126.5-127

EPA9100

Core

Vertical

0.003

CH: Fat Clay

ML-4

146.5-147

EPA9100

Core

Vertical

17.290

SP: Sand

ML-4

146.5-147

EPA9100

Core

Horizontal

36.564

SP: Sand

ML-6

79.5-80

EPA9100

Core

Vertical

0.007

CL: Clay

ML-6

107.5-108

EPA9100

Core

Vertical

13.180

SW: Well-Graded Sand with Gravel

ML-6

107.5-108

EPA9100

Core

Horizontal

11.338

SW: Well-Graded Sand with Gravel

ML-6

167.5-168

EPA9100

Core

Vertical

0.205

SM: Silty Sand

ML-6

167.5-168

EPA9100

Core

Horizontal

0.368

SM: Silty Sand

PR-1

67-67.5

EPA 9100

Core

Vertical

0.259

SP: Sand with Gravel

PR-1

67-67.5

EPA 9100

Core

Horizontal

0.171

SP: Sand with Gravel


CL: Clay

PR-1

145.5-146

EPA 9100

Core

Vertical

0.006

PR-1

152-152.5

EPA 9100

Core

Vertical

0.006

CL: Clay

PR-1

200.5-201

EPA 9100

Core

Vertical

14.456

Not Determined

PR-1

200.5-201

EPA 9100

Core

Horizontal

0.774

Not Determined

Table 2

8-Jul-14

2 of 2

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.

Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Technical Memorandum (TM 1) - Summary of Results - Exploratory Boreholes

Table 3A
Summary of Isolated Aquifer Zone Testing Field and Laboratory Water Quality Results - Moss Landing Area

Borehole:
Zone #:
Screen Interval (ft bgs):
Sample Date:
1
Constituent
Units
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
g/L
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
g/L
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
g/L
1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane
g/L
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
g/L
1,1-Dichloroethane
g/L
1,1-Dichloroethene
g/L
1,1-Dichloropropene
g/L
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene
g/L
1,2,3-Trichloropropane
g/L
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
g/L
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
g/L
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
g/L
1,2-Dichlorobenzene-d4
g/L
1,2-Dichloroethane
g/L
1,2-Dichloropropane
g/L
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
g/L
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
g/L
1,3-Dichloropropane
g/L
1,3-Dichloropropene, Total
g/L
g/L
1,3-Dimethyl-2-nitrobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
g/L
1-Br-2-Nitrobenzene
g/L
2,2-Dichloropropane
g/L
2,4,5-T
g/L
2,4,5-TP (Silvex)
g/L
2,4-D
g/L
2,4-DB
g/L
2,4-DCAA
g/L
2-Butanone
g/L
2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether
g/L
2-Chlorotoluene
g/L
2-Hexanone
g/L
3,5-Dichlorobenzoic acid
g/L
3-Hydroxycarbofuran
g/L
4,4-DDD
g/L
4,4-DDE
g/L
4,4-DDT
g/L
4-Chlorotoluene
g/L
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
g/L
Acetone
g/L
Acifluorfen
g/L
Alachlor
g/L
Aldicarb
g/L
Aldicarb Sulfone
g/L
Aldicarb Sulfoxide
g/L
Aldrin
g/L
Alkalinity as CaCO3
mg/L
alpha-BHC
g/L
Aluminum
g/L
Ammonia as N, Dissolved
mg/L
AMPA
g/L
Aroclor 1016
g/L
Aroclor 1221
g/L
Aroclor 1232
g/L

8-Jul-14

PR-1
1
190 - 200
24-Sep-13
Result
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
4.6
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
5.2
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
190
ND
0.14
110
-

2
125 - 135
25-Sep-13
Result
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
4.8
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
5.1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
150
68
0.78
110
-

ML-1
1
2
113.5 - 118.5
90 - 100
5-Oct-13
7-Oct-13
Result
Result
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
4.7
4.8
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
5.6
5.3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
330
320
ND
150
15
7.5
110
100
-

ML-2
1
167 - 177
17-Dec-13
Result
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
4.6
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
4.6
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
750
82
14
87
-

ML-3
2
90 - 100
19-Dec-13
Result
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
7.81
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
5.0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
180
ND
1.0
100
-

1
180 - 190
11-Jan-14
Result
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
9.69
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
5.31
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
9.66
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
210
ND
950
10
ND
ND
ND

Page 1 of 5

2
103 - 113
13-Jan-14
Result
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
10.1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
5.34
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
9.96
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
190
ND
47
1.7
ND
ND
ND

ML-4
1
2
163.5 - 173.5
74.5 - 84.5
5-Dec-13
6-Dec-13
Result
Result
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
4.8
8.06
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
4.9
4.94
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
8.27
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
460
200
ND
ND
17
9.5
1.7
95
ND
ND
ND

ML-6
1
152 - 162
22-Nov-13
Result
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
4.6
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
4.8
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
560
52
6.8
100
-

2
100 - 110
23-Nov-13
Result
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
4.8
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
4.7
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
410
ND
1.9
95
-

1
237 - 247
1-May-14
Result
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
5.3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
4.7
ND
0.42
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
158
ND
120
ND
93
ND
ND
ND

MDW-1
2
3
187 - 197
152 - 162
7-May-14
8-May-14
Result
Result
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
4.9
5.0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
5.1
4.7
ND
ND
0.48
0.47
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
176
149
ND
ND
62
147
3.22
3.40
100
110
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

4
60 - 70
10-May-14
Result
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
5.1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
5.0
ND
0.47
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
118
ND
ND
ND
110
ND
ND
ND

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.

Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Technical Memorandum (TM 1) - Summary of Results - Exploratory Boreholes

Table 3A
Summary of Isolated Aquifer Zone Testing Field and Laboratory Water Quality Results - Moss Landing Area

Borehole:
Zone #:
Screen Interval (ft bgs):
Sample Date:
1
Constituent
Units
Aroclor 1242
g/L
Aroclor 1248
g/L
Aroclor 1254
g/L
Aroclor 1260
g/L
Arsenic, Total
g/L
Atrazine
g/L
Barium, Dissolved
g/L
Bentazon
g/L
Benzene
g/L
Benzo(a)pyrene
g/L
beta-BHC
g/L
Bicarbonate as CaCO3
mg/L
Bicarbonate as HCO3
mg/L
g/L
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) adipate (DEHA)
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP)
g/L
Boron, Dissolved
g/L
Bromacil
g/L
Bromide, Dissolved
mg/L
Bromobenzene
g/L
Bromochloromethane
g/L
Bromodichloromethane
g/L
Bromofluorobenzene
g/L
Bromoform
g/L
Bromomethane
g/L
Butachlor
g/L
Calcium, Dissolved
mg/L
Calcium, Total
mg/L
Captan
g/L
Carbaryl
g/L
Carbofuran
g/L
Carbon Tetrachloride
g/L
Carbonate as CaCO3
mg/L
Chlordane
g/L
Chloride, Dissolved
mg/L
Chloride, Total
mg/L
Chlorobenzene
g/L
Chloroethane
g/L
Chloroform
g/L
Chloromethane
g/L
Chloropropham
g/L
Chlorothalonil
g/L
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
g/L
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
g/L
Color
CU
Conductivity (Field)
S/cm
Copper, Total
g/L
Cyanazine
g/L
Dalapon
g/L
DCPA
g/L
DCPAA
g/L
Decachlorobiphenyl
g/L
18
d O ()
Delta Oxygen-18
delta-BHC
g/L
2
d H ()
Delta-Deuterium
Diazinon
g/L

8-Jul-14

PR-1

ML-1
1
2
113.5 - 118.5
90 - 100
5-Oct-13
7-Oct-13
Result
Result
3.4
ND
ND
ND
160
270
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
330
320
ND
ND
ND
ND
2100
450
ND
ND
43
5.7
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
5.0
4.9
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
590
180
590
180
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
12000
1600
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
250
30
29716
545
37
ND
ND
ND
46
48
-

1
190 - 200
24-Sep-13
Result
ND
ND
110
ND
ND
ND
190
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.80
ND
ND
ND
4.9
ND
ND
ND
50
52
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
250
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
5.0
1080
ND
ND
71
-

2
125 - 135
25-Sep-13
Result
13
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
150
ND
ND
4300
ND
65
ND
ND
ND
5.0
ND
ND
ND
400
340
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
19000
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
20
44440
54
ND
63
-

-6.4
-

-0.5
-

-42.0
ND

-3.0
ND

ND

ML-2

ML-3

ML-4
1
2
163.5 - 173.5
74.5 - 84.5
5-Dec-13
6-Dec-13
Result
Result
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.71
ND
ND
84
340
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
460
240
ND
ND
ND
ND
1100
190
ND
ND
43
16
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
51
9.69
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
850
730
860
734
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
10000
4600
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
40
ND
26437
11141
37
11
ND
ND
ND
ND
47
0.0788

1
167 - 177
17-Dec-13
Result
ND
ND
74
ND
ND
ND
750
ND
ND
1700
ND
45
ND
ND
ND
51
ND
ND
ND
620
570
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
12000
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
45
29650
38
ND
49
-

2
90 - 100
19-Dec-13
Result
ND
ND
380
ND
ND
ND
180
ND
ND
400
ND
14
ND
ND
ND
7.70
ND
ND
ND
460
450
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
3900
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
10
9635
15
ND
47
-

1
180 - 190
11-Jan-14
Result
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.0
ND
150
ND
ND
ND
ND
250
ND
4.0
500
ND
13
ND
ND
ND
8.54
ND
ND
ND
391
409
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
3700
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
10507
10
ND
ND
ND
0.0228

2
103 - 113
13-Jan-14
Result
ND
ND
ND
ND
5.1
ND
92
ND
ND
ND
ND
230
ND
ND
450
ND
7.7
ND
ND
ND
9.13
ND
ND
ND
254
259
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2300
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
6701
3.4
ND
ND
ND
0.0295

-3.1
-

-5.3
-

-6.0
ND

-6.4
ND

-3.6
-

ND

-19.2
ND

-37.6
ND

-40.1
ND

-43.6
ND

-24.5
ND

Page 2 of 5

ML-6

MDW-1
2
3
187 - 197
152 - 162
7-May-14
8-May-14
Result
Result
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
54
44
ND
ND
93
134
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
215
182
ND
ND
ND
ND
3000
1680
ND
ND
52
40.0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
51
52
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
662
1012
676
973
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
16600
13300
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
50
25
38793
31014
201
219
ND
ND
62
66
0.0206
0.00734

1
152 - 162
22-Nov-13
Result
4.5
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
560
ND
ND
4000
ND
68
ND
ND
ND
52
ND
ND
ND
570
550
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
19000
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
20
40389
58
ND
47
-

2
100 - 110
23-Nov-13
Result
4.3
ND
89
ND
ND
ND
410
ND
ND
3300
ND
59
ND
ND
ND
53
ND
ND
ND
600
580
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
16000
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
10
35246
58
ND
46
-

1
237 - 247
1-May-14
Result
ND
ND
ND
ND
39
ND
94
ND
ND
ND
ND
193
ND
ND
1570
ND
54.0
ND
ND
ND
50
ND
ND
ND
1183
1211
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
16100
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
23
36237
210
ND
42
39%

4
60 - 70
10-May-14
Result
ND
ND
ND
ND
40
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
144
ND
ND
2800
ND
32.4
ND
ND
ND
53
ND
ND
ND
264
257
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
11200
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
15
26662
152
ND
64
0.0650

-5.2
ND

-0.6
-

-1.3
-

-2.0
ND

-1.0
ND

-2.2
ND

-2.5
ND

-35.9
ND

-5.5
ND

-11.0
ND

-13
ND

-9
ND

-16
ND

-19
ND

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.

Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Technical Memorandum (TM 1) - Summary of Results - Exploratory Boreholes

Table 3A
Summary of Isolated Aquifer Zone Testing Field and Laboratory Water Quality Results - Moss Landing Area

Borehole:
Zone #:
Screen Interval (ft bgs):
Sample Date:
1
Constituent
Units
Dibromochloromethane
g/L
Dibromochloropropane (DBCP)
g/L
Dibromomethane
g/L
Dicamba
g/L
Dichloroacetate
mg/L
g/L
Dichlorodifluoromethane (Freon 12)
Dichloromethane
g/L
Dichloroprop
g/L
Dieldrin
g/L
Di-isopropyl ether (DIPE)
g/L
Dimethoate
g/L
Dinoseb
g/L
pg/L
Dioxin (2,3,7,8 TCDD)
Diphenamid
g/L
Diquat
g/L
Dissolved Oxygen (Field)
mg/L
Disulfoton
g/L
Endosulfan I
g/L
Endosulfan II
g/L
Endosulfan sulfate
g/L
Endothall
g/L
Endrin
g/L
Endrin aldehyde
g/L
EPTC
g/L
Ethyl tert-Butyl Ether (ETBE)
g/L
Ethylbenzene
g/L
g/L
Ethylene Dibromide (EDB)
Fluoride, Dissolved
mg/L
gamma-BHC (Lindane)
g/L
Glyphosate
g/L
Hardness as CaCO3
mg/L
Heptachlor
g/L
Heptachlor Epoxide
g/L
Hexachlorobenzene
g/L
Hexachlorobutadiene
g/L
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
g/L
Hydroxide as CaCO3
mg/L
Iodide, Dissolved
g/L
Iron, Dissolved
g/L
Iron, Total
g/L
Isopropylbenzene
g/L
Lithium
g/L
m,p-Xylenes
g/L
Magnesium, Dissolved
mg/L
Magnesium, Total
mg/L
Manganese, Dissolved
g/L
Manganese, Total
g/L
Mass Balance, Total
meq/L
Mass Balance-Dissolved Anions
meq/L
Mass Balance-Dissolved Cations
meq/L
mg/L
MBAS (Surfactants)
Methiocarb
g/L
Methomyl
g/L
Methoxychlor
g/L
Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE)
g/L

8-Jul-14

PR-1
1
190 - 200
24-Sep-13
Result
ND
ND
ND
ND
10.6
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
N/A
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.10
ND
ND
240
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
64
ND
200
ND
27
ND
27
28
180
190
12
11
ND
ND
ND
ND

2
125 - 135
25-Sep-13
Result
ND
ND
ND
ND
539
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
N/A
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
5300
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
650
ND
150
ND
1200
1100
1700
1500
580
570
ND
ND
ND
ND

ML-1
1
2
113.5 - 118.5
90 - 100
5-Oct-13
7-Oct-13
Result
Result
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
108
10.8
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
N/A
N/A
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.12
0.20
ND
ND
ND
ND
4700
920
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
180
6000
ND
20000
1800
ND
ND
140
34
ND
ND
810
110
110
780
5200
790
5300
790
380
51
360
50
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

ML-2
1
167 - 177
17-Dec-13
Result
ND
ND
ND
ND
100
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
4800
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
920
ND
3000
ND
270
ND
900
820
2600
2400
390
380
ND
ND
ND
ND

ML-3
2
90 - 100
19-Dec-13
Result
ND
ND
ND
ND
25.3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2500
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
360
140
500
ND
78
ND
360
340
710
680
120
120
ND
ND
ND
ND

1
180 - 190
11-Jan-14
Result
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.5
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
3.7
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1020
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
100
ND
6900
ND
110
ND
298
310
1400
1500
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

Page 3 of 5

2
103 - 113
13-Jan-14
Result
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.505
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
647
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
200
1700
3500
ND
86
ND
173
178
1300
1400
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

ML-4
1
2
163.5 - 173.5
74.5 - 84.5
5-Dec-13
6-Dec-13
Result
Result
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
140
0.48
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
0.1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
6100
1830
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
640
51
ND
ND
1200
10000
ND
ND
240
91
ND
ND
970
507
960
512
6400
5000
6400
5100
320
340
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

ML-6
1
152 - 162
22-Nov-13
Result
ND
ND
ND
ND
132
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
6400
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
620
ND
3900
ND
390
ND
1200
1200
3900
3800
590
550
ND
ND
ND
ND

2
100 - 110
23-Nov-13
Result
ND
ND
ND
ND
131
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
6000
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
380
ND
560
ND
330
ND
1100
1100
3600
3500
500
480
ND
ND
ND
ND

1
237 - 247
1-May-14
Result
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.2
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
8208
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
365
492
ND
226
ND
1211
1259
1605
1653
504
497
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

MDW-1
2
3
187 - 197
152 - 162
7-May-14
8-May-14
Result
Result
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.2
0.1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
6658
6498
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
13059
20051
13532
26720
ND
ND
153
120
ND
ND
1168
1020
1207
988
4694
6512
4817
6303
520
416
507
452
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

4
60 - 70
10-May-14
Result
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2.5
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.6
ND
ND
3887
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
178
ND
142
ND
796
788
ND
ND
351
370
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.

Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Technical Memorandum (TM 1) - Summary of Results - Exploratory Boreholes

Table 3A
Summary of Isolated Aquifer Zone Testing Field and Laboratory Water Quality Results - Moss Landing Area

Borehole:
Zone #:
Screen Interval (ft bgs):
Sample Date:
1
Constituent
Units
Metolachlor
g/L
Metribuzin
g/L
Molinate
g/L
Naphthalene
g/L
n-Butylbenzene
g/L
Nitrate as NO3
mg/L
Nitrate+Nitrite as N
mg/L
mg/L
Nitrite as NO2-N, Dissolved
n-Propylbenzene
g/L
Odor
TON
mg/L
Orthophosphate as P, Dissolved
Oxamyl
g/L
mV
Oxidation-Reduction Potential (Field)
o-Xylene
g/L
PCB Aroclor Screen
g/L
PCBs, Total
g/L
Pentachlorophenol
g/L
Perylene-d12
g/L
pH
pH Units
pH (Field)
pH Units
pH Temperature in C
C
Phosphorus, Dissolved
mg/L
Picloram
g/L
p-Isopropyltoluene
g/L
Potassium, Dissolved
mg/L
Potassium, Total
mg/L
Prometon
g/L
Prometryn
g/L
Propachlor
g/L
Propoxur (Baygon)
g/L
QC Ratio TDS/SEC
sec-Butylbenzene
g/L
Silica as SiO2, Dissolved
mg/L
Simazine
g/L
Sodium, Dissolved
mg/L
Sodium, Total
mg/L
Specific Conductance (EC)
mhos/cm
S/cm
Specific Conductance (EC) (Field)
Strontium, Dissolved
g/L
Styrene
g/L
Sulfate as SO4, Dissolved
mg/L
TCMX
g/L
Temperature (Field)
C
Terbacil
g/L
g/L
tert-Amyl Methyl Ether (TAME)
tert-Butyl alcohol (TBA)
g/L
tert-Butylbenzene
g/L
Tetrachloroethene (PCE)
g/L
Tetrachloro-meta-xylene (TCMX)
%
Thiobencarb
g/L
Toluene
g/L
Total Anions
meq/L
Total Cations
meq/L
mg/L
Total Dissolved Solids
Total Dissolved Solids (Field)
mg/L

8-Jul-14

PR-1
1
190 - 200
24-Sep-13
Result
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2.0
0.14
ND
-50.5
ND
ND
ND
8.2
6.87
21.7
0.11
ND
ND
6.0
ND
ND
30
ND
140
1200
1296
400
ND
24
2.3
16.3
ND
ND
ND
ND
150
ND
ND
11
630
845

2
125 - 135
25-Sep-13
Result
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
10
0.042
ND
-110.8
ND
ND
ND
7.7
6.66
21.9
ND
ND
ND
380
ND
ND
25
ND
10000
43000
53620
7400
ND
2500
2.2
15.4
ND
ND
ND
ND
146
ND
ND
120
34000
34853

ML-1
1
2
113.5 - 118.5
90 - 100
5-Oct-13
7-Oct-13
Result
Result
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
20
50
ND
0.16
ND
ND
N/A
N/A
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
7.4
7.8
6.92
7.24
21.3
21.6
0.18
0.21
ND
ND
ND
ND
92
31
ND
ND
ND
ND
26
35
ND
ND
6000
710
30000
4900
35169
647
7100
1600
ND
ND
1400
21
2.4
1.2
16.9
16.8
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
165
79
ND
ND
ND
ND
22000
3200
22847.5
422.5

ML-2
1
167 - 177
17-Dec-13
Result
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.0
0.20
ND
-99.2
ND
ND
ND
7.7
6.86
20.1
ND
ND
ND
130
ND
ND
34
ND
6200
31000
34730
7900
ND
1000
4.9
17.3
ND
ND
ND
ND
111
ND
ND
19000
23616.4

ML-3
2
90 - 100
19-Dec-13
Result
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.0
0.079
ND
30.1
ND
ND
ND
7.6
6.67
19.9
ND
ND
ND
34
ND
ND
38
ND
1500
11000
11508
4100
ND
340
5.1
16.4
ND
ND
ND
115
ND
ND
8100
7826.8

1
180 - 190
11-Jan-14
Result
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
4.0
0.0039
ND
-105.8
ND
ND
ND
5.08
7.49
7.32
0.078
ND
ND
58
60
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
36
ND
1600
1700
12000
11704
3100
ND
370
0.0783
19.7
ND
ND
ND
ND
78
ND
ND
120
120
7400
7942.4

Page 4 of 5

2
103 - 113
13-Jan-14
Result
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2.0
0.012
ND
-151.4
ND
ND
ND
4.75
7.22
6.94
0.20
ND
ND
27
27
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
40
ND
1000
1000
7800
7439
1900
ND
190
0.104
19.8
ND
ND
ND
ND
104
ND
ND
73
73
4200
5059.2

ML-4
1
2
163.5 - 173.5
74.5 - 84.5
5-Dec-13
6-Dec-13
Result
Result
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.0
1.0
0.12
0.077
ND
ND
-13.8
-92.8
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.38
7.6
6.79
6.76
6.57
21.9
ND
0.047
ND
ND
ND
ND
98
36
37
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
34
40
ND
ND
5000
1400
1400
29000
13000
30671
12933
8600
5300
ND
ND
960
420
3.5
0.0877
17.8
17.7
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
80
92
ND
ND
ND
ND
140
140
21000
8600
20855.6
8799.2

ML-6
1
152 - 162
22-Nov-13
Result
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.14
ND
-90.5
ND
ND
ND
7.4
6.63
21.4
ND
ND
ND
250
ND
ND
32
ND
9400
43000
48132
12000
ND
2000
4.6
16.5
ND
ND
ND
ND
103
ND
ND
34000
31284.5

2
100 - 110
23-Nov-13
Result
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.14
ND
60.6
ND
ND
ND
7.4
6.58
21.0
0.12
ND
ND
270
ND
ND
32
ND
8100
38000
42650
10000
ND
1900
4.5
15.9
ND
ND
ND
ND
103
ND
ND
28000
29002

1
237 - 247
1-May-14
Result
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2
ND
ND
2.33
ND
ND
ND
7.2
7.12
ND
ND
ND
36
ND
ND
ND
0.70
ND
32
ND
7758
44180
42787
9880
ND
2208
17.0
ND
ND
ND
ND
87
ND
ND
520
31000
29097.2

MDW-1
2
3
187 - 197
152 - 162
7-May-14
8-May-14
Result
Result
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2
18
0.5
4.2
ND
ND
ND
ND
4
1
0.08
ND
ND
ND
-106.0
-131.8
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
6.9
6.9
6.80
6.9
0.08
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
158
81
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.67
0.70
ND
ND
30
34
ND
ND
8588
7254
45230
38100
45875
37546
8490
8936
ND
ND
2270
1790
0.0961
0.0770
16.8
15.9
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
101
81
ND
ND
ND
ND
522
437
30200
26600
31198.4
25513.6

4
60 - 70
10-May-14
Result
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
8
1.8
ND
ND
1
0.06
ND
-10.1
ND
ND
ND
7.4
7.32
0.08
ND
ND
246
ND
ND
ND
0.66
ND
15
ND
6541
32970
32173
4369
ND
1560
0.0796
16
ND
ND
ND
ND
84
ND
ND
368
21900
21875.1

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.

Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Technical Memorandum (TM 1) - Summary of Results - Exploratory Boreholes

Table 3A
Summary of Isolated Aquifer Zone Testing Field and Laboratory Water Quality Results - Moss Landing Area

PR-1
ML-1
ML-2
ML-3
ML-4
ML-6
Borehole:
Zone #:
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
Screen Interval (ft bgs):
113.5 - 118.5
90 - 100
167 - 177
90 - 100
180 - 190
103 - 113
163.5 - 173.5
74.5 - 84.5
152 - 162
100 - 110
190 - 200
125 - 135
5-Oct-13
7-Oct-13
17-Dec-13
19-Dec-13
11-Jan-14
13-Jan-14
5-Dec-13
6-Dec-13
22-Nov-13
23-Nov-13
Sample Date:
24-Sep-13
25-Sep-13
1
Constituent
Units
Result
Result
Result
Result
Result
Result
Result
Result
Result
Result
Result
Result
Total Kjehldahl Nitrogen, Dissolved
mg/L
ND
ND
16
8.1
14
1.5
9.7
1.6
11
0.15
7.3
2.3
Total Oxidizable Nitrogen, as N
mg/L
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Total Trihalomethanes
g/L
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Toxaphene
g/L
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
g/L
g/L
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene
Trichloroethene (TCE)
g/L
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
g/L
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Trichlorofluoromethane
Trifluralin
g/L
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Triphenyl phosphate
g/L
6.30
6.10
5.24
Trithion
g/L
ND
ND
ND
Tritium
pCi/L -68.2 108 (199) 38.7 122 (212) 47.5 127 (220) -17.9 117 (210) -4.86115 (204) 32.8122 (212) -2.52 125 (221) 58.9 121 (207) -118123 (231) -110130 (240) 10.3129 (226) -15.7129 (230)
Tritium, prec. est.2
TU
pending
pending
pending
pending
pending
pending
pending
pending
pending
pending
Turbidity
NTU
0.67
5.1
150
19
6.0
2.7
160
11
6.6
2.8
6.5
1.6
0.89
1.56
0.7
2.52
1.68
0.72
65.2
0.99
0.48
0.94
1.26
1.73
Turbidity (Field)
NTU
Vinyl Chloride
g/L
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Xylenes, Total
g/L
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Zinc, Total
g/L
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
240
31
ND
29
ND
ND

1
237 - 247
1-May-14
Result
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
pending
0.85
2.33
ND
ND
ND

MDW-1
2
3
187 - 197
152 - 162
7-May-14
8-May-14
Result
Result
3.3
3.6
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
pending
pending
9.7
150
0.64
0.84
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

4
60 - 70
10-May-14
Result
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
pending
0.60
0.83
ND
ND
ND

Notes:
C
= Degrees Celsius
CU
= Color Units
18
d O () = Delta Oxygen-18
2

d H () = Delta-Deuterium
meq/L
= Milliequivalents per Liter
mg/L
= Milligrams per Liter
mV
= Millivolts
NTU
= Nephelometric Turbidity Units
pCi/L
= Pico Curies per Liter
pg/L
= Picograms per Liter
TON
= Threshold Odor Number
TU
= Tritium Units
g/L
= Micorgrams per Liter
mhos/cm = Micromhos per Centimeter
S/cm
= MicroSiemens per Centimeter
ND
1
2

8-Jul-14

= NOT DETECTED at or above the Reporting Limit or Practical Quantitation Limit. If J-value reported, then NOT DETECTED at or above the Method Detection Limit (MDL)

See laboratory water quality reports in Appendix G for method numbers, dilution factors, Method Detection Limits, and Reporting Limits.
Laboratory water quality results pending.

Page 5 of 5

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.

Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Technical Memorandum (TM 1) - Summary of Results - Exploratory Boreholes

Table 3B

Summary of Isolated Aquifer Zone Testing Field and Laboratory Water Quality Results - CEMEX - Marina, CA
Borehole:
Zone #:
Screen Interval (ft bgs):
Sample Date:
Constituent1
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
1,1-Dichloropropene
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene
1,2,3-Trichloropropane
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichlorobenzene-d4
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloropropane
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Dichloropropane
1,3-Dichloropropene, Total
1,3-Dimethyl-2-nitrobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1-Br-2-Nitrobenzene
2,2-Dichloropropane
2,4,5-T
2,4,5-TP (Silvex)
2,4-D
2,4-DB
2,4-DCAA
2-Butanone
2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether
2-Chlorotoluene
2-Hexanone
3,5-Dichlorobenzoic acid
3-Hydroxycarbofuran
4,4-DDD
4,4-DDE
4,4-DDT
4-Chlorotoluene
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
Acetone
Acifluorfen
Alachlor
Aldicarb
Aldicarb Sulfone
Aldicarb Sulfoxide

8-Jul-14

Units
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L

1
274 - 284
18-Feb-14

2
237 - 247
19-Feb-14

Result
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
5.0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
5.0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

Result
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
4.8
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
5.3
ND
3.7
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

CX-B1WQ
3
4
182 - 192
134 - 144
21-Feb-14
22-Feb-14
Result
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
4.9
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
5.6
ND
3.8
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

Result
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
5.0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
5.1
ND
3.7
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

5
84 - 94
23-Feb-14

6
51 - 61
25-Feb-14

1
215 - 225
8-Mar-14

Result
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
4.8
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
5.5
ND
3.9
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

Result
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
4.8
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
5.4
ND
2.2
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

Result
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
5.0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
5.0
ND
2.4
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

Page 1 of 6

CX-B2WQ
2
3
161 - 171
104 - 114
10-Mar-14
11-Mar-14
Result
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
4.9
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
4.8
ND
2.3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

Result
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
4.8
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
5.2
ND
0.60
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

4
55 - 65
12-Mar-14

1
306 - 316
5-Apr-14

2
248 - 258
6-Apr-14

CX-B4
3
155 - 165
8-Apr-14

4
110 - 120
9-Apr-14

5
58 - 68
10-Apr-14

Result
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
4.6
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
5.0
ND
0.64
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

Result
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
4.9
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
5.4
ND
0.49
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

Result
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
4.7
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
5.2
ND
0.49
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

Result
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
4.8
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
4.1
ND
0.44
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

Result
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
5.2
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
4.3
ND
0.42
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

Result
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
5.0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
5.0
ND
0.43
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.

Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Technical Memorandum (TM 1) - Summary of Results - Exploratory Boreholes

Table 3B

Summary of Isolated Aquifer Zone Testing Field and Laboratory Water Quality Results - CEMEX - Marina, CA
Borehole:
Zone #:
Screen Interval (ft bgs):
Sample Date:
Constituent1
Aldrin
Alkalinity as CaCO3
alpha-BHC
Aluminum
Ammonia as N, Dissolved
AMPA
Aroclor 1016
Aroclor 1221
Aroclor 1232
Aroclor 1242
Aroclor 1248
Aroclor 1254
Aroclor 1260
Arsenic, Total
Atrazine
Barium, Dissolved
Bentazon
Benzene
Benzo(a)pyrene
beta-BHC
Bicarbonate as CaCO3
Bicarbonate as HCO3
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) adipate (DEHA)
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP)
Boron, Dissolved
Bromacil
Bromide, Dissolved
Bromobenzene
Bromochloromethane
Bromodichloromethane
Bromofluorobenzene
Bromoform
Bromomethane
Butachlor
Calcium, Dissolved
Calcium, Total
Captan
Carbaryl
Carbofuran
Carbon Tetrachloride
Carbonate as CaCO3
Chlordane
Chloride, Dissolved
Chloride, Total
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane

8-Jul-14

Units
g/L
mg/L
g/L
g/L
mg/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
mg/L
mg/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
mg/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
mg/L
mg/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
mg/L
g/L
mg/L
mg/L
g/L
g/L

1
274 - 284
18-Feb-14

2
237 - 247
19-Feb-14

Result
ND
118
ND
77
ND
110
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
38
ND
138
ND
ND
ND
ND
144
ND
ND
700
ND
41
ND
ND
ND
52
ND
ND
ND
2718
2718
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
14184
ND
ND

Result
ND
132
ND
ND
ND
100
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
210
ND
ND
ND
ND
161
ND
ND
730
ND
24
ND
ND
ND
50
ND
ND
ND
1558
1581
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
8796
ND
ND

CX-B1WQ
3
4
182 - 192
134 - 144
21-Feb-14
22-Feb-14
Result
ND
167
ND
ND
ND
110
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
204
ND
ND
1540
ND
49.6
ND
ND
ND
51
ND
ND
ND
2018
2090
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
17995
ND
ND

Result
ND
96
ND
ND
ND
98
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
120
ND
ND
ND
ND
117
ND
ND
2880
ND
38
ND
ND
ND
52
ND
ND
ND
502
505
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
14050
ND
ND

5
84 - 94
23-Feb-14

6
51 - 61
25-Feb-14

1
215 - 225
8-Mar-14

Result
ND
126
ND
ND
ND
89
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
154
ND
ND
2800
ND
41
ND
ND
ND
50
ND
ND
ND
656
674
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
14755
ND
ND

Result
ND
103
ND
ND
ND
110
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
100
ND
ND
ND
ND
126
ND
ND
2400
ND
38
ND
ND
ND
48
ND
ND
ND
709
710
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
13675
ND
ND

Result
ND
147
ND
84
ND
120
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
46
ND
109
ND
ND
ND
ND
179
ND
ND
1540
ND
38
ND
ND
ND
51
ND
ND
ND
1948
1961
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
13026
ND
ND

Page 2 of 6

CX-B2WQ
2
3
161 - 171
104 - 114
10-Mar-14
11-Mar-14
Result
ND
129
ND
74
ND
98
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
28
ND
346
ND
ND
ND
ND
157
ND
ND
860
ND
23
ND
ND
ND
51
ND
ND
ND
1141
1181
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
7408
ND
ND

Result
ND
102
ND
156
ND
100
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
59
ND
85
ND
ND
ND
ND
124
ND
ND
2580
ND
45
ND
ND
ND
51
ND
ND
ND
732
712
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
14099
ND
ND

4
55 - 65
12-Mar-14

1
306 - 316
5-Apr-14

2
248 - 258
6-Apr-14

CX-B4
3
155 - 165
8-Apr-14

4
110 - 120
9-Apr-14

5
58 - 68
10-Apr-14

Result
ND
104
ND
204
0.1
76
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
55
ND
90
ND
ND
ND
ND
127
ND
ND
2360
ND
44
ND
ND
ND
48
ND
ND
ND
886
896
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
14464
ND
ND

Result
ND
112
ND
ND
ND
98
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
33
ND
174
ND
ND
ND
ND
137
ND
ND
600
ND
43
ND
ND
ND
50
ND
ND
ND
3158
3125
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
14013
ND
ND

Result
ND
118
ND
ND
ND
110
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
32
ND
123
ND
ND
ND
ND
144
ND
ND
1840
ND
39
ND
ND
ND
49
ND
ND
ND
1557
1516
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
13566
ND
ND

Result
ND
103
ND
ND
ND
110
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
27
ND
84
ND
ND
ND
ND
126
ND
ND
1400
ND
29
ND
ND
ND
49
ND
ND
ND
911
938
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
10128
ND
ND

Result
ND
98
ND
31
ND
96
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
26
ND
179
ND
ND
ND
ND
120
ND
ND
1310
ND
31
ND
ND
ND
52
ND
ND
ND
1164
1081
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
11044
ND
ND

Result
ND
62
ND
20
ND
110
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
5
ND
222
ND
ND
ND
ND
76
ND
ND
260
ND
6.1
ND
ND
ND
51
ND
ND
ND
277
261
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2045
ND
ND

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.

Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Technical Memorandum (TM 1) - Summary of Results - Exploratory Boreholes

Table 3B

Summary of Isolated Aquifer Zone Testing Field and Laboratory Water Quality Results - CEMEX - Marina, CA
Borehole:
Zone #:
Screen Interval (ft bgs):
Sample Date:

CX-B1WQ
3
4
182 - 192
134 - 144
21-Feb-14
22-Feb-14

1
274 - 284
18-Feb-14

2
237 - 247
19-Feb-14

Units
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
CU
S/cm
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L

Result
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
7
32361
15
ND
48
0.00769

Result
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
14
20869
ND
ND
51
0.0667

Result
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
41546
ND
ND
42
0.0149

Delta Oxygen-18
delta-BHC

d 18O ()
g/L

-2.6
ND

-4.3
ND

Delta-Deuterium
Diazinon
Dibromochloromethane
Dibromochloropropane (DBCP)
Dibromomethane
Dicamba
Dichloroacetate
Dichlorodifluoromethane (Freon 12)
Dichloromethane
Dichloroprop
Dieldrin
Di-isopropyl ether (DIPE)
Dimethoate
Dinoseb
Dioxin (2,3,7,8 TCDD)
Diphenamid
Diquat
Dissolved Oxygen (Field)
Disulfoton
Endosulfan I
Endosulfan II
Endosulfan sulfate
Endothall
Endrin
Endrin aldehyde
EPTC
Ethyl tert-Butyl Ether (ETBE)
Ethylbenzene
Ethylene Dibromide (EDB)
Fluoride, Dissolved

d 2H ()
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
mg/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
pg/L
g/L
g/L
mg/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
mg/L

-18.4
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.2

-29.1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.1

Constituent1
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Chloropropham
Chlorothalonil
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
Color
Conductivity (Field)
Copper, Total
Cyanazine
Dalapon
DCPA
DCPAA
Decachlorobiphenyl

8-Jul-14

CX-B2WQ
2
3
161 - 171
104 - 114
10-Mar-14
11-Mar-14

4
55 - 65
12-Mar-14

1
306 - 316
5-Apr-14

2
248 - 258
6-Apr-14

CX-B4
3
155 - 165
8-Apr-14

4
110 - 120
9-Apr-14

5
58 - 68
10-Apr-14

Result
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
34532
150
ND
47
0.0727

Result
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
23
34162
136
ND
47
0.0680

Result
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
23
34754
107
ND
53
0.0205

Result
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
4
34291
140
ND
55
0.0504

Result
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
9
25663
111
ND
56
0.0417

Result
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
16
26466
90
ND
59
0.0364

Result
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
14
6208
18
ND
58
0.0585

-3.7
ND

-1.8
ND

-1.4
ND

-3.0
ND

-2.8
ND

-4.3
ND

-4.0
ND

-5.9
ND

-29.2
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.4
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.2

-13.3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
5.7
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.5

-12.6
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
4.7
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.5

-19
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.6
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

-17
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2.5
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

-28
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
4.5
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

-26
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
5.1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

-40
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
28.3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.2

5
84 - 94
23-Feb-14

6
51 - 61
25-Feb-14

1
215 - 225
8-Mar-14

Result
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
10
34907
ND
ND
43
0.0690

Result
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
5
35167
ND
ND
45
0.0727

Result
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
4
30803
ND
ND
41
71%

Result
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
21
31029
ND
ND
45
0.0277

Result
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
7
18875
ND
ND
56
0.0308

-0.8
ND

-2.0
ND

-1.6
ND

-2.1
ND

-2.3
ND

-6.2
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

-14.0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
3.6
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

-12.0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
3.6
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.4

-15.1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
3.5
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.3

-18.0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.9
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

Page 3 of 6

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.

Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Technical Memorandum (TM 1) - Summary of Results - Exploratory Boreholes

Table 3B

Summary of Isolated Aquifer Zone Testing Field and Laboratory Water Quality Results - CEMEX - Marina, CA
Borehole:
Zone #:
Screen Interval (ft bgs):
Sample Date:
Constituent1
gamma-BHC (Lindane)
Glyphosate
Hardness as CaCO3
Heptachlor
Heptachlor Epoxide
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hydroxide as CaCO3
Iodide, Dissolved
Iron, Dissolved
Iron, Total
Isopropylbenzene
Lithium
m,p-Xylenes
Magnesium, Dissolved
Magnesium, Total
Manganese, Dissolved
Manganese, Total
Mass Balance, Total
Mass Balance-Dissolved Anions
Mass Balance-Dissolved Cations
MBAS (Surfactants)
Methiocarb
Methomyl
Methoxychlor
Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE)
Metolachlor
Metribuzin
Molinate
Naphthalene
n-Butylbenzene
Nitrate as NO3
Nitrate+Nitrite as N
Nitrite as NO2-N, Dissolved
n-Propylbenzene
Odor
Orthophosphate as P, Dissolved
Oxamyl
Oxidation-Reduction Potential (Field)
o-Xylene
PCB Aroclor Screen
PCBs, Total
Pentachlorophenol
Perylene-d12
pH

8-Jul-14

Units
g/L
g/L
mg/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
mg/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
mg/L
mg/L
g/L
g/L
meq/L
meq/L
meq/L
mg/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
g/L
TON
mg/L
g/L
mV
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
pH Units

1
274 - 284
18-Feb-14

2
237 - 247
19-Feb-14

Result
ND
ND
11070
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
362
362
ND
218
ND
1041
1040
127
134
439.7
423.3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1
0.05
ND
61.1
ND
ND
ND
6.7

Result
ND
ND
6723
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2539
2643
ND
120
ND
683
674
166
187
271.9
261.6
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.2
ND
ND
1
0.09
ND
-32.4
ND
ND
ND
6.9

CX-B1WQ
3
4
182 - 192
134 - 144
21-Feb-14
22-Feb-14
Result
ND
ND
9880
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
190
1780
1928
ND
140
ND
1078
1132
361
382
567.6
564.9
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1
0.08
ND
-253.3
ND
ND
ND
6.9

Result
ND
ND
5350
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
814
922
ND
120
ND
981
993
349
387
436.9
458.9
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2
0.4
ND
ND
1
0.07
ND
-56.6
ND
ND
ND
6.9

5
84 - 94
23-Feb-14

6
51 - 61
25-Feb-14

1
215 - 225
8-Mar-14

Result
ND
ND
6748
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
160
171
178
ND
170
ND
1215
1230
ND
78
458.5
464.6
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2
0.4
ND
ND
1
0.07
ND
7.9
ND
ND
ND
7.2

Result
ND
ND
5561
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
57
162
ND
140
ND
928
920
172
131
424.8
387.0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
3
0.8
ND
ND
1
ND
ND
-67.3
ND
ND
ND
7.3

Result
ND
ND
8776
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
246
367
ND
149
ND
936
942
ND
ND
405.7
399.0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.4
ND
1
ND
ND
49
ND
ND
ND
7.0

Page 4 of 6

CX-B2WQ
2
3
161 - 171
104 - 114
10-Mar-14
11-Mar-14
Result
ND
ND
5486
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
148
238
ND
75
ND
605
616
ND
ND
226.8
215.5
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2
0.6
0.2
ND
2
ND
ND
30.9
ND
ND
ND
7.4

Result
ND
ND
5995
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
138
ND
173
ND
1056
1024
ND
ND
439
418
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2
0.5
ND
ND
1
ND
ND
45.6
ND
ND
ND
7.2

4
55 - 65
12-Mar-14

1
306 - 316
5-Apr-14

2
248 - 258
6-Apr-14

CX-B4
3
155 - 165
8-Apr-14

4
110 - 120
9-Apr-14

5
58 - 68
10-Apr-14

Result
ND
ND
6405
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
121
164
ND
164
ND
1015
1012
ND
ND
449
418
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1
0.05
ND
16.2
ND
ND
ND
7.2

Result
ND
ND
12494
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
775
878
ND
191
ND
1146
1139
657
650
432.7
464.8
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2
ND
ND
-38.4
ND
ND
ND
6.8

Result
ND
ND
7768
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
241
ND
127
ND
988
967
133
128
422.8
459.7
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2
0.3
ND
ND
3
ND
ND
36.8
ND
ND
ND
6.9

Result
ND
ND
5950
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
151
205
ND
63
ND
839
876
204
210
313.2
331.6
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
3
0.7
ND
ND
1
ND
ND
34
ND
ND
ND
6.9

Result
ND
ND
5928
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
130
389
ND
31
ND
845
784
172
164
342
349
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
4
0.9
ND
ND
1
ND
ND
74.9
ND
ND
ND
6.6

Result
ND
ND
1278
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
148
185
ND
5
ND
162
152
345
320
64.9
70.3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
21
4.9
0.2
ND
4
ND
ND
6.5
ND
ND
ND
7.1

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.

Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Technical Memorandum (TM 1) - Summary of Results - Exploratory Boreholes

Table 3B

Summary of Isolated Aquifer Zone Testing Field and Laboratory Water Quality Results - CEMEX - Marina, CA
Borehole:
Zone #:
Screen Interval (ft bgs):
Sample Date:
Constituent1
pH (Field)
pH Temperature in C
Phosphorus, Dissolved
Picloram
p-Isopropyltoluene
Potassium, Dissolved
Potassium, Total
Prometon
Prometryn
Propachlor
Propoxur (Baygon)
QC Ratio TDS/SEC
sec-Butylbenzene
Silica as SiO2, Dissolved
Simazine
Sodium, Dissolved
Sodium, Total
Specific Conductance (EC)
Specific Conductance (EC) (Field)
Strontium, Dissolved
Styrene
Sulfate as SO4, Dissolved
TCMX
Temperature (Field)
Terbacil
tert-Amyl Methyl Ether (TAME)
tert-Butyl alcohol (TBA)
tert-Butylbenzene
Tetrachloroethene (PCE)
Tetrachloro-meta-xylene (TCMX)
Thiobencarb
Toluene
Total Anions
Total Cations
Total Dissolved Solids
Total Dissolved Solids (Field)
Total Kjehldahl Nitrogen, Dissolved
Total Oxidizable Nitrogen, as N
Total Trihalomethanes
Toxaphene
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene
Trichloroethene (TCE)
Trichlorofluoromethane
Trifluralin
Triphenyl phosphate

8-Jul-14

Units
pH Units
C
mg/L
g/L
g/L
mg/L
mg/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
mg/L
g/L
mg/L
mg/L
mhos/cm
S/cm
g/L
g/L
mg/L
g/L
C
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
%
g/L
g/L
meq/L
meq/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L

1
274 - 284
18-Feb-14

2
237 - 247
19-Feb-14

Result
6.54
0.06
ND
ND
53
ND
0.68
ND
34
ND
4612
36940
36601
16834
ND
1760
0.0677
18.9
ND
ND
ND
ND
71
ND
ND
424.7
25200
24888
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
-

Result
6.79
0.10
ND
ND
35
ND
0.59
ND
ND
ND
2914
24570
23705
11,000
ND
991
0.110
18.7
ND
ND
ND
ND
115
ND
ND
262.0
14600
16122.8
0.4
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
-

CX-B1WQ
3
4
182 - 192
134 - 144
21-Feb-14
22-Feb-14
Result
6.79
0.08
ND
ND
34
ND
0.73
ND
25
ND
8612
48770
47112
12000
ND
2688
0.0753
18.8
ND
ND
ND
ND
79
ND
ND
596.2
35600
32034.8
0.3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
-

Result
6.82
0.07
ND
ND
256
ND
0.67
ND
27
ND
7968
39610
39592
9400
ND
1832
0.0752
18.8
ND
ND
ND
ND
79
ND
ND
463.6
26500
26921.2
0.4
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
-

5
84 - 94
23-Feb-14

6
51 - 61
25-Feb-14

1
215 - 225
8-Mar-14

Result
7.05
0.07
ND
ND
221
ND
0.67
ND
19
ND
7500
40900
41336
10000
ND
1882
0.0796
17.2
ND
ND
ND
ND
84
ND
ND
463.4
27400
28111.2
0.5
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
-

Result
7.18
ND
ND
ND
186
ND
0.67
ND
18.0
ND
6219
37260
35952
9500
ND
1748
17.5
ND
ND
ND
ND
111
ND
ND
387.9
24800
24452.8
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
-

Result
6.71
ND
ND
ND
55
ND
ND
ND
0.72
ND
34
ND
5135
36680
35199
13328
ND
1674
0.112
18.8
ND
ND
ND
ND
117
ND
ND
406.1
26500
23936
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
-

Page 5 of 6

CX-B2WQ
2
3
161 - 171
104 - 114
10-Mar-14
11-Mar-14
Result
6.69
ND
ND
ND
73
ND
ND
ND
0.73
ND
30
ND
2437
22060
21620
8621
ND
713
0.111
18.3
ND
ND
ND
ND
116
ND
ND
222.0
16200
14708.4
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
-

Result
6.96
ND
ND
ND
201
ND
ND
ND
0.66
ND
20
ND
6643
40720
40173
9020
ND
1855
0.112
17.6
ND
ND
ND
ND
118
ND
ND
407
26800
27315.6
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
-

4
55 - 65
12-Mar-14

1
306 - 316
5-Apr-14

2
248 - 258
6-Apr-14

CX-B4
3
155 - 165
8-Apr-14

4
110 - 120
9-Apr-14

5
58 - 68
10-Apr-14

Result
7.12
0.05
ND
ND
226
ND
ND
ND
0.66
ND
19
ND
6536
40270
39657
9966
ND
1822
0.0770
17.8
ND
ND
ND
ND
81
ND
ND
415
26700
26968.3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
-

Result
6.61
ND
ND
ND
52
ND
ND
ND
0.78
ND
34
ND
4864
38270
37688
17696
ND
1663
0.0855
20.9
ND
ND
ND
ND
90
ND
ND
463.4
29800
25629.2
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
-

Result
6.66
0.09
ND
ND
67
ND
ND
ND
0.71
ND
32
ND
6747
38210
38354
11232
ND
1789
0.0933
19.4
ND
ND
ND
ND
98
ND
ND
450.4
27200
26084.8
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
-

Result
6.75
ND
ND
ND
56
ND
ND
ND
0.78
ND
30
ND
4958
26270
28707
8713
ND
1202
0.0960
19.4
ND
ND
ND
ND
102
ND
ND
347.4
20500
19522.8
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
-

Result
6.63
ND
ND
ND
98
ND
ND
ND
0.80
ND
27
ND
5041
29810
29933
10508
ND
1358
0.100
18.9
ND
ND
ND
ND
105
ND
ND
319
24000
20352.4
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
-

Result
6.92
ND
ND
ND
9.6
ND
ND
ND
0.70
ND
28
ND
987
6910
6988
2167
ND
269
0.0943
19.1
ND
ND
ND
ND
99
ND
ND
64.0
4815
4760
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
-

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.

Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Technical Memorandum (TM 1) - Summary of Results - Exploratory Boreholes

Table 3B

Summary of Isolated Aquifer Zone Testing Field and Laboratory Water Quality Results - CEMEX - Marina, CA
Borehole:
Zone #:
Screen Interval (ft bgs):
Sample Date:
Constituent1
Trithion
Tritium
Tritium, prec. est.2
Turbidity
Turbidity (Field)
Vinyl Chloride
Xylenes, Total
Zinc, Total

CX-B1WQ
3
4
182 - 192
134 - 144
21-Feb-14
22-Feb-14

1
274 - 284
18-Feb-14

2
237 - 247
19-Feb-14

Units
g/L
pCi/L

Result
-

Result
-

Result
-

TU
NTU
NTU
g/L
g/L
g/L

0.35 0.09
1.6
0.57
ND
ND
99

0.04 0.09
2.9
1.20
ND
ND
ND

0.01 0.09
0.70
0.25
ND
ND
ND

CX-B2WQ
2
3
161 - 171
104 - 114
10-Mar-14
11-Mar-14

5
84 - 94
23-Feb-14

6
51 - 61
25-Feb-14

1
215 - 225
8-Mar-14

Result
-

Result
-

Result
-

Result
-

Result
-

0.50 0.09
4.6
0.24
ND
ND
ND

0.48 0.09
0.75
0.47
ND
ND
ND

0.81 0.09
0.45
0.33
ND
ND
ND

0.10 0.09
0.40
0.91
ND
ND
218

0.18 0.09
0.65
0.49
ND
ND
217

4
55 - 65
12-Mar-14

1
306 - 316
5-Apr-14

2
248 - 258
6-Apr-14

CX-B4
3
155 - 165
8-Apr-14

4
110 - 120
9-Apr-14

5
58 - 68
10-Apr-14

Result
-

Result
-

Result
-

Result
-

Result
-

Result
-

Result
-

0.44 0.09
0.65
0.57
ND
ND
384

0.62 0.09
1.5
0.63
ND
ND
356

pending
0.20
0.54
ND
ND
ND

pending
1.3
1.46
ND
ND
ND

pending
0.65
0.18
ND
ND
ND

pending
1.0
0.85
ND
ND
38

pending
1.4
1.12
ND
ND
ND

Notes:
C
CU

= Degrees Celsius
= Color Units

d 18O () = Delta Oxygen-18

8-Jul-14

d 2H ()
meq/L
mg/L
mV
NTU
pCi/L
pg/L
TON
TU
g/L
mhos/cm
S/cm

= Delta-Deuterium
= Milliequivalents per Liter
= Milligrams per Liter
= Millivolts
= Nephelometric Turbidity Units
= Pico Curies per Liter
= Picograms per Liter
= Threshold Odor Number
= Tritium Units
= Micorgrams per Liter
= Micromhos per Centimeter
= MicroSiemens per Centimeter

ND

= NOT DETECTED at or above the Reporting Limit or Practical Quantitation Limit. If J-value reported, then NOT DETECTED at or above the Method Detection Limit (MDL)

See laboratory water quality reports in Appendix G for method numbers, dilution factors, Method Detection Limits, and Reporting Limits.

Laboratory water quality results pending.

Page 6 of 6

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.

Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Attachment 1 - Technical Memorandum (TM 1) - Summary of Results - Exploratory Boreholes

Hydraulic Conductivity for Geologic Units at CEMEX


CX-B1

Borehole

Qod

Weighed average K for


1
each soil Type

CX-B2

%
%
Min K
Max
Lithology
[ft/day] [ft/day] thickness
thickness
1.00

SM: Silty
Sand

Total K value
[ft/day]

45

130

45

130

1.00

CX-B1

Borehole

Weighed average K for


each soil Type1

0.25
0.38
0.38

Total K value
[ft/day]

GW: Gravel
SW: WellGraded
Sand
SM: Silty
Sand

SW: WellGraded Sand

%
Min K
Max
[ft/day] [ft/day] thickness
292

770

292

770

1.00

CX-B2

%
%
Min K
Max
Lithology
[ft/day] [ft/day] thickness
thickness

Qt

Lithology

CX-B3

Lithology

Lithology

SP: Sand

CX-B4

%
Min K
Max
[ft/day] [ft/day] thickness
74

224

74

224

1.00

SP: Sand

CX-B3

%
Min K
Max
[ft/day] [ft/day] thickness

Lithology

Lithology

Min K
Max
[ft/day] [ft/day]

135

365

135

365

CX-B4

%
Min K
Max
[ft/day] [ft/day] thickness

334

849

0.67

SP: Sand

16

65

0.50

SP: Sand

21

69

330

1,121

0.33

SM: Silty Sand

83

211

0.50

SM: Silty
Sand

130

509

98

266

244

732

38

114

76

289

1.00

Lithology
SP: Sand

Min K
Max
[ft/day] [ft/day]

95

234

95

234

For each soil type, an average is calculated for each method (Hazen, Krumbein-Monk, and Kozeny-Carman) with a weighed factor of thickness. The min K and max K for each soil type is the minimum and maximum among these three weighed
average K value.

Table 4

8-Jul-14

1 of 1

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.

Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Attachment 1 - Technical Memorandum (TM 1) - Summary of Results - Exploratory Boreholes

Hydraulic Conductivity for Geologic Units at MOSS LANDING


Borehole

Dune
Sand

Weighed average K for


each soil Type1

MDW-1
Min K
[ft/day]

%
thickness

Lithology

1.00

SP: Sand

Total K value
[ft/day]
Borehole

Perched
"A"
Aquifer

135

300

135

300

MDW-1
Min K
[ft/day]

%
thickness

Lithology

1.00

SP: Sand

ML-1
Max
[ft/day]

170

170

Lithology

ML-3

ML-2
Min K
[ft/day]

Max
[ft/day]

%
thickness

Lithology

Min K
[ft/day]

Max
[ft/day]

1.00

SW: WellGraded
Sand

383

1,090

383

1,090

ML-1

%
thickness

Lithology

ML-2

Min K
[ft/day]

Max
[ft/day]

ML-3

Max
[ft/day]

%
thickness

Lithology

Min K
[ft/day]

Max
[ft/day]

%
thickness

Lithology

Min K
[ft/day]

Max
[ft/day]

%
thickness

Lithology

Min K
[ft/day]

Max
[ft/day]

477

0.13

SP: Sand
with Gravel

469

1,175

0.33

SW: WellGraded
Sand with
Gravel

484

949

1.00

SP: Sand

166

564

0.13

SP-SM:
Sand with
Silt and
Gravel

445

1,322

0.67

SP: Sand

34

102

0.75

SP: Sand

109

393

196

607

184

385

166

564

Weighed average K for


1
each soil Type

Total K value
[ft/day]

%
thickness

477

For each soil type, an average is calculated for each method (Hazen, Krumbein-Monk, and Kozeny-Carman) with a weighed factor of thickness. The min K and max K for each soil type is the minimum and
maximum among these three weighed average K value.

Table 5

8-Jul-14

1 of 2

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.

Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Attachment 1 - Technical Memorandum (TM 1) - Summary of Results - Exploratory Boreholes

Hydraulic Conductivity for Geologic Units at MOSS LANDING


Borehole
Weighed average K for
1
each soil Type
Dune
Sand

ML-4
Lithology

Min K
[ft/day]

Max
[ft/day]

1.00

SP: Sand

164

468

164

468

Total K value
[ft/day]

Lithology

PR-1
Min K
[ft/day]

Max
[ft/day]

%
thickness

Lithology

ML-6

Min K
[ft/day]

Max
[ft/day]

PR-1

%
thickness

Lithology

Min K
[ft/day]

Max
[ft/day]

%
thickness

Lithology

Min K
[ft/day]

Max
[ft/day]

%
thickness

Lithology

Min K
[ft/day]

Max
[ft/day]

1.00

SP: Sand

75

212

0.60

SP: Sand

32

92

0.20

SW: WellGraded
Sand with
Gravel

699

1,148

0.20

SW: WellGraded
Sand

149

610

0.20

SM: Silty
Sand with
Gravel

311

1,150

0.20

SP-SM:
Sand with
Silt

48

178

0.20

SP: Sand
with Gravel

302

561

0.20

SP: Sand

165

396

0.20

SW: WellGraded
Sand

1,055

9,561

506

2563

Weighed average K for


1
each soil Type

Total K value
[ft/day]

%
thickness

ML-4

Borehole

Perched
"A"
Aquifer

ML-6

%
thickness

75

212

59

213

Table 5

8-Jul-14

2 of 2

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.

Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Attachment 1 - Technical Memorandum (TM 1) - Summary of Results - Exploratory Boreholes

CEMEX Area - Maximum K Values


Well
CX-B1
CX-B2
CX-B3
CX-B4
Average

Thickness [ft]
86
91
91
90
90

Dune Sand Aquifer


% Coarse
% Fine
Kc [ft/d]
1.00
0.98
0.95
1.00
0.98

0.00
0.02
0.05
0.00
0.02

270
373
308
295
311

Kf [ft/d]

Thickness [ft]

na
0.0270
0.0270
na
0.0270

160
148
164
195
167

180-Foot Aquifer (or Equivalent)


% Coarse
% Fine
Kc [ft/d]
0.81
0.77
0.77
0.77
0.78

0.18
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.22

508
152
277
190
282

Kf [ft/d]
0.0149
0.0190
0.0185
0.0227
0.0188

Table 6

8-Jul-14

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.

Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Attachment 1 - Technical Memorandum (TM 1) - Summary of Results - Exploratory Boreholes

CEMEX Area - Minimum K Values


Well
CX-B1
CX-B2
CX-B3
CX-B4
Average

Thickness [ft]
86
91
91
90
90

Dune Sand Aquifer


% Coarse
% Fine
Kc [ft/d]
1.00
0.98
0.95
1.00
0.98

0.00
0.02
0.05
0.00
0.02

96
136
110
105
112

Kf [ft/d]

Thickness [ft]

na
0.0210
0.0210
na
0.0210

160
148
164
195
167

180-Foot Aquifer (or Equivalent)


% Coarse
% Fine
Kc [ft/d]
0.81
0.77
0.77
0.77
0.78

0.18
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.22

156
52
90
71
92

Kf [ft/d]
0.0043
0.0100
0.0092
0.0150
0.0096

Table 7

8-Jul-14

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.

Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Attachment 1 - Technical Memorandum (TM 1) - Summary of Results - Exploratory Boreholes

Table 8

Moss Landing Area - Maximum K Values


Well

8-Jul-14

Dune Sand Aquifer/ Perched "A" Aquifer


% Coarse
% Fine
Kc [ft/d]
Thickness [ft]

Kf [ft/d]

ML-1
ML-2
ML-3
ML-4
ML-6
Average

146
200
200
201
200
189

0.32
0.65
0.30
0.63
0.64
0.51

0.68
0.35
0.70
0.37
0.36
0.49

485
783
841
618
704
686

0.0222
0.0199
0.0201
0.0183
0.0220
0.0205

PR-1

139

0.93

0.07

1303

0.0213

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.

Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Attachment 1 - Technical Memorandum (TM 1) - Summary of Results - Exploratory Boreholes

Table 9

Moss Landing Area - Minimum K Values


Well

8-Jul-14

Dune Sand Aquifer/ Perched "A" Aquifer


% Coarse
% Fine
Kc [ft/d]
Thickness [ft]

Kf [ft/d]

ML-1
ML-2
ML-3
ML-4
ML-6
Average

146
200
200
201
200
189

0.32
0.65
0.30
0.63
0.64
0.51

0.68
0.35
0.70
0.37
0.36
0.49

166
228
235
200
210
208

0.0144
0.0112
0.0114
0.0089
0.0140
0.0120

PR-1

139

0.93

0.07

397

0.0131

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.

APPENDIX A1
Borehole Lithologic Logs

Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Attachment 1 Technical Memorandum (TM 1) Summary of Results Exploratory Boreholes

DRAFT

23-May-14

APPENDIX A1:
BOREHOLE LITHOLOGIC LOGS
CONTENTS
Description

Page

Borehole CX-B1 ....................................................................................................................................... A1-1


Borehole CX-B2 ....................................................................................................................................... A1-7
Borehole CX-B3 ....................................................................................................................................... A1-13
Borehole CX-B4 ....................................................................................................................................... A1-20
Borehole MDW-1 .................................................................................................................................... A1-27
Borehole ML-1 ......................................................................................................................................... A1-33
Borehole ML-2 ......................................................................................................................................... A1-37
Borehole ML-3 ......................................................................................................................................... A1-41
Borehole ML-4 ......................................................................................................................................... A1-45
Borehole ML-6 ......................................................................................................................................... A1-49
Borehole PR-1.......................................................................................................................................... A1-53

California American Water & RBF Consulting

A1-i

Appendix A1

GEOSCIENCE

P.O. Box 220


Claremont, CA 91711
Telephone: (909) 451-6650
Fax: (909) 451-6638
www.gssiwater.com

BOREHOLE NAME

BOREHOLE LITHOLOGIC LOG

CX-B1

California American Water


13017-13

CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER

5/23/2014

REPORT DATE
DRILLING CONTRACTOR
DRILLER
DRILLING
Prosonic 600T
RIG TYPE
SURFACE
28.0 ft
ELEVATION

Cascade Drilling
Jose Munguia
DRILLING
METHOD
TOTAL
DEPTH

LOCATION

Marina, CA
CEMEX Lapis Plant
36 42' 47.3796", -121 48' 21.2364"

Geographic NAD83

LOGGED BY

B. Villalobos
Sonic
306 ft bgs

START
DATE
FINISH
DATE

10/22/13
10/29/13

BOREHOLE
DIAMETER
CORE
SIZE

9 in/8 in
6 in

Lithologic Log
Depth
bgs
(feet)
0

GAMMA
(GAPI)

Zone*
Test

CLID
(mmho/m)
110 1500

Graphic
Log

NOTE: Grain size distribution percentages are approximate. Material code


(e.g. SP) reference Unified Soil Classification visual method.
Color code (e.g. 10YR 5/2) reference Munsell Soil Color Charts.

Depth
bgs
(feet)

Sample
Type

SAND (SP): brown (10YR 4/3) and dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2), 100% fine to medium
grained sand, subrounded, poorly graded, <5% dark mineral sand grains; trace silt,
interbedded; medium sorted; dry sample; contains feldspar and amphibole.

10

10
SAND (SP): yellowish brown (10YR 5/8), 100% fine grained sand, subrounded, poorly
graded, <2% dark mineral sand grains; well sorted; dry sample; contains quartz.
15

15

20

SAND (SP): yellowish brown (10YR 5/4), 100% fine to medium grained sand, subrounded;
trace silt, silty sand interbedding; medium sorted; dry sample; contains feldspar and
amphibole.
SAND (SP): yellowish brown (10YR 5/6), 100% fine to medium grained sand, subrounded;
medium sorted; moist sample; contains quartz, feldspar and amphibole.

20

SAND (SP): dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/6), 100% medium grained sand; trace silt, trace
gray silt lenses; wet sample; contains quartz, feldspar and amphibole.

30

SAND (SP): greenish gray (5GY 5/1), 100% medium grained sand, subrounded, <5% dark
mineral sand grains, <0.5% coarse sand grains; well sorted; wet sample; contains quartz,
feldspar and amphibole.
SAND (SP): yellowish brown (10YR 5/8), 100% medium grained sand, subrounded, poorly
graded, <5% dark mineral sand grains; well sorted; wet sample; contains quartz, feldspar
and amphibole.

30

35

35
SAND (SP): yellowish brown (10YR 5/4), 100% medium grained sand, subrounded, poorly
graded, beds of medium to coarse sand; trace fine gravel up to 12.7 mm, subrounded; trace
silt, brown and gray streaks of silty sand; medium sorted; wet sample; contains quartz,
feldspar, amphibole, siltstones, and chert.

40

40

45

45
SAND (SP): grayish brown (2.5Y 5/2), 100% medium to coarse grained sand, subrounded
to rounded; trace fine gravel up to 4.8 mm, subrounded to rounded; poorly sorted; wet
sample; contains quartz, feldspar, and chert; granitic.

50
Geoscience Support Services, Inc.

SAND (SP): yellowish brown (10YR 5/4), 90% medium to coarse grained sand, subrounded;
*Zone test details are for CX-B1WQ, approximately 80 ft west of CX-B1

A1-1

50

SS: Splitspoon sample GRAB: Grab sample PTS: Splitspoon submitted for analysis SIEVE: Grab sieved by GSSI

25

25

Appendix A1

GEOSCIENCE

BOREHOLE NAME

P.O. Box 220


Claremont, CA 91711
Telephone: (909) 451-6650
Fax: (909) 451-6638
www.gssiwater.com

BOREHOLE LITHOLOGIC LOG (continued)

CX-B1

California American Water


13017-13

CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER

LOCATION

Marina, CA
Lithologic Log

Depth
bgs
(feet)
0

GAMMA
(GAPI)

Zone
Test

CLID
(mmho/m)
110 1500

Zone
#6

55

Graphic
Log

NOTE: Grain size distribution percentages are approximate. Material code


(e.g. SP) reference Unified Soil Classification visual method.
Color code (e.g. 10YR 5/2) reference Munsell Soil Color Charts.

10% fine gravel up to 12.7 mm, subrounded; poorly sorted; wet sample; contains quartz and
chert.
SAND (SP): yellowish brown (10YR 5/4), 100% fine grained sand, subangular to rounded,
poorly graded; trace fine to coarse gravel up to 19 mm, subangular to rounded; medium
sorted; wet sample; <2% coarse sand to gravel, gradual change to fine to medium sand;
contains quartz, feldspar, and chert; granitic.

Depth
bgs
(feet)

Sample
Type

55

SC:
35,952
uS/cm

60

60
SILTY SAND (SM): dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4), 80% fine grained sand, subrounded;
20% silt, silt in thin layers; well sorted; moist sample; contains mica; with visible alteration;
<2% gold flecks (mica), dark reddish-brown oxide pods.

65

65
SS
PTS
SS

SILTY SAND (SM): dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/4), 80% fine grained sand, subrounded;
20% silt, silt in thin layers; poorly sorted; wet sample; contains mica; with visible alteration;
increase in mica flecks, increase in reddish coloration.
SILTY SAND (SM): yellowish brown (10YR 5/4), 80% fine grained sand, subrounded; 20%
silt; poorly sorted; wet sample; contains mica.

70

70

75

75

80

80

90

Zone
#5

SC:
41,336
uS/cm

85

SILTY SAND (SM): brown (10YR 5/3), 80% fine grained sand, subrounded; 20% silt; well
sorted; wet sample; contains <5% gold flecks/mica; free water.
SAND (SW): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/4), 90% fine to coarse grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; 10% fine to coarse gravel up to 25 mm, subangular to subrounded; poorly
sorted; wet sample.

SIEVE

90
SILTY SAND (SM): yellowish brown (10YR 5/4), 80% fine grained sand, subrounded; 20%
silt; well sorted; wet sample; contains <5% gold flecks/mica.

95

SAND (SW): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/4), 90% fine to coarse grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; 10% fine to coarse gravel up to 25 mm, subangular to subrounded; poorly
sorted; wet sample.
SILTY SAND (SM): brown (10YR 5/3), 80% fine grained sand, subrounded; 20% silt; well
sorted; wet sample; contains <5% gold flecks/mica.
SILTY SAND (SM): dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4), 70% fine grained sand, subrounded,
very fine sand, <1% coarse sand; 30% silt, firm; well sorted; wet sample; contains mica; mix
of sandy silt and silty sand, grades fine to coarse at depth.

95

100

100

105

105

Geoscience Support Services, Inc.

*Zone test details are for CX-B1WQ, approximately 80 ft west of CX-B1

A1-2

SIEVE

SS: Splitspoon sample GRAB: Grab sample PTS: Splitspoon submitted for analysis SIEVE: Grab sieved by GSSI

85

SAND (SW): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/4), 100% fine to coarse grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; trace fine to coarse gravel up to 19 mm, subangular to subrounded; wet
sample; contains quartz and chert.

SIEVE

Appendix A1

GEOSCIENCE

BOREHOLE NAME

P.O. Box 220


Claremont, CA 91711
Telephone: (909) 451-6650
Fax: (909) 451-6638
www.gssiwater.com

BOREHOLE LITHOLOGIC LOG (continued)

CX-B1

California American Water


13017-13

CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER

LOCATION

Marina, CA
Lithologic Log

Depth
bgs
(feet)
0

GAMMA
(GAPI)

Zone
Test

CLID
(mmho/m)
110 1500

110

Graphic
Log

NOTE: Grain size distribution percentages are approximate. Material code


(e.g. SP) reference Unified Soil Classification visual method.
Color code (e.g. 10YR 5/2) reference Munsell Soil Color Charts.

Depth
bgs
(feet)

Sample
Type

110

SAND (SW): brownish yellow (10YR 6/6), 100% fine to coarse grained sand, subangular to
subrounded, <5% feldspar and dark mineral sand grains; poorly sorted; wet sample;
contains quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole.
115

115

SIEVE

SAND (SW): light gray (10YR 7/2), 100% fine to coarse grained sand, subangular to
subrounded, <5% feldspar and dark mineral sand grains; poorly sorted; contains quartz,
feldspar, mica and amphibole.
120

120
SILTY SAND (SM): yellowish brown (10YR 5/8), 80% fine grained sand, subrounded to
rounded; 20% silt, medium stiffness; trace fine gravel up to 4.8 mm, subrounded to rounded,
<5% pebbles; well sorted.
125

130

135

SC:
39,592
uS/cm

125

130

135

140
SILTY SAND (SM): dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/6), 85% fine grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; 15% silt; trace fine gravel up to 13 mm, subangular to subrounded; trace clay;
well sorted.

145

145

CLAY (CL): olive gray (5Y 4/2), 80% clay, firm, massive; 20% silt; moist sample;
yellowish-brown (10YR 5/4) mottling.
150

150
SILTY SAND (SM): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/4), 80% fine to medium grained sand,
subangular to subrounded, predominantly fine grain; 15% silt; 5% clay; medium sorted;
moist sample; firm; some clayey sand.

155

160

Geoscience Support Services, Inc.

SILTY SAND (SM): dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/4), 60% fine grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; 40% silt; well sorted; moist sample; contains mica/trace gold flecks,
reddish-brown (2.5YR 5/4) mottling.

CLAYEY SAND (SC): yellowish brown (10YR 5/6), 80% fine grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; 15% clay; 5% silt, large amounts of silt; well sorted; rolls very slightly.
SILTY SAND (SM): yellowish brown (10YR 5/6), 85% fine grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; 15% silt; well sorted; does not roll.
*Zone test details are for CX-B1WQ, approximately 80 ft west of CX-B1

A1-3

155

160

GRAB

SS: Splitspoon sample GRAB: Grab sample PTS: Splitspoon submitted for analysis SIEVE: Grab sieved by GSSI

140

Zone
#4

SANDY SILT (ML): yellowish brown (10YR 5/8), 60% silt; 40% fine grained sand,
subrounded; thin fine sand layers, reddish-brown, faint dark brown laminations.
SILTY SAND (SM): yellowish brown (10YR 5/8), 75% fine to coarse grained sand,
subangular to subrounded; 20% silt; 5% fine to coarse gravel up to 25 mm, subangular to
subrounded, chert, granitic and volcanic gravel; poorly sorted; contains quartz, feldspar,
mica and amphibole; clasts imbricated in horizontal bedding.
SILTY SAND (SM): yellowish brown (10YR 5/4), 80% fine grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; 15% silt; 5% clay; poorly sorted; moist sample; with visible alteration; thinly
bedded to laminated, grey to yellowish-brown oxidized color, thin silty sand and clayey sand
layers; grades to fine.
SILTY SAND (SM): grayish brown (10YR 5/2), 70% fine to coarse grained sand, subangular
to subrounded, trace coarse red sand; 15% silt; 10% clay; 5% fine to coarse gravel up to 51
mm, subangular to subrounded, flat siliceous shale; poorly sorted; consists of silt, sands,
and clayey sands.
SILTY SAND (SM): yellowish red (5YR 4/6), 80% fine to medium grained sand, subangular
to subrounded, poorly sorted; 15% silt; 5% clay, gray clay balls up to 13 mm, likely thin beds.
SILTY SAND (SM): strong brown (7.5YR 4/6), 85% fine grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; 15% silt; trace fine gravel up to 13 mm, subangular to subrounded; trace clay;
well sorted.

Appendix A1

GEOSCIENCE

BOREHOLE NAME

P.O. Box 220


Claremont, CA 91711
Telephone: (909) 451-6650
Fax: (909) 451-6638
www.gssiwater.com

BOREHOLE LITHOLOGIC LOG (continued)

CX-B1

California American Water


13017-13

CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER

LOCATION

Marina, CA
Lithologic Log

Depth
bgs
(feet)
0

GAMMA
(GAPI)

Zone
Test

CLID
(mmho/m)
110 1500

165
*

Graphic
Log

NOTE: Grain size distribution percentages are approximate. Material code


(e.g. SP) reference Unified Soil Classification visual method.
Color code (e.g. 10YR 5/2) reference Munsell Soil Color Charts.

SANDY SILT (ML): dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4), 50% fine grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; 40% silt; 10% clay; well sorted; thin dark gray (10YR 4/1) clayey silt balls.
SILTY SAND (SM): yellowish brown (10YR 5/6), 85% fine grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; 15% silt; well sorted.

Depth
bgs
(feet)

Sample
Type

165
SS
PTS
SS

170

170

CLAYEY SAND (SC): yellowish brown (10YR 5/6), 80% fine grained sand, subangular to
subrounded, fine, soft, dark yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) sand; 15% clay; 5% silt; well sorted;
wet sample; consisting of silty sands and clayey sands, rolls slightly.

175

175

180

180

Zone
#3

SAND WITH CLAY (SP-SC): dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4), 90% fine grained sand,
subangular to subrounded; 10% clay; well sorted; moderately indurated, slightly less clay.
SILTY SAND (SM): dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4), 85% fine grained sand, subangular to
subrounded, well sorted; 15% silt.

185
SC:
47,112
uS/cm

185

SILTY SAND (SM): dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2), 80% fine grained sand, subangular to
subrounded, well sorted; 20% silt; moist sample; free water, material does not roll.

190

SIEVE

190

195
SILTY SAND (SM): dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4), 80% fine grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; 20% silt; well sorted; moist sample; material does not roll, contact oxidized 204
ft bgs, reddish-brown.

200

205

210

215

Geoscience Support Services, Inc.

200

CLAY (CL): olive gray (5Y 5/2), 60% clay, stiff, 1 to 2 mm black clay balls (10YR 2/1); 40%
silt, increases with depth.

205

SAND (SW): brown (10YR 5/3), 100% fine to coarse grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; trace fine gravel up to 5 mm, subangular to subrounded, <5% small gravel;
poorly sorted; contains quartz, siliceous shale clasts, and chert.

210

SAND (SW): brown (10YR 5/3), 90% fine to coarse grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; 10% fine to coarse gravel up to 38 mm, subangular to subrounded; poorly
sorted; contains quartz, siliceous shale clasts, chert, and possibly tuff.
SAND WITH GRAVEL (SW): brown (10YR 5/3), 85% fine to coarse grained sand,
subangular to subrounded; 15% fine to coarse gravel up to 38 mm, subangular to
subrounded; poorly sorted; contains quartz, siliceous shale clasts, and chert.
SAND (SW): dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/6), 90% fine to coarse grained sand, subangular
*Zone test details are for CX-B1WQ, approximately 80 ft west of CX-B1

A1-4

SS

215

SS: Splitspoon sample GRAB: Grab sample PTS: Splitspoon submitted for analysis SIEVE: Grab sieved by GSSI

195

Appendix A1

GEOSCIENCE

BOREHOLE NAME

P.O. Box 220


Claremont, CA 91711
Telephone: (909) 451-6650
Fax: (909) 451-6638
www.gssiwater.com

BOREHOLE LITHOLOGIC LOG (continued)

CX-B1

California American Water


13017-13

CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER

LOCATION

Marina, CA
Lithologic Log

Depth
bgs
(feet)
0

GAMMA
(GAPI)

Zone
Test

CLID
(mmho/m)
110 1500

220
*

225

Graphic
Log

NOTE: Grain size distribution percentages are approximate. Material code


(e.g. SP) reference Unified Soil Classification visual method.
Color code (e.g. 10YR 5/2) reference Munsell Soil Color Charts.

to subrounded; 10% fine to coarse gravel up to 38 mm, subangular to subrounded; poorly


sorted; contains quartz; oxidized layer.
SAND (SW): olive (5Y 5/3), 90% fine to coarse grained sand, subangular to subrounded;
10% fine to coarse gravel up to 38 mm, subangular to subrounded; poorly sorted; contains
quartz.
CLAY (CL): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/3), 80% clay, medium plasticity; 20% silt; firm,
massive.
CLAY (CL): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/4), 80% clay, medium plasticity; 20% silt; with visible
alteration; very faint laminations, gray and yellowish-brown slicken sides, 1 to 3 mm balls of
reddish-brown oxide stains (vertical).

Depth
bgs
(feet)

220

225

230

230

235

235

Zone
#2

240

CLAY (CL): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/6), 80% clay; 20% silt; transition in color, increase in
yellow, very stiff.
SAND (SW): light yellowish brown (10YR 6/4), 100% fine to coarse grained sand,
subangular to subrounded, 5% coarse grains; poorly sorted; wet sample; contains quartz,
volcanic, and chert.

Sample
Type

240

SC:
23,705
uS/cm

245

255

CLAY (CL): very dark greenish gray (5GY 3/1), 100% clay, high plasticity; moist sample;
massive.
CLAY (CL): dark olive gray (5Y 3/2), 100% clay, high plasticity; moist sample.
CLAY (CL): very dark greenish gray (5GY 3/1), 100% clay, high plasticity; moist sample;
massive.

245
SIEVE

250

255

CLAY (CL): pale olive (5Y 6/4), 80% clay; 20% silt; with visible alteration; oxidized, thinly
laminated.
PTS

260

260
SANDY CLAY (CL): olive (5Y 5/3), 70% clay, stiff, massive, oxidized clay balls, 1 to 2 mm;
30% medium to coarse grained sand; contains evaporites, gypsum, with visible alteration;
yellowish-brown mottling; compression slicken sides.

265

SANDY CLAY (CL): olive (5Y 5/3), 70% clay, stiff; 30% medium to coarse grained sand,
subangular to subrounded, <2% coarse grains, predominantly quartz.
SAND (SP): olive gray (5Y 5/2), 90% medium to coarse grained sand, subangular, poorly
graded; 10% fine to coarse gravel up to 25 mm, subangular, granitic; trace silt; trace clay;
contains quartz, feldspar and mica.

265

270

CLAY (CL): olive (5Y 5/3), 85% clay, low plasticity; 15% silt; moist sample.
SAND (SP): pale olive (5Y 6/3), 100% medium to coarse grained sand, subangular to
subrounded, trace dark minerals, water film on sand grains; trace fine gravel up to 4.8 mm,
subangular to subrounded; wet sample; contains quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole, and
chert; yellowish-brown and reddish-brown mottling.

270

Geoscience Support Services, Inc.

*Zone test details are for CX-B1WQ, approximately 80 ft west of CX-B1

A1-5

SS: Splitspoon sample GRAB: Grab sample PTS: Splitspoon submitted for analysis SIEVE: Grab sieved by GSSI

250

GRAVEL (GW): light yellowish brown (10YR 6/4), 90% fine to coarse gravel up to 75 mm,
subrounded; 10% medium to coarse grained sand, subrounded; poorly sorted; moist
sample; contains quartz; basal gravel.
SILT (ML): olive yellow (2.5Y 6/8), 80% silt; 20% clay; yellowish-brown and light gray
mottling, thinly laminated, very stiff.
CLAY (CL): pale olive (5Y 6/4), 80% clay; 20% silt; with visible alteration; oxidized, thinly
laminated.

Appendix A1

GEOSCIENCE

BOREHOLE NAME

P.O. Box 220


Claremont, CA 91711
Telephone: (909) 451-6650
Fax: (909) 451-6638
www.gssiwater.com

BOREHOLE LITHOLOGIC LOG (continued)

CX-B1

California American Water


13017-13

CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER

LOCATION

Marina, CA
Lithologic Log

Depth
bgs
(feet)
0

GAMMA
(GAPI)

Zone
Test

CLID
(mmho/m)
110 1500

275

285

NOTE: Grain size distribution percentages are approximate. Material code


(e.g. SP) reference Unified Soil Classification visual method.
Color code (e.g. 10YR 5/2) reference Munsell Soil Color Charts.

Zone
#1

SC:
36,601
uS/cm

SAND (SP): pale olive (5Y 6/3), 90% medium to coarse grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; 10% fine to coarse gravel up to 38 mm, subangular to subrounded; wet
sample; contains quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole, and chert; yellowish-brown and
reddish-brown mottling.
SAND (SP): pale olive (5Y 6/3), 95% medium to coarse grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; 5% fine gravel up to 4.8 mm, subangular to subrounded; moist sample;
contains quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole.
SAND (SP): pale olive (5Y 6/3), 95% medium to coarse grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; 5% silt; moist sample; contains quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole.
SAND (SP): pale olive (5Y 6/3), 95% medium to coarse grained sand; 5% clay, light gray
and olive gray clay clasts/balls; moist sample; contains quartz, feldspar, mica and
amphibole.
SAND (SP): yellowish brown (10YR 5/4), 90% fine to medium grained sand, subangular to
subrounded, <2% coarse grain dark minerals; 5% fine gravel up to 4.8 mm, subangular to
subrounded, trace red gravel; 5% silt; moist sample; contains quartz, feldspar, mica and
amphibole; yellowish-brown coarse grain chert.

300

Geoscience Support Services, Inc.

GRAB

280

285

GRAB

SANDY SILT (ML): dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4), 70% silt; 30% fine grained sand,
subangular to subrounded, water film on sand grains; moist sample; contains feldspar, mica
and amphibole; yellowish-brown and gray mottling.
SAND (SP): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/6), 100% fine to medium grained sand, <1% dark
minerals, yellowish-brown grains; trace fine gravel up to 13 mm; trace silt; poorly sorted;
contains quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole.
SAND WITH GRAVEL (SP): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/6), 70% fine to medium grained sand,
angular to rounded; 30% fine to coarse gravel up to 75 mm, angular to rounded; poorly
sorted; moist sample; contains quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole; faint imbrications,
armored pebbles, granitic, tuff, siliceous shale, and chert.
SAND (SP): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/6), 100% fine to medium grained sand, <1% dark
minerals, yellowish-brown grains; trace fine gravel up to 13 mm; trace silt; poorly sorted;
contains quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole.
SAND WITH GRAVEL (SW): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/6), 80% fine to coarse grained sand,
subangular to subrounded; 15% fine to coarse gravel up to 19 mm, subangular to
subrounded; 5% clay; poorly sorted; moist sample; contains quartz, mafic gravel, and other;
granitic.
GRAVEL WITH SAND (GW): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/6), 80% fine to coarse gravel up to
38 mm, subrounded; 20% fine to medium grained sand, subrounded; trace silt; trace clay;
poorly sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole.
SILTY SAND (SM): dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4), 80% fine grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; 20% silt; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole, granite, tuff,
chert, and siliceous shale.
SAND (SP): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/4), 100% fine to medium grained sand, subangular,
poorly graded; trace fine gravel up to 6 mm, subangular; trace clay, dark gray clay balls;
poorly sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole, granite, chert, and siliceous shale.
Bottom of borehole at 306 feet.

*Zone test details are for CX-B1WQ, approximately 80 ft west of CX-B1

A1-6

295
SIEVE

300

305

SS: Splitspoon sample GRAB: Grab sample PTS: Splitspoon submitted for analysis SIEVE: Grab sieved by GSSI

305

Sample
Type

290

290

295

Depth
bgs
(feet)

275

280

Graphic
Log

Appendix A1

GEOSCIENCE

P.O. Box 220


Claremont, CA 91711
Telephone: (909) 451-6650
Fax: (909) 451-6638
www.gssiwater.com

BOREHOLE NAME

BOREHOLE LITHOLOGIC LOG

CX-B2

California American Water


13017-13

CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER

5/23/2014

REPORT DATE
DRILLING CONTRACTOR
DRILLER
DRILLING
Prosonic 600T
RIG TYPE
SURFACE
32.0 ft
ELEVATION

Cascade Drilling
Jose Munguia
DRILLING
METHOD
TOTAL
DEPTH

LOCATION

Marina, CA
CEMEX Lapis Plant
36 42' 46.2636", -121 48' 13.4316"

Geographic NAD83

LOGGED BY

N. Reynolds
Sonic
307 ft bgs

START
DATE
FINISH
DATE

11/04/13
11/07/13

BOREHOLE
DIAMETER
CORE
SIZE

6.25 in
4 in

Lithologic Log
Depth
bgs
(feet)
0

GAMMA
(GAPI)

Zone
Test

CLID
(mmho/m)
110 1500

10

Graphic
Log

NOTE: Grain size distribution percentages are approximate. Material code


(e.g. SP) reference Unified Soil Classification visual method.
Color code (e.g. 10YR 5/2) reference Munsell Soil Color Charts.

SAND (SP): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/4), 100% fine to medium grained sand, subangular to
rounded; trace fine to coarse gravel up to 28 mm, rounded; trace silt; poorly sorted; contains
quartz, feldspar and amphibole; shell fragments.
SILT (ML): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/3), 90% silt; 10% fine grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; moderate cementation; decomposing minerals, shell fragments.
SAND (SP): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/4), 95% fine to medium grained sand, subangular to
subrounded, predominantly fine; 5% silt; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar and
amphibole.

SAND (SP): brown (7.5YR 4/4), 95% fine to medium grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; 5% silt; medium sorted; contains quartz, feldspar and amphibole.

Depth
bgs
(feet)

Sample
Type

10

SAND (SP): light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/4), 100% fine to medium grained sand,
subangular to subrounded, predominantly fine; medium sorted; contains quartz, feldspar and
amphibole.
15

15

SAND (SP): olive (5Y 5/3), 100% fine to medium grained sand, subangular to subrounded,
predominantly fine; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar and amphibole.
20

20
SANDY SILT (ML): olive (5Y 5/3), 70% silt; 30% fine to medium grained sand, subangular
to subrounded; contains quartz, feldspar and amphibole; interbed.
SAND (SP): light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/4), 100% fine to medium grained sand,
subangular to subrounded; medium sorted; contains quartz, feldspar and amphibole; gray
interbeds.
25

SAND (SP): olive (5Y 5/3), 100% fine to medium grained sand, subangular to subrounded,
predominantly fine; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar and amphibole.
30

35

SILTY SAND (SM): gray (5Y 5/1), 85% fine grained sand, subangular to subrounded; 15%
silt; medium sorted; dry sample; contains quartz, feldspar and amphibole; ; powdery.
SAND (SP): light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/4), 100% medium grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; medium sorted; contains quartz, feldspar and amphibole.
SAND (SW): light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/4), 100% fine to coarse grained sand, subangular
to subrounded, predominantly medium to coarse; poorly sorted; contains quartz, feldspar,
mica and amphibole.

30

35

40

40

45

45

50
Geoscience Support Services, Inc.

50
*Zone test details are for CX-B2WQ, approximately 60 ft west of CX-B2

A1-7

SS: Splitspoon sample GRAB: Grab sample PTS: Splitspoon submitted for analysis SIEVE: Grab sieved by GSSI

25

Appendix A1

GEOSCIENCE

BOREHOLE NAME

P.O. Box 220


Claremont, CA 91711
Telephone: (909) 451-6650
Fax: (909) 451-6638
www.gssiwater.com

BOREHOLE LITHOLOGIC LOG (continued)

CX-B2

California American Water


13017-13

CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER

LOCATION

Marina, CA
Lithologic Log

Depth
bgs
(feet)
0

GAMMA
(GAPI)

Zone
Test

CLID
(mmho/m)
110 1500

Graphic
Log

NOTE: Grain size distribution percentages are approximate. Material code


(e.g. SP) reference Unified Soil Classification visual method.
Color code (e.g. 10YR 5/2) reference Munsell Soil Color Charts.

Depth
bgs
(feet)

Sample
Type

SIEVE

55
Zone
#4

SAND (SP): light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/3), 100% fine to medium grained sand,
subangular to subrounded; trace silt; poorly sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica and
amphibole.

55

SAND (SP): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/4), 100% fine grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; trace silt; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole; higher
mica content.
60

SC:
39,657
uS/cm

60

65

65
SILTY SAND (SM): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/3), 85% fine grained sand, subangular to
subrounded, predominantly very fine grain; 15% silt; trace fine gravel up to 12 mm, rounded,
at 76 ft; trace clay, clay lenses; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole;
altered shell fragments at 75 ft.

70

70

75

75

80

80

85

90

95

100

105
Geoscience Support Services, Inc.

Zone
#3

SAND WITH GRAVEL (SP): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/3), 80% fine grained sand, subangular
to subrounded; 15% fine to coarse gravel up to 25 mm, subangular to subrounded, rounded;
5% clay, clay lenses; trace silt; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole;
altered minerals.
SAND (SP): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/3), 100% fine grained sand, subangular to
subrounded, predominantly very fine grain; trace silt; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar,
mica and amphibole; trace shell fragments at 86 to 87 ft.
SAND (SP): olive (5Y 5/3), 100% fine to medium grained sand, subangular to subrounded;
medium sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole.
SAND (SP): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/6), 95% medium to coarse grained sand, subangular
to rounded, predominantly coarse grain; 5% fine to coarse gravel up to 35 mm, rounded, at
90 to 91.1 ft; medium sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole.
SAND (SP): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/4), 100% fine grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole; alteration visible
with rusty coloration at 93.3 ft.
SAND (SP): light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/4), 100% fine to coarse grained sand, subangular
to rounded; trace fine to coarse gravel up to 35 mm, rounded; poorly sorted; contains quartz,
feldspar, mica and amphibole.
SAND (SP): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/3), 100% fine grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; trace fine to coarse gravel up to 37 mm, subangular to subrounded; well sorted;
contains quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole; moderately cemented sand and gravel at
96.4-96.8 ft.
SAND (SP): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/3), 90% fine to coarse grained sand, subangular to
rounded, predominantly medium and coarse; 10% fine to coarse gravel up to 45 mm,
subangular to rounded; poorly sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole.
SAND (SP): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/3), 100% fine grained sand, subangular to
subrounded, medium and coarse grain interbeds; trace clay, green-gray clay balls at 102.4
to 103.2 ft; poorly sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole; clay and alteration
at 100 ft.

*Zone test details are for CX-B2WQ, approximately 60 ft west of CX-B2

A1-8

85

90

95

GRAB

100

105

SS: Splitspoon sample GRAB: Grab sample PTS: Splitspoon submitted for analysis SIEVE: Grab sieved by GSSI

GRAB

Appendix A1

GEOSCIENCE

BOREHOLE NAME

P.O. Box 220


Claremont, CA 91711
Telephone: (909) 451-6650
Fax: (909) 451-6638
www.gssiwater.com

BOREHOLE LITHOLOGIC LOG (continued)

CX-B2

California American Water


13017-13

CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER

LOCATION

Marina, CA
Lithologic Log

Depth
bgs
(feet)
0

GAMMA
(GAPI)

Zone
Test

CLID
(mmho/m)
110 1500

Graphic
Log

NOTE: Grain size distribution percentages are approximate. Material code


(e.g. SP) reference Unified Soil Classification visual method.
Color code (e.g. 10YR 5/2) reference Munsell Soil Color Charts.

Depth
bgs
(feet)

Sample
Type

SILTY SAND (SM): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/3), 85% fine grained sand, subangular to
subrounded, very fine grain; 15% silt; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica and
amphibole; shell fragments at 114.2 and 115.8 ft.
110

SC:
40,173
uS/cm

110

115

115
SIEVE

120

SAND WITH GRAVEL (SP): olive brown (2.5Y 4/4), 70% fine to coarse grained sand,
subangular to rounded; 30% fine to coarse gravel up to 30 mm, rounded; poorly sorted;
contains quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole.
CLAY (CL): olive (5Y 5/3), 100% clay, high plasticity; trace coarse gravel up to 55 mm, at
119-120 ft; alteration visible with rusty coloration at 121 to 121.6 ft.

120

SAND (SP): light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/3), 100% fine to medium grained sand,
subangular to subrounded; medium sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole.
125

125

130

130

GRAB

135

SAND (SP): light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/4), 100% fine grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole.

140
SIEVE

145

150

155

160

Geoscience Support Services, Inc.

CLAYEY SAND (SC): light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/4), 75% fine grained sand, subangular
to subrounded; 25% clay, clay lenses; well sorted; weak cementation; contains quartz,
feldspar, mica and amphibole; with visible alteration.
SILTY SAND (SM): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/4), 85% fine grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; 15% silt; trace fine to coarse gravel up to 55 mm, well rounded, at 143.8 ft;
trace clay, clay lenses; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole.
SAND WITH CLAY (SP-SC): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/3), 85% fine to medium grained
sand, subangular to subrounded, trace coarse; 10% clay, clay chips; 5% fine gravel up to 19
mm, subangular to subrounded; medium sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica and
amphibole; with visible alteration; complex sample.
SAND (SP): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/3), 100% fine grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole; trace 40 mm
cemented sand piece at 149.8 ft.
SAND (SP): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/4), 100% fine grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole.
SAND (SP): dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/6), 100% fine grained sand, subangular to
subrounded, cemented sand balls; trace clay; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica
and amphibole; alteration visible with rusty coloration at 153.3 ft.

SILTY SAND (SM): yellowish brown (10YR 5/4), 70% fine grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; 30% silt; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar and amphibole.
CLAY (CL): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/3), 100% clay, high plasticity; very dense.
*Zone test details are for CX-B2WQ, approximately 60 ft west of CX-B2

A1-9

145

150

155

160

GRAB

SS: Splitspoon sample GRAB: Grab sample PTS: Splitspoon submitted for analysis SIEVE: Grab sieved by GSSI

140

135

Appendix A1

GEOSCIENCE

BOREHOLE NAME

P.O. Box 220


Claremont, CA 91711
Telephone: (909) 451-6650
Fax: (909) 451-6638
www.gssiwater.com

BOREHOLE LITHOLOGIC LOG (continued)

CX-B2

California American Water


13017-13

CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER

LOCATION

Marina, CA
Lithologic Log

Depth
bgs
(feet)
0

GAMMA
(GAPI)

Zone
Test

CLID
(mmho/m)
110 1500

Zone
#2

Graphic
Log

NOTE: Grain size distribution percentages are approximate. Material code


(e.g. SP) reference Unified Soil Classification visual method.
Color code (e.g. 10YR 5/2) reference Munsell Soil Color Charts.

Depth
bgs
(feet)

Sample
Type

SAND (SP): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/3), 100% fine grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole.

165

165
SC:
21,620
uS/cm

GRAB

170

170

175

CLAY WITH SAND (CL): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/3), 85% clay, medium plasticity; 15% fine
grained sand, subangular to subrounded; contains quartz, feldspar and mica; some rust
colored alteration; moderate cementation.
SAND WITH CLAY (SP-SC): light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/3), 90% fine grained sand,
subangular to subrounded; 10% clay; trace fine gravel up to 14 mm, subangular to
subrounded; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole.

175

180

CLAYEY SAND (SC): brown (10YR 4/3), 70% fine grained sand, subangular to subrounded;
30% clay; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole.

180

185

SAND (SP): yellowish brown (10YR 5/4), 100% fine grained sand, subangular to
subrounded, predominantly very fine grain; trace silt; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar,
mica and amphibole; with visible alteration.

185

190

195

SANDY CLAY (CL): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/4), 60% clay, no plasticity, hard/dense; 40%
fine grained sand, subangular to subrounded; moderate cementation; contains quartz,
feldspar and amphibole; some visible alteration.

195

SAND (SP): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/3) and brown (7.5YR 4/4), 100% fine grained sand,
subangular to subrounded; trace silt; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica and
amphibole; with visible alteration; transition from olive to brown; laminations.
200

200

SIEVE

205

205

SS
PTS
SS

210

210

215
Zone
#1

Geoscience Support Services, Inc.

SANDY CLAY (CL): strong brown (7.5YR 4/6), 70% clay, hard; 30% fine grained sand,
subangular to subrounded; moderate cementation; contains quartz, feldspar, mica and
amphibole; rust colored alteration/laminations.
CLAY (CL): light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/3) and olive gray (5Y 4/2), 100% clay; with
visible alteration; 1 in. dark reddish gray layer at 212.2 ft.
SAND (SP): light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/3), 100% fine to medium grained sand,
subangular to rounded; trace fine to coarse gravel up to 48 mm, rounded, at 218 ft; trace
clay; poorly sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole.

*Zone test details are for CX-B2WQ, approximately 60 ft west of CX-B2

A1-10

215

SS: Splitspoon sample GRAB: Grab sample PTS: Splitspoon submitted for analysis SIEVE: Grab sieved by GSSI

190

SANDY CLAY (CL): dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4), 60% clay, low plasticity, soft; 40%
fine grained sand, subangular to subrounded; wet sample; contains quartz, feldspar and
amphibole; trace cemented sandy clay balls.

Appendix A1

GEOSCIENCE

BOREHOLE NAME

P.O. Box 220


Claremont, CA 91711
Telephone: (909) 451-6650
Fax: (909) 451-6638
www.gssiwater.com

BOREHOLE LITHOLOGIC LOG (continued)

CX-B2

California American Water


13017-13

CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER

LOCATION

Marina, CA
Lithologic Log

Depth
bgs
(feet)
0

GAMMA
(GAPI)

Zone
Test

CLID
(mmho/m)
110 1500

220

Graphic
Log

NOTE: Grain size distribution percentages are approximate. Material code


(e.g. SP) reference Unified Soil Classification visual method.
Color code (e.g. 10YR 5/2) reference Munsell Soil Color Charts.

SC:
35,199
uS/cm

Depth
bgs
(feet)

Sample
Type

220
SAND (SP): light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/3), 100% fine to coarse grained sand, angular to
subrounded; trace fine to coarse gravel up to 23 mm, rounded; poorly sorted; contains
quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole; trace rounded cobbles up to 80 mm at 223.8 ft.

225

SILT (ML): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/4), 100% silt, dense; trace fine grained sand,
subangular to subrounded; contains mica; with visible alteration.

230

225

230

CLAY (CL): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/3), 100% clay, no plasticity, dense.
235

SILT (ML): olive gray (5Y 5/2), 100% silt; trace fine grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; trace clay; thin interbeds of clay and fine sand.

235

240

CLAY (CL): olive (5Y 5/3), 100% clay, very dense.

240

CLAY (CL): dark greenish gray (10Y 4/1) and greenish black (10Y 2.5/1), 100% clay, very
dense; the blue clay.

245

245
CLAY (CL): olive (5Y 5/3), 100% clay, very dense; many thin rust colored laminations.

255

260

250

255

260

265

PTS

265
CLAY (CL): very dark greenish gray (5GY 3/1), 100% clay, no plasticity, dense; friable.

SS

CLAY (CL): olive gray (5Y 5/2) and dark gray (5Y 4/1), 100% clay, no plasticity, dense;
some alteration, especially at sand/clay interface.
270

SAND (SW): olive (5Y 5/3), 90% fine to coarse grained sand, subangular to rounded; 10%
fine to coarse gravel up to 54 mm, well rounded; poorly sorted; wet sample; contains quartz,
feldspar, mica, amphibole, and other.

270

SIEVE

Geoscience Support Services, Inc.

*Zone test details are for CX-B2WQ, approximately 60 ft west of CX-B2

A1-11

SS: Splitspoon sample GRAB: Grab sample PTS: Splitspoon submitted for analysis SIEVE: Grab sieved by GSSI

250

SAND (SP): olive (5Y 5/3), 100% fine to medium grained sand, subangular to subrounded,
trace cemented sand balls to 19 mm; trace fine gravel up to 9 mm, subangular to
subrounded; medium sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole; rusty alteration
points.
SANDY CLAY (CL): olive gray (5Y 5/2), 70% clay; 30% fine grained sand, subangular to
subrounded, interbedded; moderate cementation; contains quartz, feldspar, mica and
amphibole; with visible alteration; rust colored alteration.
SAND WITH GRAVEL (SP): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/4), 70% fine to coarse grained sand,
subangular to subrounded; 30% fine to coarse gravel up to 45 mm, well rounded; trace clay,
clay balls; poorly sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole, and other; weakly
cemented sand with gravel, some alteration.
SAND (SP): light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/3), 100% medium to coarse grained sand,
subangular to subrounded; trace fine to coarse gravel up to 19 mm, well rounded; poorly
sorted; contains quartz, feldspar and amphibole.
CLAY (CL): olive gray (5Y 5/2), 100% clay, no plasticity, very dense; alteration visible with
rusty coloration at 257 to 261 ft.

Appendix A1

GEOSCIENCE

BOREHOLE NAME

P.O. Box 220


Claremont, CA 91711
Telephone: (909) 451-6650
Fax: (909) 451-6638
www.gssiwater.com

BOREHOLE LITHOLOGIC LOG (continued)

CX-B2

California American Water


13017-13

CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER

LOCATION

Marina, CA
Lithologic Log

Depth
bgs
(feet)
0

GAMMA
(GAPI)

Zone
Test

CLID
(mmho/m)
110 1500

275

280

285

290

295

300

Geoscience Support Services, Inc.

NOTE: Grain size distribution percentages are approximate. Material code


(e.g. SP) reference Unified Soil Classification visual method.
Color code (e.g. 10YR 5/2) reference Munsell Soil Color Charts.

GRAVEL WITH SAND (GP): light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/3), 70% fine to coarse gravel up
to 72 mm, well rounded, predominantly coarse; 30% fine to coarse grained sand, subangular
to rounded; poorly sorted; wet sample; contains quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole, and
other; includes well rounded quartz gravel.
SAND WITH CLAY AND GRAVEL (SP-SC): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/3), 75% fine to coarse
grained sand, subangular to rounded, predominantly medium to coarse grain; 15% fine to
coarse gravel up to 52 mm, well rounded; 10% clay; poorly sorted; wet sample; contains
quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole, and other; with some visible alteration.
CLAY (CL): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/3), 100% clay, medium plasticity; trace fine to coarse
gravel up to 22 mm, subangular to rounded, interbeds.
SAND WITH CLAY AND GRAVEL (SP-SC): light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/3), 75% fine to
medium grained sand, subangular to rounded; 15% fine to coarse gravel up to 58 mm, well
rounded; 10% clay; poorly sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole and other;
transition of sand with trace gravel and clay to sand with clay and gravel.
SAND (SP): light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/3), 100% fine to medium grained sand,
subangular to subrounded; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole and other.
CLAYEY SAND (SC): light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/3), 75% fine to coarse grained sand,
subangular to subrounded; 15% clay, clay balls; 10% fine to coarse gravel up to 40 mm, well
rounded; poorly sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole and other; 5 in. sandy
clay layers at 286.6 and 288.3 ft.
SAND (SP): light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/3), 85% fine to coarse grained sand, subangular
to subrounded; 10% fine to coarse gravel up to 28 mm, well rounded; 5% clay, clay balls;
poorly sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole and other.
SAND WITH CLAY AND GRAVEL (SP-SC): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/3), 65% fine to coarse
grained sand, subangular to subrounded, predominantly medium to coarse grained; 25%
fine to coarse gravel up to 60 mm, well rounded; 10% clay, clay/sandy clay balls; trace
cobbles up to 80mm; poorly sorted; moderate cementation; contains quartz, feldspar, mica,
amphibole and other; with visible alteration.
CLAY (CL): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/4), 100% clay, medium plasticity; dense brown clay.
SAND (SP): light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/3), 100% fine to medium grained sand,
subangular to subrounded; trace fine gravel up to 17 mm, subangular to subrounded;
medium sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole and other.
SAND (SP): light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/4), 90% fine to coarse grained sand, subangular
to rounded; 10% fine to coarse gravel up to 50 mm, well rounded; trace cobbles up to
80mm; poorly sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole and other; with visible
alteration.
SAND WITH GRAVEL (SP): pale yellow (2.5Y 7/4), 85% coarse grained sand, subrounded
to well rounded, trace medium grain; 15% fine to coarse gravel up to 26 mm, well rounded;
medium sorted; wet sample; contains quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole and other.
SAND WITH GRAVEL (SP): olive gray (5Y 4/2), 80% coarse grained sand, subrounded to
rounded; 20% fine to coarse gravel up to 43 mm, well rounded; medium sorted; wet sample;
contains quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole and other.
CLAYEY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SC): light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/4), 70% fine to coarse
grained sand, subangular to rounded; 15% fine to coarse gravel up to 45 mm, rounded; 15%
clay, clay balls; poorly sorted; wet sample; contains quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole and
other.
Bottom of borehole at 307 feet.

*Zone test details are for CX-B2WQ, approximately 60 ft west of CX-B2

A1-12

Depth
bgs
(feet)

Sample
Type

275

280
GRAB

285

290

295

300

GRAB

305

SS: Splitspoon sample GRAB: Grab sample PTS: Splitspoon submitted for analysis SIEVE: Grab sieved by GSSI

305

Graphic
Log

Appendix A1

GEOSCIENCE

P.O. Box 220


Claremont, CA 91711
Telephone: (909) 451-6650
Fax: (909) 451-6638
www.gssiwater.com

BOREHOLE NAME

BOREHOLE LITHOLOGIC LOG

CX-B3

California American Water


13017-13

CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER

5/23/2014

REPORT DATE
DRILLING CONTRACTOR
DRILLER
DRILLING
Prosonic 600T
RIG TYPE
SURFACE
39.0 ft
ELEVATION

Cascade Drilling
Jose Munguia
DRILLING
METHOD
TOTAL
DEPTH

LOCATION

Marina, CA
CEMEX Lapis Plant
36 42' 43.1316", -121 47' 59.9316"

Geographic NAD83

LOGGED BY

N. Reynolds
Sonic
347 ft bgs

START
DATE
FINISH
DATE

11/09/13
11/14/13

BOREHOLE
DIAMETER
CORE
SIZE

6.25 in
4 in

Lithologic Log
Depth
bgs
(feet)
0

GAMMA
(GAPI)

Zone
Test

CLID
(mmho/m)
110 1500

Graphic
Log

NOTE: Grain size distribution percentages are approximate. Material code


(e.g. SP) reference Unified Soil Classification visual method.
Color code (e.g. 10YR 5/2) reference Munsell Soil Color Charts.

Depth
bgs
(feet)

Sample
Type

SAND (SP): dark brown (10YR 3/3), 95% fine to medium grained sand, subangular to
rounded, predominantly fine grained; 5% silt; medium sorted; contains quartz, feldspar and
amphibole; first 7 ft disturbed sample.

10

10

SAND (SP): pale yellow (2.5Y 7/4), 100% fine to medium grained sand, subangular to
subrounded, predominantly fine grained; medium sorted; contains quartz, feldspar and
amphibole.
15

20

SAND (SP): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/3), 100% fine to medium grained sand, subangular to
rounded, predominantly fine grained; medium sorted; contains quartz, feldspar and
amphibole.
SILT WITH SAND (ML): light gray (5Y 7/2), 85% silt; 15% fine grained sand, subrounded;
dry sample/powdery.

SAND (SP): pale yellow (2.5Y 7/4), 100% fine grained sand, subangular to subrounded; well
sorted; contains quartz, feldspar and amphibole.

30

20

25

30
SAND (SP): light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/4), 95% fine to medium grained sand, subangular
to subrounded; 5% silt; medium sorted; contains quartz, feldspar and amphibole.

35

SAND (SP): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/3), 100% fine to medium grained sand, subangular to
rounded, predominantly fine grained; medium sorted; contains quartz, feldspar and
amphibole.
SILT (ML): light gray (5Y 7/2), 100% silt; trace fine grained sand; dry sample; powdery.
SAND (SP): light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/4), 100% fine to medium grained sand,
subrounded to rounded; medium sorted; contains quartz, feldspar and amphibole.

40

45

35

40

SAND (SP): light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/3), 100% fine grained sand, subangular to
subrounded, trace medium grained; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica and
amphibole.

45
SIEVE

50

50

Geoscience Support Services, Inc.

A1-13

SS: Splitspoon sample GRAB: Grab sample PTS: Splitspoon submitted for analysis SIEVE: Grab sieved by GSSI

25

15

Appendix A1

GEOSCIENCE

BOREHOLE NAME

P.O. Box 220


Claremont, CA 91711
Telephone: (909) 451-6650
Fax: (909) 451-6638
www.gssiwater.com

BOREHOLE LITHOLOGIC LOG (continued)

CX-B3

California American Water


13017-13

CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER

LOCATION

Marina, CA
Lithologic Log

Depth
bgs
(feet)
0

GAMMA
(GAPI)

Zone
Test

CLID
(mmho/m)
110 1500

Graphic
Log

NOTE: Grain size distribution percentages are approximate. Material code


(e.g. SP) reference Unified Soil Classification visual method.
Color code (e.g. 10YR 5/2) reference Munsell Soil Color Charts.

Depth
bgs
(feet)

Sample
Type

SAND (SW): light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/4), 100% fine to coarse grained sand, subangular
to rounded; poorly sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole.
SAND (SP): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/3), 100% fine grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole.
55

60

65

70

55

SAND (SP): light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/4), 100% fine to medium grained sand,
subangular to subrounded, predominantly fine grained; medium sorted; contains quartz,
feldspar, mica and amphibole.
SAND (SP): light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/3), 100% fine to coarse grained sand, subrounded
to rounded, predominantly medium to coarse grained; trace fine gravel up to 15 mm,
rounded; poorly sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole, and other.
SAND (SP): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/4), 100% fine grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole.
SAND (SW): light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/3), 100% fine to coarse grained sand,
subrounded to rounded; trace fine gravel up to 15 mm, rounded; poorly sorted; contains
quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole, and other.
SAND (SP): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/4), 100% fine grained sand, subangular to
subrounded, trace medium grained; medium sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica and
amphibole; higher mica content.
SAND (SP): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/3), 95% fine grained sand, subrounded, very fine
grained; 5% silt; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole; higher mica
content.

60

65

70

75

75

80

80

85

85

SAND (SP): olive yellow (2.5Y 6/6), 95% fine to medium grained sand, subrounded to
rounded; 5% silt; poorly sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole, and other.
90

90
SAND WITH GRAVEL (SP): light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/4), 75% medium to coarse
grained sand, subrounded to rounded, trace fine grained; 20% fine to coarse gravel up to 32
mm, rounded; 5% clay, sandy clay balls; poorly sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica,
amphibole, and other.

95

100

95
SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM): light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/4), 90% fine grained sand,
subangular to subrounded; 10% silt, silty sand balls; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar,
mica and amphibole; with visible alteration.
GRAVEL WITH SAND (GP): light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/4), 60% fine to coarse gravel up
to 48 mm, rounded; 40% medium to coarse grained sand, subrounded to rounded; poorly
sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole, and other.

100

SAND (SW): light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/4), 100% fine to coarse grained sand,
subrounded to rounded; trace fine gravel up to 10 mm, subrounded; poorly sorted; contains
quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole, and other.
GRAB

105

SAND (SP): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/4), 100% fine grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole, and other, with some

Geoscience Support Services, Inc.

A1-14

105

SS: Splitspoon sample GRAB: Grab sample PTS: Splitspoon submitted for analysis SIEVE: Grab sieved by GSSI

GRAB

Appendix A1

GEOSCIENCE

BOREHOLE NAME

P.O. Box 220


Claremont, CA 91711
Telephone: (909) 451-6650
Fax: (909) 451-6638
www.gssiwater.com

BOREHOLE LITHOLOGIC LOG (continued)

CX-B3

California American Water


13017-13

CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER

LOCATION

Marina, CA
Lithologic Log

Depth
bgs
(feet)
0

GAMMA
(GAPI)

Zone
Test

CLID
(mmho/m)
110 1500

Graphic
Log

NOTE: Grain size distribution percentages are approximate. Material code


(e.g. SP) reference Unified Soil Classification visual method.
Color code (e.g. 10YR 5/2) reference Munsell Soil Color Charts.

Depth
bgs
(feet)

Sample
Type

visible alteration.

110

SAND WITH GRAVEL (SP): light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/4), 80% fine to coarse grained
sand, subangular to rounded, predominantly medium to coarse grained; 20% fine to coarse
gravel up to 58 mm, subrounded to rounded; trace clay; poorly sorted; contains quartz,
feldspar, mica, amphibole, and other.

115

SS
PTS
SS

110

115
SILTY SAND (SM): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/3), 85% fine grained sand, subrounded, very
fine grained; 15% silt; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole.

120

120
SIEVE

125

130

135

145

150

SILT (ML): pale olive (5Y 6/3), 100% silt, dense; visible alteration/rust colored laminations.
SAND (SP): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/4), 100% fine grained sand, subrounded, very fine
grained; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole; with visible alteration.
SILT (ML): olive gray (5Y 5/2), 100% silt; with visible alteration.
SAND (SP): light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/4), 95% fine to medium grained sand, subangular
to subrounded, grades to predominantly medium grained sand at 135 ft; 5% silt; poorly
sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole.
SILT (ML): olive (5Y 5/3), 100% silt; visible alteration/rust colored laminations.

SAND (SP): pale olive (5Y 6/3), 100% fine to medium grained sand, subangular to
subrounded, predominantly medium grained; medium sorted.

CLAYEY SAND (SC): pale olive (5Y 6/3), 70% fine to coarse grained sand, subangular to
rounded; 20% clay; 10% fine to coarse gravel up to 40 mm, well rounded, especially at 144.5
to 145 ft; poorly sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole, and other, visible rust
colored alteration.
FAT CLAY (CH): pale olive (5Y 6/3), 100% clay, dense; medium plasticity.
CLAYEY SAND (SC): pale olive (5Y 6/3), 70% fine to coarse grained sand, subrounded to
rounded; 30% clay; trace fine to coarse gravel up to 25 mm, subangular; poorly sorted; with
visible alteration; contains quartz, feldspar, amphibole, and other.

130

135

140

145

150

SANDY FAT CLAY (CH): pale olive (5Y 6/3), 70% clay, medium plasticity; 30% fine to
medium grained sand, subangular to subrounded; contains quartz, feldspar, amphibole, and
other; some visible alteration with rusty coloration.
155

160

FAT CLAY (CH): pale olive (5Y 6/3), 100% clay, medium plasticity; visible alteration/rust
colored laminations.
SILTY SAND (SM): pale olive (5Y 6/3), 85% fine grained sand, subrounded to rounded;
15% silt; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar and amphibole.
FAT CLAY (CH): olive (5Y 5/3), 100% clay, low plasticity; trace fine grained sand,
subangular to subrounded; some rust colored alterations.
SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM): pale olive (5Y 6/3), 90% fine grained sand, subangular to
subrounded, altered sand layers, rust and white coloration; 10% silt; trace fine to coarse
gravel up to 38 mm, rounded; trace clay, clay balls; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar,
mica, amphibole, and other.

Geoscience Support Services, Inc.

A1-15

PTS

155

160

SS: Splitspoon sample GRAB: Grab sample PTS: Splitspoon submitted for analysis SIEVE: Grab sieved by GSSI

140

125
SAND WITH SILT AND GRAVEL (SP-SM): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/3), 75% fine grained
sand, subrounded; 15% fine to coarse gravel up to 27 mm, rounded, multi-colored; 10% silt;
well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole; with visible alteration.
SILTY SAND (SM): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/3), 85% fine grained sand, subrounded, very
fine grained; 15% silt; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole.
FAT CLAY (CH): dark gray (5Y 4/1), 100% clay, medium plasticity, dense/hard.

Appendix A1

GEOSCIENCE

BOREHOLE NAME

P.O. Box 220


Claremont, CA 91711
Telephone: (909) 451-6650
Fax: (909) 451-6638
www.gssiwater.com

BOREHOLE LITHOLOGIC LOG (continued)

CX-B3

California American Water


13017-13

CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER

LOCATION

Marina, CA
Lithologic Log

Depth
bgs
(feet)
0

GAMMA
(GAPI)

Zone
Test

CLID
(mmho/m)
110 1500

165

170

175

180

185

190

200

NOTE: Grain size distribution percentages are approximate. Material code


(e.g. SP) reference Unified Soil Classification visual method.
Color code (e.g. 10YR 5/2) reference Munsell Soil Color Charts.

SAND WITH CLAY AND GRAVEL (SW-SC): yellowish brown (10YR 5/4), 75% fine to
coarse grained sand, subangular to rounded; 15% fine to coarse gravel up to 68 mm,
rounded; 10% clay; poorly sorted; contains quartz, feldspar and amphibole; visible alteration
of sands.
SAND (SP): strong brown (7.5YR 5/8), 85% medium to coarse grained sand, subrounded to
rounded, predominantly coarse grained; 10% fine to coarse gravel up to 28 mm, rounded;
5% clay; poorly sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, amphibole, and other; bright rust colored
alteration.
SAND WITH CLAY AND GRAVEL (SP-SC): pale olive (5Y 6/3), 75% medium to coarse
grained sand, subangular to rounded; 15% fine to coarse gravel up to 36 mm, rounded; 10%
clay; poorly sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, amphibole, and other; contains altered sands.
CLAY (CL): light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/4), 95% clay, low plasticity; 5% fine to coarse
gravel up to 42 mm, subrounded to rounded, interbedded; trace medium grained sand,
subrounded to rounded.
SAND (SP): pale olive (5Y 6/3), 100% fine to medium grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; trace fine to coarse gravel up to 40 mm, subrounded to rounded; trace clay;
poorly sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, amphibole, and other, with visible alteration; trace
weakly cemented sands.
CLAY WITH GRAVEL (CL): pale olive (5Y 6/3), 85% clay; 10% fine to coarse gravel up to
50 mm, subangular to rounded; 5% fine grained sand, subangular to subrounded; fine sand
alteration of minerals/rock.
CLAYEY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SC): pale olive (5Y 6/3), 70% fine to coarse grained sand,
subangular to subrounded; 15% fine to coarse gravel up to 75 mm, rounded; 15% clay, clay
balls; poorly sorted; well graded; contains quartz, feldspar, amphibole, and other; visible
alteration of minerals/rock.
SANDY CLAY (CL): pale olive (5Y 6/3), 70% clay; 25% fine to coarse grained sand,
subangular to subrounded; 5% fine to coarse gravel up to 25 mm, subrounded to rounded;
contains quartz, feldspar, amphibole, and other, visible alteration with rusty coloration.
CLAYEY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SC): pale olive (5Y 6/3), 70% fine to coarse grained sand,
subangular to subrounded; 15% fine to coarse gravel up to 33 mm, subrounded to rounded;
15% clay; poorly sorted; well graded; contains quartz, feldspar, amphibole, and other;
moderately cemented sand layer at 178.2-178.7 ft.
GRAVELLY SILT (ML): light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/3), 60% silt; 30% fine to coarse gravel
up to 70 mm, rounded, coarse grained at 179.6 ft; 10% fine grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; moderately cemented sand and gravel layer at 180.8-181.8 ft; contains quartz,
feldspar, amphibole, and other.
SAND (SP): light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/4), 100% fine to medium grained sand,
subangular to subrounded, predominantly medium grained; trace fine gravel up to 18 mm,
rounded; trace clay, clay lens; medium sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, amphibole, and
other; rust colored alteration of sands at 186.8 to 187.3 ft.
CLAY (CL): olive (5Y 5/3), 100% clay, low plasticity; trace fine grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; some alteration visible with rusty coloration.
SANDY CLAY (CL): pale olive (5Y 6/3), 70% clay, low plasticity; 30% fine to coarse grained
sand, subangular to subrounded; trace fine to coarse gravel up to 30 mm, subangular to
subrounded; contains quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole, and other, with visible alteration.
CLAY (CL): olive (5Y 5/3), 100% clay, low plasticity, dense; with visible rust colored
alteration.
SAND (SP): yellowish brown (10YR 5/4), 95% fine grained sand, subangular to subrounded;
5% silt; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar and amphibole.
SAND (SP): dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4), 95% fine grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; 5% silt; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar and amphibole.

Depth
bgs
(feet)

Sample
Type

165

170

175

SS
PTS
SS

180

185

190

195

SS
PTS

200

GRAB

205

210

SAND (SP): brown (7.5YR 4/3), 95% fine grained sand, subangular to subrounded; 5% silt;
well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar and amphibole.

SAND (SP): dark brown (10YR 3/3), 95% fine grained sand, subangular to subrounded; 5%
silt; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar and amphibole.

215

205

210

215

SAND (SP): dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2), 95% fine grained sand, subangular to
Geoscience Support Services, Inc.

A1-16

SS: Splitspoon sample GRAB: Grab sample PTS: Splitspoon submitted for analysis SIEVE: Grab sieved by GSSI

195

Graphic
Log

Appendix A1

GEOSCIENCE

BOREHOLE NAME

P.O. Box 220


Claremont, CA 91711
Telephone: (909) 451-6650
Fax: (909) 451-6638
www.gssiwater.com

BOREHOLE LITHOLOGIC LOG (continued)

CX-B3

California American Water


13017-13

CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER

LOCATION

Marina, CA
Lithologic Log

Depth
bgs
(feet)
0

GAMMA
(GAPI)

Zone
Test

CLID
(mmho/m)
110 1500

Graphic
Log

NOTE: Grain size distribution percentages are approximate. Material code


(e.g. SP) reference Unified Soil Classification visual method.
Color code (e.g. 10YR 5/2) reference Munsell Soil Color Charts.

Depth
bgs
(feet)

Sample
Type

subrounded; 5% silt; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar and amphibole; with some visible
alteration; cementation at 219 and 224 ft.
220

225

220

SILT (ML): dark brown (10YR 3/3), 95% silt; 5% fine grained sand, subangular to
subrounded.

225

CLAY (CL): olive (5Y 5/3), 100% clay, no plasticity, dense; alteration visible with rust
colored laminations below 230 ft.
230

235

230
SAND (SP): pale olive (5Y 6/3), 90% fine to coarse grained sand, subangular to
subrounded, predominantly medium grained; 10% fine to coarse gravel up to 70 mm,
rounded, interbedded; poorly sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole; gravel
layers at 237, 237.8, and 238.6 to 239.7 ft.

240

235

240
SIEVE

SAND WITH GRAVEL (SW): pale olive (5Y 6/3), 85% fine to coarse grained sand,
subangular to rounded; 15% fine to coarse gravel up to 68 mm, rounded; poorly sorted;
contains quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole, and other; with visible alteration.
245

SAND (SP): dark grayish brown (2.5Y 4/2), 100% fine grained sand, subrounded; trace silt,
cemented brown silt at 246.6 ft; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, amphibole, and other.

245

SANDY SILT (ML): olive (5Y 5/3), 70% silt; 30% fine grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; with some visible rust colored alteration.
SAND (SW): pale olive (5Y 6/3), 85% fine to coarse grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; 10% fine to coarse gravel up to 42 mm, rounded; 5% clay; poorly sorted;
contains quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole, and other; with some visible alteration; thin
sandy clay layers.

255

250

255

GRAB

FAT CLAY (CH): pale olive (5Y 6/3), 100% clay, low plasticity, very dense; some darker fine
laminations.

260

265

260

SILT (ML): pale olive (5Y 6/3), 100% silt; trace fine grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; trace clay; silt with fine sand and altered sand and trace clay clasts from 262.8
to 263.9 ft; high mica content.

265

SAND (SP): olive (5Y 5/3), 100% fine to medium grained sand, subangular to subrounded;
trace fine to coarse gravel up to 33 mm, rounded; medium sorted; contains quartz, feldspar,
mica, amphibole, and other; visible rust colored alteration of sands at 268.5 ft(3in.).

270

SAND (SP): pale olive (5Y 6/3), 90% medium to coarse grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; 10% fine to coarse gravel up to 50 mm, rounded; poorly sorted; contains
quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole, and other.

270

GRAB

Geoscience Support Services, Inc.

A1-17

SS: Splitspoon sample GRAB: Grab sample PTS: Splitspoon submitted for analysis SIEVE: Grab sieved by GSSI

250

Appendix A1

GEOSCIENCE

BOREHOLE NAME

P.O. Box 220


Claremont, CA 91711
Telephone: (909) 451-6650
Fax: (909) 451-6638
www.gssiwater.com

BOREHOLE LITHOLOGIC LOG (continued)

CX-B3

California American Water


13017-13

CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER

LOCATION

Marina, CA
Lithologic Log

Depth
bgs
(feet)
0

GAMMA
(GAPI)

Zone
Test

CLID
(mmho/m)
110 1500

275

280

Graphic
Log

NOTE: Grain size distribution percentages are approximate. Material code


(e.g. SP) reference Unified Soil Classification visual method.
Color code (e.g. 10YR 5/2) reference Munsell Soil Color Charts.

SAND WITH CLAY AND GRAVEL (SW-SC): pale olive (5Y 6/3), 60% fine to coarse grained
sand, subangular to subrounded; 30% fine to coarse gravel up to 62 mm, rounded; 10%
clay; poorly sorted; weak cementation; contains quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole, and
other.
FAT CLAY (CH): olive gray (5Y 5/2), 100% clay, dense, medium plasticity.
FAT CLAY (CH): pale olive (5Y 6/3), 100% clay, dense, low plasticity; with visible rust
colored alteration; mottled olive and grey coloration, predominantly olive.

Depth
bgs
(feet)

275

280

FAT CLAY (CH): dark greenish gray (5GY 4/1), 100% clay, dense, medium plasticity;
greenish blue, contains black charcoal-like laminations (powdery black), smoky smell, "blue
clay".
285

290

FAT CLAY (CH): olive (5Y 5/3), 100% clay, low plasticity; trace fine grained sand,
subangular to subrounded; trace altered/decomposing sand and fine gravel; grades into clay
with sand at 286.3 ft.
CLAYEY SAND (SC): pale olive (5Y 6/3), 70% fine to medium grained sand, subangular to
subrounded, trace rounded coarse grained; 30% clay; trace fine gravel up to 18 mm,
rounded; poorly sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole and other; with some
visible alteration.
SAND (SW): pale olive (5Y 6/3), 85% fine to coarse grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; 10% fine to coarse gravel up to 45 mm, rounded; 5% clay; poorly sorted;
contains quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole, and other; with some visible alteration.

SS

285

290
SIEVE

295

SAND WITH CLAY (SW-SC): pale olive (5Y 6/3), 80% fine to coarse grained sand,
subangular to subrounded, predominantly medium to coarse grained; 10% fine to coarse
gravel up to 65 mm, subrounded to rounded; 10% clay; poorly sorted; contains quartz,
feldspar, mica, amphibole, and other; with visible alteration; clayey coarse gravel beds at
296.1, 298 to 298.9 ft.

295

300

SAND (SP): pale olive (5Y 6/3), 100% fine to medium grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; trace fine to coarse gravel up to 28 mm, rounded; medium sorted; contains
quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole, and other.

300

310

315

320

325

SAND (SP): olive gray (5Y 4/2), 100% fine to medium grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; trace fine to coarse gravel up to 29 mm, rounded; poorly sorted; contains
quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole; with visible alteration; 3 in. dark brown/altered sand at
308.7 ft.
GRAVELLY CLAY (CL): pale olive (5Y 6/3), 60% clay; 40% fine to coarse gravel up to 33
mm, rounded; trace fine grained sand, rounded; weak cementation; with visible alteration.
SAND (SP): light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/3), 100% fine grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole.
SAND (SP): olive (5Y 5/3), 100% fine to coarse grained sand, subangular to subrounded,
predominantly fine to medium grained; trace fine to coarse gravel up to 70 mm, subangular
to subrounded, and rounded; poorly sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole.

CLAYEY GRAVEL (GC): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/3), 60% fine to coarse gravel up to 52
mm, subangular to rounded, predominantly coarse, multicolored; 30% clay; 10% fine to
coarse grained sand, subangular to subrounded; poorly sorted; weak to moderate
cementation; contains quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole, and other; with visible alteration.
SAND (SP): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/3), 95% fine to coarse grained sand, subangular to
subrounded, predominantly medium grained; 5% clay; trace fine to coarse gravel up to 50
mm, rounded; poorly sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole, and other.
SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM): brown (10YR 5/3), 90% fine grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; 10% silt; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar and amphibole; similar to brown
sands from 192 to 224 ft.

Geoscience Support Services, Inc.

A1-18

305

310

SIEVE

315

320

325

SS: Splitspoon sample GRAB: Grab sample PTS: Splitspoon submitted for analysis SIEVE: Grab sieved by GSSI

305

SAND (SP): very dark brown (10YR 2/2), 100% fine to medium grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; trace fine gravel up to 16 mm, rounded; medium sorted; contains quartz,
feldspar, mica, amphibole, and other; with visible alteration, altered to a dark brown.
CLAYEY SAND (SC): pale olive (5Y 6/3), 75% fine to medium grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; 20% clay, clay balls; 5% fine to coarse gravel up to 72 mm, rounded, interbeds
of large gravel; poorly sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole.

Sample
Type

Appendix A1

GEOSCIENCE

BOREHOLE NAME

P.O. Box 220


Claremont, CA 91711
Telephone: (909) 451-6650
Fax: (909) 451-6638
www.gssiwater.com

BOREHOLE LITHOLOGIC LOG (continued)

CX-B3

California American Water


13017-13

CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER

LOCATION

Marina, CA
Lithologic Log

Depth
bgs
(feet)
0

GAMMA
(GAPI)

Zone
Test

CLID
(mmho/m)
110 1500

Graphic
Log

NOTE: Grain size distribution percentages are approximate. Material code


(e.g. SP) reference Unified Soil Classification visual method.
Color code (e.g. 10YR 5/2) reference Munsell Soil Color Charts.

Depth
bgs
(feet)

Sample
Type

SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM): dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4), 90% fine grained sand,
subangular to subrounded; 10% silt; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar and amphibole;
similar to brown sands from 192 to 224 ft.
335

335

340

340

345

GRAB

345
SILT (ML): olive (5Y 5/3), 100% silt, very dense; weak to moderate cementation; with some
visible rust colored alteration.
Bottom of borehole at 347 feet.

SS: Splitspoon sample GRAB: Grab sample PTS: Splitspoon submitted for analysis SIEVE: Grab sieved by GSSI

Geoscience Support Services, Inc.

A1-19

Appendix A1

GEOSCIENCE

P.O. Box 220


Claremont, CA 91711
Telephone: (909) 451-6650
Fax: (909) 451-6638
www.gssiwater.com

BOREHOLE NAME

BOREHOLE LITHOLOGIC LOG

CX-B4

California American Water


13017-13

CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER

5/23/2014

REPORT DATE
DRILLING CONTRACTOR
DRILLER
DRILLING
Prosonic 600T
RIG TYPE
SURFACE
39.0 ft
ELEVATION

Cascade Drilling
Jose Munguia
DRILLING
METHOD
TOTAL
DEPTH

LOCATION

Marina, CA
CEMEX Lapis Plant
36 42' 42.1848", -121 47' 55.2192"

Geographic NAD83

LOGGED BY

N. Reynolds
Sonic
350 ft bgs

START
DATE
FINISH
DATE

3/20/14
4/10/14

BOREHOLE
DIAMETER
CORE
SIZE

8 in
6 in

Lithologic Log
Depth
bgs
(feet)
0

GAMMA
(GAPI)

Zone
Test

CLID
(mmho/m)
110 1500

10

Graphic
Log

NOTE: Grain size distribution percentages are approximate. Material code


(e.g. SP) reference Unified Soil Classification visual method.
Color code (e.g. 10YR 5/2) reference Munsell Soil Color Charts.

SAND WITH GRAVEL (SP): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/3) and pale yellow (2.5Y 7/3), 65%
fine to medium grained sand, subangular to rounded; 30% fine to coarse gravel up to 70
mm, subangular to rounded; 5% silt; medium sorted; contains quartz, feldspar and
amphibole; trace cobbles; trace organics/roots.
SAND (SP): very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2), 95% fine grained sand, subrounded to
rounded; 5% silt; trace fine to coarse gravel up to 52 mm, subrounded to rounded, at 8.5 ft
bgs; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, amphibole and other.

SAND (SP): pale yellow (5Y 7/4), 100% fine to medium grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; trace silt, trace silt balls; medium sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, amphibole
and other.

15

Depth
bgs
(feet)

Sample
Type

10

15

SAND (SP): olive gray (5Y 4/2), 100% fine to medium grained sand, subangular to rounded;
medium sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, amphibole and other.
20

20
SAND (SP): pale yellow (5Y 7/4), 100% fine to medium grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; medium sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, amphibole and other.

25

GRAB

SAND (SP): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/3), 100% fine to medium grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; medium sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, amphibole and other.
30

SAND (SP): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/4), 95% fine grained sand, subangular to subrounded;
5% silt, gray silt pieces; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole.

30

SAND (SP): light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/4), 100% fine to medium grained sand,
subangular to subrounded; medium sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, amphibole and other.
35

35
SAND (SP): light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/3), 100% medium grained sand, subangular to
subrounded, trace fine grained; trace silt; medium sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica,
amphibole and other; trace weakly cemented olive silty sand layer from 37.5 to 37.8 ft bgs;
coarser than above.

40

45

40
SAND (SP): light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/3), 100% fine grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; trace silt; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole; trace thin
olive/gray horizontal silt lenses at 42.1 ft bgs.
SAND (SP): light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/4), 100% fine to medium grained sand,
subangular, predominantly medium grained, trace coarse grained; trace fine gravel up to 10
mm, subrounded; medium sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole and other.

45
SIEVE

50

50

Geoscience Support Services, Inc.

A1-20

SS: Splitspoon sample GRAB: Grab sample PTS: Splitspoon submitted for analysis SIEVE: Grab sieved by GSSI

25

Appendix A1

GEOSCIENCE

BOREHOLE NAME

P.O. Box 220


Claremont, CA 91711
Telephone: (909) 451-6650
Fax: (909) 451-6638
www.gssiwater.com

BOREHOLE LITHOLOGIC LOG (continued)

CX-B4

California American Water


13017-13

CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER

LOCATION

Marina, CA
Lithologic Log

Depth
bgs
(feet)
0

GAMMA
(GAPI)

Zone
Test

CLID
(mmho/m)
110 1500

Graphic
Log

NOTE: Grain size distribution percentages are approximate. Material code


(e.g. SP) reference Unified Soil Classification visual method.
Color code (e.g. 10YR 5/2) reference Munsell Soil Color Charts.

SAND (SP): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/3), 100% fine grained sand, subangular to
subrounded, trace medium grained; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica and
amphibole.

55

Zone
#5

60

SAND (SP): light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/3), 100% fine to medium grained sand,
subangular to rounded, trace coarse grained; medium sorted; contains quartz, feldspar,
mica and amphibole.
SAND (SP): olive (5Y 5/3), 100% fine grained sand, subangular to subrounded, fine to
medium grained at 59 to 59.7 ft bgs; trace silt; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica
and amphibole; higher mica content.

Depth
bgs
(feet)

Sample
Type

55

SS

60
GRAB

SC:
6,988
uS/cm

65

70

SAND (SP): olive (5Y 5/3), 100% fine to coarse grained sand, subangular to subrounded,
predominantly coarse grained; poorly sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole;
higher mica content.
SAND (SP): olive (5Y 5/3), 100% fine to medium grained sand, subangular to subrounded;
trace silt; medium sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole; higher mica
content.
SAND (SP): olive (5Y 5/3), 100% fine to coarse grained sand, subangular to subrounded,
predominantly coarse grained; poorly sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole;
higher mica content.
SAND (SP): olive (5Y 5/3), 100% fine to coarse grained sand, subangular to subrounded,
predominantly fine to medium grained, fine sand at 66.5 to 67 ft bgs; poorly sorted; contains
quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole.
SAND (SP): olive (5Y 5/3), 95% fine grained sand, subangular to subrounded, very fine
grained, trace fine to medium grained interbeds; 5% silt; well sorted; contains quartz,
feldspar, mica and amphibole; higher mica content; trace thin pink horizontal laminations.

65

70

SIEVE

75

75

80

80

90

SAND (SP): olive (5Y 5/3), 100% fine to coarse grained sand, subangular to subrounded;
poorly sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole; very high mica content.
SAND (SP): olive gray (5Y 5/2), 95% fine grained sand, subangular to subrounded, very
fine grained; 5% silt; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole.
SAND (SP): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/6), 100% fine to medium grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; trace fine gravel up to 11 mm, rounded; poorly sorted; contains quartz,
feldspar, mica, amphibole and other; orange colored alteration.

85

90

SAND (SP): light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/4), 95% medium to coarse grained sand,
subangular to rounded, trace fine grained; 5% fine to coarse gravel up to 30 mm, rounded;
trace silt; poorly sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole and other; free water.

95

95
SAND WITH GRAVEL (SP): pale yellow (2.5Y 7/3) and light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/4),
80% fine to coarse grained sand, subangular to rounded, predominantly medium to coarse
grained; 15% fine to coarse gravel up to 43 mm, rounded; 5% silt; poorly sorted; contains
quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole and other; chert, many mineral types; free water.

100

105

100

SAND (SP): pale olive (5Y 6/3), 100% fine to medium grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; trace fine to coarse gravel up to 23 mm, rounded; poorly sorted; contains

Geoscience Support Services, Inc.

A1-21

105

GRAB

SS: Splitspoon sample GRAB: Grab sample PTS: Splitspoon submitted for analysis SIEVE: Grab sieved by GSSI

85

Appendix A1

GEOSCIENCE

BOREHOLE NAME

P.O. Box 220


Claremont, CA 91711
Telephone: (909) 451-6650
Fax: (909) 451-6638
www.gssiwater.com

BOREHOLE LITHOLOGIC LOG (continued)

CX-B4

California American Water


13017-13

CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER

LOCATION

Marina, CA
Lithologic Log

Depth
bgs
(feet)
0

GAMMA
(GAPI)

Zone
Test

CLID
(mmho/m)
110 1500

Graphic
Log

NOTE: Grain size distribution percentages are approximate. Material code


(e.g. SP) reference Unified Soil Classification visual method.
Color code (e.g. 10YR 5/2) reference Munsell Soil Color Charts.

Depth
bgs
(feet)

Sample
Type

quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole and other.


SAND (SP): light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/3), 90% fine to coarse grained sand, subangular
to rounded; 10% fine to coarse gravel up to 30 mm, rounded; poorly sorted; contains quartz,
feldspar, mica, amphibole and other.

110
Zone
#4

115

SC:
29,933
uS/cm

110

SAND (SP): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/4), 100% fine grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole.

SAND (SP): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/4), 95% fine grained sand, subangular to subrounded,
very fine grained; 5% silt; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole.

120

115
SIEVE

120
SAND (SP): olive (5Y 5/3), 100% fine grained sand, subangular to subrounded; well sorted;
contains quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole; increase in olive coloration.

SILT (ML): pale olive (5Y 6/3), 95% silt; 5% fine grained sand, subangular to subrounded,
highly altered, rust, tan and black from 124.1 to 124.9 ft bgs; low plasticity; thin rusty and
black horizontal alteration/lamination.

125

130

135

140

145

130

135

140

145

SS

150

150

155
Zone
#3

160

SC:
28,707
uS/cm

SANDY CLAY (CL): pale olive (5Y 6/3), 60% clay, no plasticity; 40% fine grained sand,
subangular to subrounded; contains quartz and feldspar; thin black and rust colored
lamination.
SAND (SP): pale olive (5Y 6/3), 95% fine to medium grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; 5% silt; trace fine to coarse gravel up to 22 mm, subangular; poorly sorted;
contains quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole; 2.5 in. horizontal rusty/altered band at 154 ft
bgs.
SAND WITH GRAVEL (SP): pale olive (5Y 6/3), 80% fine to coarse grained sand,
subangular; rusty/altered from 160.4 to 160.7 ft bgs; 15% fine to coarse gravel up to 52 mm,
subrounded to rounded; 5% clay; poorly sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, amphibole and
other.

Geoscience Support Services, Inc.

A1-22

155

160

SS: Splitspoon sample GRAB: Grab sample PTS: Splitspoon submitted for analysis SIEVE: Grab sieved by GSSI

SAND WITH SILT AND GRAVEL (SP-SM): pale olive (5Y 6/3), 75% fine grained sand,
subangular to subrounded, fine grained grading to medium to coarse grained silty gravelly
sand; 15% fine to coarse gravel up to 41 mm, rounded; 10% silt; poorly sorted; contains
quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole; highly altered at 127.5 ft bgs.
CLAY (CL): dark gray (5Y 4/1), 100% clay, medium plasticity, dense; trace thin rust colored
horizontal lamination; highly altered at 129.2 ft bgs.
SILT WITH SAND (ML): olive (5Y 5/3), 80% silt, silt bed from 132.2 to 132.7 ft bgs; 20%
fine grained sand, subangular to subrounded, very fine grained; contains quartz, feldspar
and mica; trace thin rust colored horizontal alteration/lamination.
SAND (SP): pale olive (5Y 6/3), 100% fine grained sand, subangular to subrounded, grades
to fine to medium grained; trace silt; poorly sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica and
amphibole.
SAND (SP): olive (5Y 5/3), 100% fine grained sand, subangular to subrounded; well sorted;
contains quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole; highly altered/rust colored at 137.1 ft bgs.
FAT CLAY (CH): olive gray (5Y 5/2), 100% clay, high plasticity, dense; trace black and rust
colored lamination; trace black ashy deposits.
SANDY CLAY (CL): pale olive (5Y 6/3), 60% clay, no plasticity; 40% fine grained sand,
subangular to subrounded; contains quartz and feldspar; thin black and rust colored
lamination.
FAT CLAY (CH): pale olive (5Y 6/3), 100% clay, high plasticity, dense; thin black and rust
colored lamination.
SAND (SP): pale yellow (2.5Y 7/3), 100% fine grained sand, subangular to subrounded; well
sorted; contains quartz, feldspar and amphibole; trace rust colored alteration.

125

Appendix A1

GEOSCIENCE

BOREHOLE NAME

P.O. Box 220


Claremont, CA 91711
Telephone: (909) 451-6650
Fax: (909) 451-6638
www.gssiwater.com

BOREHOLE LITHOLOGIC LOG (continued)

CX-B4

California American Water


13017-13

CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER

LOCATION

Marina, CA
Lithologic Log

Depth
bgs
(feet)
0

GAMMA
(GAPI)

Zone
Test

CLID
(mmho/m)
110 1500

165

Graphic
Log

NOTE: Grain size distribution percentages are approximate. Material code


(e.g. SP) reference Unified Soil Classification visual method.
Color code (e.g. 10YR 5/2) reference Munsell Soil Color Charts.

GRAVEL WITH CLAY AND SAND (GP-GC): pale olive (5Y 6/3), 60% fine to coarse gravel
up to 60 mm, subrounded to rounded; 30% medium to coarse grained sand, subangular;
10% clay; trace cobbles; poorly sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, amphibole and other; trace
round cobbles up to 85 mm at 163 to 166 ft bgs; many mineral types; trace rusty alteration.

Depth
bgs
(feet)

Sample
Type

165

GRAB

170

170
SILT (ML): olive (5Y 5/3), 100% silt, very dense; friable; rust colored alteration and
lamination.

175

180

185

175

SILTY SAND (SM): pale olive (5Y 6/3), 85% fine grained sand, subangular to subrounded;
15% silt, from 177.3 to 177.6 ft bgs; no plasticity; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar and
amphibole.
SAND (SP): light olive gray (5Y 6/2), 100% fine grained sand, subangular to subrounded,
grades to fine to medium grained; trace fine gravel up to 18 mm, rounded; well sorted;
contains quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole; rusty alteration at 177.6 ft bgs.

CLAY WITH SAND (CL): pale olive (5Y 6/3), 85% clay, low plasticity; 10% fine to medium
grained sand, subangular to subrounded; 5% fine to coarse gravel up to 36 mm, rounded;
contains quartz, mica and amphibole; clay with sand and gravel interbeds; weakly cemented
clay and gravel at 183.5 ft bgs; trace rusty alteration/nodules.
SAND (SP): olive gray (5Y 5/2), 100% fine to medium grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; medium sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole.
SAND (SP): yellowish brown (10YR 5/6), 100% fine grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar and amphibole; start of "the brown sand".

190

180

185

190
SIEVE

195

SAND (SP): dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/6), 100% fine grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar and amphibole; redder coloration than
above.
200

200

205

SAND (SP): dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/4), 95% fine grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; 5% silt; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar and amphibole; trace weakly
cemented sands and sand nodules; mottled coloration.

205

210

SAND (SP): brown (10YR 4/3), 100% fine grained sand, subangular to subrounded; well
sorted; contains quartz, feldspar and amphibole.

210

215

SAND (SP): strong brown (7.5YR 4/6), 100% fine grained sand, subangular to subrounded;
well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar and amphibole; faint thin rusty horizontal lamination;
more red.

GRAB

Geoscience Support Services, Inc.

A1-23

215

SS: Splitspoon sample GRAB: Grab sample PTS: Splitspoon submitted for analysis SIEVE: Grab sieved by GSSI

195

Appendix A1

GEOSCIENCE

BOREHOLE NAME

P.O. Box 220


Claremont, CA 91711
Telephone: (909) 451-6650
Fax: (909) 451-6638
www.gssiwater.com

BOREHOLE LITHOLOGIC LOG (continued)

CX-B4

California American Water


13017-13

CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER

LOCATION

Marina, CA
Lithologic Log

Depth
bgs
(feet)
0

GAMMA
(GAPI)

Zone
Test

CLID
(mmho/m)
110 1500

225

SILT (ML): pale olive (5Y 6/3), 100% silt, very dense; less dense from 233.4 to 234.1 ft bgs;
low plasticity; rusty/highly altered at 228.6 to 229.3 ft bgs; trace thin black horizontal
lamination especially at 232.5 to 233.4 ft bgs.

230

235

240

245

SC:
38,354
uS/cm

SAND (SP): olive (5Y 5/3), 95% fine to medium grained sand, subangular to subrounded;
5% fine to coarse gravel up to 26 mm, well rounded; trace silt, siltstone; poorly sorted;
contains quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole and other; high mica content.
SAND (SP): dark grayish brown (2.5Y 4/2), 95% medium to coarse grained sand, trace fine
grained, subangluar to subrounded; 5% fine to coarse gravel up to 26 mm, well rounded;
trace silt, siltstone; poorly sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole and other;
altered to a dark brown.
SAND (SP): pale olive (5Y 6/3), 90% fine to medium grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; 10% fine to coarse gravel up to 65 mm, subrounded to rounded, coarse
grained gravel bed at 238.4 ft bgs; poorly sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole
and other; includes flat siltstone and granite.
SAND (SP): dark brown (7.5YR 3/3), 90% fine to coarse grained sand, predominantly
medium to coarse grained, subangular to subrounded; 10% fine to coarse gravel up to 26
mm, subrounded to rounded; trace silt; poorly sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica,
amphibole and other; altered to a dark brown.
SAND (SP): light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/3), 90% medium to coarse grained sand,
subangular to subrounded; 10% fine to coarse gravel up to 72 mm, rounded; poorly sorted;
contains quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole and other; trace weakly cemented silt chips;
siltstones; many mineral types.
SAND (SP): pale olive (5Y 6/3), 95% fine to medium grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; 5% fine to coarse gravel up to 30 mm, subangular to subrounded; poorly
sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole and other; medium to coarse sand and
gravelly interbeds; many mineral types.
SAND WITH GRAVEL (SP): pale olive (5Y 6/3), 70% fine to coarse grained sand,
subangular to subrounded; 30% fine to coarse gravel up to 45 mm, well rounded; poorly
sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole and other; trace 70 mm clay ball at 252.3
ft bgs; siltstone; many mineral types.
GRAVEL WITH CLAY AND SAND (GP-GC): pale olive (5Y 6/3), 50% fine to coarse gravel
up to 55 mm, well rounded, predominantly coarse grained, coarse grained gravel and cobble
bed from 254.9 to 255.6 ft bgs; trace cobble measured at 83 mm; 40% fine to coarse
grained sand, subangular to subrounded; 10% clay, trace clay balls; trace cobbles; poorly
sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole and other; siltstone; many mineral types.
SILT (ML): pale olive (5Y 6/3), 100% silt, very dense; low plasticity; trace thin horizontal
black/ashy laminations.

Depth
bgs
(feet)

220

225

230

235

240

245

SIEVE

250

255

260

CLAY (CL): olive gray (5Y 5/2), 100% clay, low plasticity, dense.

SS

SILT (ML): pale olive (5Y 6/3), 100% silt, dense; trace thin ashy black colored horizontal
laminations; trace small rusty globular deposits.
265

265
SILT (ML): pale olive (5Y 6/3), 90% silt, less dense than above; 10% fine grained sand,
subangular to subrounded, very fine grained; silt with interbedded very fine grained sands;
high mica content.

270

270
SAND (SP): light olive gray (5Y 6/2), 90% fine to coarse grained sand, subangular to
subrounded, predominantly medium to coarse grained; 10% fine to coarse gravel up to 50
mm, subrounded to rounded, coarse gravel deposit at 279.4 ft bgs; trace silt, flat/round
siltstones; poorly sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, amphibole and other.

Geoscience Support Services, Inc.

A1-24

Sample
Type

SS: Splitspoon sample GRAB: Grab sample PTS: Splitspoon submitted for analysis SIEVE: Grab sieved by GSSI

Zone
#2

250

260

NOTE: Grain size distribution percentages are approximate. Material code


(e.g. SP) reference Unified Soil Classification visual method.
Color code (e.g. 10YR 5/2) reference Munsell Soil Color Charts.

SAND (SP): grayish brown (2.5Y 5/2), 95% fine grained sand, subangular to subrounded;
5% silt; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar and amphibole; weakly cemented sand and
sand nodules at 220.0 to 220.3 ft bgs.
SAND (SP): olive brown (2.5Y 4/4), 100% fine grained sand, subangular to subrounded;
well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar and amphibole; trace thin reddish horizontal
laminations.
SAND (SP): dark olive brown (2.5Y 3/3), 100% fine grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar and amphibole; darker color/more black
minerals.

220

255

Graphic
Log

Appendix A1

GEOSCIENCE

BOREHOLE NAME

P.O. Box 220


Claremont, CA 91711
Telephone: (909) 451-6650
Fax: (909) 451-6638
www.gssiwater.com

BOREHOLE LITHOLOGIC LOG (continued)

CX-B4

California American Water


13017-13

CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER

LOCATION

Marina, CA
Lithologic Log

Depth
bgs
(feet)
0

GAMMA
(GAPI)

Zone
Test

CLID
(mmho/m)
110 1500

Graphic
Log

NOTE: Grain size distribution percentages are approximate. Material code


(e.g. SP) reference Unified Soil Classification visual method.
Color code (e.g. 10YR 5/2) reference Munsell Soil Color Charts.

275

Depth
bgs
(feet)

Sample
Type

275
GRAB

280

SILT (ML): pale olive (5Y 6/3), 100% silt; low plasticity; thin rusty and black laminations.
SAND (SP): pale yellow (5Y 7/3), 100% fine to coarse grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; trace fine to coarse gravel up to 22 mm, rounded; trace silt, silt balls; poorly
sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, amphibole and other; trace well rounded 90 mm cobble at
281.8 ft bgs.
GRAVEL WITH CLAY (GP-GC): pale olive (5Y 6/3), 90% fine to coarse gravel up to 55
mm, rounded, predominantly coarse grained; 10% clay; trace fine grained sand; poorly
sorted; contains quartz, feldspar and other.
SAND (SP): pale yellow (5Y 7/3), 90% medium to coarse grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; 10% fine to coarse gravel up to 60 mm, well rounded; poorly sorted; contains
quartz, feldspar and other.
CLAY (CL): pale olive (5Y 6/3), 100% clay, low plasticity, very dense/hard; thin black/ashy
horizontal laminations; trace rusty/altered layers, especially at 288.7 to 289.4 ft bgs.

285

290

295

300

Zone
#1

310
SC:
37,688
uS/cm

315

320

325

Geoscience Support Services, Inc.

A1-25

285

290

295
GRAB

300

305

SS
GRAB

310

315

320

325
GRAB

SS: Splitspoon sample GRAB: Grab sample PTS: Splitspoon submitted for analysis SIEVE: Grab sieved by GSSI

305

CLAYEY SAND (SC): light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/3), 65% fine grained sand, trace
medium to coarse grained, subangular to subrounded; 30% clay; 5% fine to coarse gravel
up to 35 mm, well rounded; medium sorted; contains quartz, feldspar and other; trace 0.25
in. gray and rusty bands; siltstone.
SAND WITH CLAY AND GRAVEL (SP-SC): light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/3), 70% fine to
coarse grained sand, subangular to subrounded; 20% fine to coarse gravel up to 65 mm,
well rounded; 10% clay, trace clay balls; poorly sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica,
amphibole and other.
SAND (SP): pale olive (5Y 6/3), 100% fine to medium grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; trace fine to coarse gravel up to 31 mm, well rounded; poorly sorted; contains
quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole and other.
SAND WITH GRAVEL (SP): pale olive (5Y 6/3), 60% medium to coarse grained sand,
subangular to subrounded; 35% fine to coarse gravel up to 70 mm, subrounded to well
rounded, coarse grained bed at 300.3 to 301.0 ft bgs; 5% clay; trace cobbles; poorly sorted;
contains quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole and other; trace cobble to 75 mm at 298.0 ft bgs.
CLAYEY GRAVEL WITH SAND (GC): pale olive (5Y 6/3), 60% fine to coarse gravel up to
70 mm, subrounded to well rounded; 25% fine to medium grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; 15% clay; poorly sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole and other;
trace siltstone gravel.
SAND (SP): light olive gray (5Y 6/2), 95% fine to medium grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; 5% fine to coarse gravel up to 45 mm, subrounded to rounded, some flat
rounded; trace clay; poorly sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole and other.
GRAVELLY CLAY (CL): pale olive (5Y 6/3), 55% clay, low plasticity; 40% fine to coarse
gravel up to 25 mm, rounded; 5% fine to medium grained sand; contains quartz, feldspar,
mica, amphibole and other.
SAND (SP): light olive gray (5Y 6/2), 95% fine to medium grained sand, trace coarse
grained, subangular to subrounded; 5% fine to coarse gravel up to 33 mm, rounded; poorly
sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole and other.
GRAVELLY CLAY (CL): pale olive (5Y 6/3), 50% clay, low plasticity; 40% fine to coarse
gravel up to 60 mm, rounded; 10% fine to medium grained sand, subangular to rounded;
contains quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole and other; altered brown sand layer from 305.8 to
306.0 ft bgs.
SAND (SP): pale olive (5Y 6/3), 90% fine to coarse grained sand, subangular to rounded;
5% fine to coarse gravel up to 39 mm, rounded; 5% clay; poorly sorted; contains quartz,
feldspar, amphibole and other; rusty/altered clay and gravel bed 309.0 to 309.2 ft bgs.
FAT CLAY (CH): pale olive (5Y 6/3), 100% clay, high plasticity, soft; thin rusty horizontal
lamination and point deposits.
SAND (SP): pale olive (5Y 6/3), 100% fine to medium grained sand, subangular to rounded;
medium sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole and other; rusty/altered medium
to coarse grained sand at 312.9 ft bgs.
GRAVELLY CLAY (CL): light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/4), 70% clay, low plasticity; 30%
coarse gravel up to 55 mm, well rounded; trace fine grained sand; contains quartz and
feldspar; rusty horizontal alteration/lamination.
CLAY (CL): pale olive (5Y 6/3), 100% clay, low plasticity, dense; trace fine grained sand;
rusty horizontal alteration/lamination; silty/sandy clay layer from 321.8 to 323.6 ft bgs; rusty
nodules.
SILTY SAND (SM): pale olive (5Y 6/3), 85% fine grained sand, very fine grained; 15% silt;
well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole.
CLAY (CL): pale olive (5Y 6/3), 100% clay, low plasticity; trace silt; trace very fine grained
sand; thin interbeds of silt and fine grained sand with some thin rusty horizontal

280

Appendix A1

GEOSCIENCE

BOREHOLE NAME

P.O. Box 220


Claremont, CA 91711
Telephone: (909) 451-6650
Fax: (909) 451-6638
www.gssiwater.com

BOREHOLE LITHOLOGIC LOG (continued)

CX-B4

California American Water


13017-13

CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER

LOCATION

Marina, CA
Lithologic Log

Depth
bgs
(feet)
0

GAMMA
(GAPI)

Zone
Test

CLID
(mmho/m)
110 1500

Graphic
Log

NOTE: Grain size distribution percentages are approximate. Material code


(e.g. SP) reference Unified Soil Classification visual method.
Color code (e.g. 10YR 5/2) reference Munsell Soil Color Charts.

Depth
bgs
(feet)

Sample
Type

lamination/alteration.
SAND (SP): pale olive (5Y 6/3), 100% fine grained sand, subangular to subrounded, trace
clay pods; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole; higher mica content;
more black minerals.
335

CLAY (CL): olive gray (5Y 5/2), 70% clay, medium plasticity; 30% silt; trace fine grained
sand; clay with 2 to 3 in. silt/fine grained sand with thin rusty horizontal lamination/alteration.

335

FAT CLAY (CH): light olive gray (5Y 6/2), 100% clay, medium plasticity.

340

SAND (SP): brown (10YR 4/3), 100% fine grained sand, subangular to subrounded; trace
silt; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar and amphibole; weakly cemented, especially near
rusty horizontal laminations; start of the second "brown sand" layer, similar to sand at 187.6
ft bgs.
SAND (SP): brown (10YR 5/3), 100% fine grained sand, subangular to subrounded; well
sorted; contains quartz, feldspar and amphibole; less red, more gray-brown.

345

340

345
SAND (SP): brown (10YR 4/3), 100% fine grained sand, subangular to subrounded; trace
silt; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar and amphibole; faint thin rusty horizontal
laminations; weak to moderately cemented below 348.3 ft bgs, especially in areas of rusty
alteration; more red; moderately cemented at 350 ft bgs.

350

GRAB

350
Bottom of borehole at 350 feet.

SS: Splitspoon sample GRAB: Grab sample PTS: Splitspoon submitted for analysis SIEVE: Grab sieved by GSSI

Geoscience Support Services, Inc.

A1-26

Appendix A1

GEOSCIENCE

P.O. Box 220


Claremont, CA 91711
Telephone: (909) 451-6650
Fax: (909) 451-6638
www.gssiwater.com

BOREHOLE NAME

BOREHOLE LITHOLOGIC LOG

MDW-1

California American Water


13017-13

CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER

5/23/2014

REPORT DATE
DRILLING CONTRACTOR
DRILLER
DRILLING
Prosonic 600T
RIG TYPE
SURFACE
20.0 ft
ELEVATION

Cascade Drilling
Jose Munguia
DRILLING
METHOD
TOTAL
DEPTH

LOCATION

Castroville, CA
Salinas River State Beach
36 46' 32.3688", -121 47' 41.4816"

Geographic NAD83

LOGGED BY

N. Reynolds
Sonic
300 ft bgs

START
DATE
FINISH
DATE

4/23/14
4/27/14

BOREHOLE
DIAMETER
CORE
SIZE

8 in
6 in

Lithologic Log
Depth
bgs
(feet)
0

GAMMA
(GAPI)

Zone
Test

CLID
(mmho/m)
110 1500

Graphic
Log

NOTE: Grain size distribution percentages are approximate. Material code


(e.g. SP) reference Unified Soil Classification visual method.
Color code (e.g. 10YR 5/2) reference Munsell Soil Color Charts.

Depth
bgs
(feet)

Sample
Type

NO SAMPLE: asphalt.
NO SAMPLE: gravel road base.
SAND (SP): dark grayish brown (2.5Y 4/2), 100% fine grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar and amphibole.
5

SAND (SP): light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/3), 100% fine grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar and amphibole.

SAND (SP): very dark grayish brown (2.5Y 3/2), 100% fine grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar and amphibole.

10

15

10

SAND (SP): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/3), 100% fine grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar and amphibole.

20

15

20

SIEVE

30

25
SILTY SAND (SM): black (10YR 2/1) and dark gray (5Y 4/1), 80% fine grained sand,
subangular to subrounded; 20% silt; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar and amphibole;
organic rich (wood).
SAND (SP): olive gray (5Y 5/2), 100% fine grained sand, subangular to subrounded; well
sorted; contains quartz, feldspar and amphibole.

30

SAND (SP): dark greenish gray (10Y 4/1), 100% fine grained sand, subangular to
subrounded, trace medium grained; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar and amphibole.

35

CLAY (CL): dark greenish gray (10Y 4/1), 100% clay, medium plasticity, soft, silty; trace silt;
abundance of horizontal black/ashy deposits between 34.5 - 36.4 ft bgs; mica present; trace
white flakes (shells?); bluish coloration.

35

40

SILT (ML): dark greenish gray (10Y 4/1), 100% silt; no to low plasticity; clayey interbeds with
horizontal black/ashy laminations; trace white ashy deposits from 39.5 -40.0 ft bgs; mica
present.

40

45

CLAY (CL): very dark greenish gray (10Y 3/1), 95% clay, medium plasticity, soft, trace
horizontal black/ashy deposits; 5% fine grained sand, subangular to subrounded,
interbedded; contains quartz, feldspar and amphibole.

45

50

SAND (SP): dark greenish gray (10Y 4/1), 95% fine grained sand, subangular to
subrounded, trace medium grained; 5% clay, clayey interbeds at 52.8 - 53.4 ft bgs and 54.4

Geoscience Support Services, Inc.

A1-27

50

SS

SS: Splitspoon sample GRAB: Grab sample PTS: Splitspoon submitted for analysis SIEVE: Grab sieved by GSSI

25

Appendix A1

GEOSCIENCE

BOREHOLE NAME

P.O. Box 220


Claremont, CA 91711
Telephone: (909) 451-6650
Fax: (909) 451-6638
www.gssiwater.com

BOREHOLE LITHOLOGIC LOG (continued)

MDW-1

California American Water


13017-13

CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER

LOCATION

Castroville, CA
Lithologic Log

Depth
bgs
(feet)
0

GAMMA
(GAPI)

Zone
Test

CLID
(mmho/m)
110 1500

Graphic
Log

NOTE: Grain size distribution percentages are approximate. Material code


(e.g. SP) reference Unified Soil Classification visual method.
Color code (e.g. 10YR 5/2) reference Munsell Soil Color Charts.

Depth
bgs
(feet)

Sample
Type

- 54.8 ft bgs; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar and amphibole.


GRAB

55

SAND (SP): pale olive (5Y 6/3), 100% fine to medium grained sand, subangular to
subrounded, predominantly fine grained; medium sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica,
amphibole and other; trace gray mottling.

60

55

60

SIEVE

Zone
#4

65

70

75

80

SAND (SP): light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/4), 100% fine to coarse grained sand, subrounded
to rounded; trace fine to coarse gravel up to 50 mm, subrounded to rounded; poorly sorted;
contains quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole and other; trace shell fragments; orange interbed
at 64.8 - 65.5 ft bgs.
SAND (SP): dark gray (5Y 4/1), 100% fine to medium grained sand, subrounded to
rounded, tan mottling; trace fine gravel up to 12 mm, rounded; poorly sorted; contains
quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole and other; trace shell fragments.
SAND (SP): light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/4), 100% fine to coarse grained sand,
predominantly medium grained, subrounded to rounded; trace fine gravel up to 17 mm,
rounded; poorly sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole and other; contains shells
and shell fragments.
SILT (ML): very dark greenish gray (5GY 3/1), 95% silt; 5% sand, very fine grained,
subangular to subrounded; trace clay; contains quartz, feldspar and mica; trace shell
fragments and black/ashy point deposits.
SILTY SAND (SM): very dark greenish gray (5GY 3/1), 85% fine grained sand, subangular
to subrounded; 15% silt; well sorted; contains quartz and feldspar; abundance of shells and
shell fragments.
SILT (ML): very dark greenish gray (5GY 3/1), 90% silt; 10% fine grained sand, subangular
to subrounded; trace clay, no to low plasticity; trace shell fragments.
FAT CLAY (CH): very dark greenish gray (5GY 3/1), 100% clay, high plasticity, soft; trace
horizontal black/ashy laminations.
SANDY SILT (ML): dark greenish gray (5GY 4/1), 70% silt; 30% sand, very fine grained,
subangular to subrounded; contains quartz and mica; trace thin clay layers; trace horizontal
black/ashy deposits; trace shell fragments.
SILTY SAND (SM): dark greenish gray (10Y 4/1), 85% sand, very fine to fine grained,
subangular to subrounded; 15% silt; trace clay, trace clay layers, clayey beds at 82.8 - 83.3
ft bgs and 89.5 - 90.2 ft bgs; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar and mica; trace horizontal
black/ashy deposits; higher mica content; trace shell fragments.

90

65

SS

70
SIEVE

75

80

85

90
CLAY (CL): dark greenish gray (5GY 4/1), 100% clay, medium plasticity; trace silt;
horizontal black/ashy laminations; trace shell fragments and possible organic matter.
SILT (ML): dark greenish gray (10Y 4/1), 100% silt; trace sand, very fine grained,
subangular to subrounded; trace clay; contains mica; trace horizontal black/ashy
laminations.

95

100

CLAY (CL): dark greenish gray (5GY 4/1), 100% clay, medium to high plasticity; trace silt;
trace horizontal and point black/ashy deposits; trace organic matter.

SILT (ML): dark greenish gray (5GY 4/1), 100% silt; trace sand, very fine grained,
subangular to subrounded; trace mica.
CLAY (CL): dark greenish gray (10Y 4/1), 100% clay, medium plasticity, dense; trace silt, 1 3 in. interbeds between 102 - 103.7 ft bgs; trace shell fragments below 106.0 ft bgs; trace
black/ashy point deposits.

105

95

100

105

Geoscience Support Services, Inc.

A1-28

SS: Splitspoon sample GRAB: Grab sample PTS: Splitspoon submitted for analysis SIEVE: Grab sieved by GSSI

85

SC:
32,970
uS/cm

Appendix A1

GEOSCIENCE

BOREHOLE NAME

P.O. Box 220


Claremont, CA 91711
Telephone: (909) 451-6650
Fax: (909) 451-6638
www.gssiwater.com

BOREHOLE LITHOLOGIC LOG (continued)

MDW-1

California American Water


13017-13

CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER

LOCATION

Castroville, CA
Lithologic Log

Depth
bgs
(feet)
0

GAMMA
(GAPI)

Zone
Test

CLID
(mmho/m)
110 1500

Graphic
Log

NOTE: Grain size distribution percentages are approximate. Material code


(e.g. SP) reference Unified Soil Classification visual method.
Color code (e.g. 10YR 5/2) reference Munsell Soil Color Charts.

Depth
bgs
(feet)

Sample
Type

SAND (SP): greenish gray (10Y 5/1), 100% sand, very fine grained, subangular to
subrounded; trace silt; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar and mica.
110

110

115

115

SAND (SP): greenish gray (5GY 5/1), 100% fine to coarse grained sand, predominantly
medium grained, subrounded to rounded; trace fine to coarse gravel up to 32 mm, rounded;
poorly sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole and other; includes siltstone and
chert.
SILT (ML): dark greenish gray (5GY 4/1), 100% silt; trace fine grained sand; trace clay, 1 in.
clay interbeds; contains mica; thin horizontal black/ashy laminations in clays.

120

FAT CLAY (CH): dark greenish gray (5GY 4/1), 100% clay, high plasticity, dense; very
dense from 124.3 - 127.0 ft bgs; thin rusty and black/ashy horizontal lamination from 126.0 127.0 ft bgs.

125

120

125
SS

SILT (ML): dark greenish gray (10Y 4/1), 100% silt; trace thin clayey interbeds; thin
horizontal black/ashy lamination.
FAT CLAY (CH): dark greenish gray (10Y 4/1), 100% clay, medium to high plasticity, soft
clay from 128.3 - 129.6 ft bgs, dense clay from 129.6 - 135.2 ft bgs; trace silt, dark brown
silty deposit from 132.2 - 133.4 ft bgs within clay; trace horizontal laminations and point
black/ashy deposits.

130

135

130

135
SILT (ML): dark greenish gray (10Y 4/1), 95% silt; 5% sand, very fine grained, subangular to
subrounded; trace clay; contains mica; trace thin horizontal black/ashy laminations.

140

140

145

150

Zone
#3

155
SC:
38,100
uS/cm

SAND (SP): greenish gray (10Y 5/1), 100% fine to medium grained sand, subangular to
rounded; trace fine to coarse gravel up to 35 mm, rounded; medium sorted; contains quartz,
feldspar, mica, amphibole and other; trace rounded cobbles up to 75 mm at 145.2 ft bgs;
includes chert and siltstone; many mineral types.
SAND (SP): dark greenish gray (10Y 4/1), 100% fine to medium grained sand, subrounded
to rounded; trace fine gravel up to 17 mm, rounded; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar,
mica, amphibole and other; trace clay balls; includes siltstone.
SAND WITH CLAY (SP-SC): dark greenish gray (5GY 4/1), 85% fine to medium grained
sand, subangular to rounded, trace coarse grained; 10% clay; 5% fine to coarse gravel up to
65 mm, rounded; contains quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole and other; many mineral types;
included siltstone.
SAND WITH GRAVEL (SP): light olive gray (5Y 6/2), 60% fine to coarse grained sand,
subangular to rounded; 40% fine to coarse gravel up to 70 mm, rounded; poorly sorted;
contains quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole and other; gravel with sand from 152.6 - 153.5 ft
bgs.

145

SS

150

160

Geoscience Support Services, Inc.

A1-29

GRAB

SIEVE

155

SAND (SP): olive gray (5Y 5/2), 100% fine grained sand, subangular to subrounded; trace
fine to coarse gravel up to 21 mm, subrounded to rounded; well sorted; contains quartz,
feldspar, amphibole and other; silt at 156.7 - 157 ft bgs.

160

GRAB

SS: Splitspoon sample GRAB: Grab sample PTS: Splitspoon submitted for analysis SIEVE: Grab sieved by GSSI

SAND (SP): greenish gray (5GY 5/1), 95% fine to medium grained sand, subangular to
subrounded, trace rounded coarse grained; 5% fine to coarse gravel up to 25 mm, rounded;
medium sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole and other; many mineral types.

Appendix A1

GEOSCIENCE

BOREHOLE NAME

P.O. Box 220


Claremont, CA 91711
Telephone: (909) 451-6650
Fax: (909) 451-6638
www.gssiwater.com

BOREHOLE LITHOLOGIC LOG (continued)

MDW-1

California American Water


13017-13

CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER

LOCATION

Castroville, CA
Lithologic Log

Depth
bgs
(feet)
0

GAMMA
(GAPI)

Zone
Test

CLID
(mmho/m)
110 1500

Graphic
Log

NOTE: Grain size distribution percentages are approximate. Material code


(e.g. SP) reference Unified Soil Classification visual method.
Color code (e.g. 10YR 5/2) reference Munsell Soil Color Charts.

Depth
bgs
(feet)

Sample
Type
GRAB

165

165

170

170
SAND WITH GRAVEL (SP): light olive gray (5Y 6/2), 70% fine to coarse grained sand,
subangular to rounded; 30% fine to coarse gravel up to 58 mm, rounded; poorly sorted;
contains quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole and other; trace clay balls; many mineral types;
includes siltstone.
SAND (SP): olive gray (5Y 5/2), 100% fine grained sand, subangular to subrounded, trace
medium and coarse grained; trace fine gravel up to 18 mm, subrounded to rounded; well
sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, amphibole and other; contains chert.
SAND (SP): light olive gray (5Y 6/2), 100% fine to medium grained sand, subrounded to
rounded; trace fine to coarse gravel up to 35 mm, rounded; trace clay; contains quartz,
feldspar, amphibole and other.
SAND (SP): olive gray (5Y 5/2), 95% fine to coarse grained sand, subangular to rounded;
5% fine to coarse gravel up to 55 mm, rounded; poorly sorted; wet sample; contains quartz,
feldspar, mica, amphibole and other.

175

180

175

SS

180
SIEVE

185

Zone
#2

190
SC:
45,230
uS/cm

195

200

185
GRAB

GRAB

190

195

SILT (ML): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/4), 100% silt; trace fine grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; contains mica; clayey and dense from 197.2 - 197.6 ft bgs; rusty orange
mottling.
SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/3), 90% fine grained sand, subangular
to subrounded; 10% silt; trace fine to coarse gravel up to 32 mm, rounded; well sorted;
contains quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole; some orange mottling.
CLAY (CL): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/4), 100% clay, very dense/hard; orangish brown
mottling; trace thin horizontal black/ashy laminations; possible evaporites at 204.3 - 205.0 ft
bgs; moderate cementation.

205

200

205
SS

SANDY SILT (ML): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/3), 70% silt; 30% sand, very fine grained;
contains quartz, mica and amphibole.
210

210
CLAY (CL): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/3), 100% clay, no plasticity, dense/hard; trace thin
black/ashy and rust colored lamination and point deposits.

215

215
SILTY SAND (SM): yellowish brown (10YR 5/4), 80% fine grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; 20% silt; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole.

Geoscience Support Services, Inc.

A1-30

SS: Splitspoon sample GRAB: Grab sample PTS: Splitspoon submitted for analysis SIEVE: Grab sieved by GSSI

SAND WITH GRAVEL (SP): olive gray (5Y 5/2), 60% medium to coarse grained sand,
subangular to rounded; 40% fine to coarse gravel up to 50 mm, subrounded to rounded;
contains quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole and other; many mineral types, includes chert,
siltstone, and granite.
GRAVEL WITH SAND (GP): olive gray (5Y 5/2), 60% fine to coarse gravel up to 50 mm,
subrounded to rounded; 40% medium to coarse grained sand, subangular to rounded,
predominantly coarse grained; trace cobbles, trace cobble up to 99 mm; contains quartz,
feldspar, mica, amphibole and other; many mineral types, includes granite and chert.
GRAVEL WITH SAND AND COBBLES (GP): olive (5Y 5/3), 55% fine to coarse gravel up to
75 mm, subangular to rounded; 30% fine to coarse grained sand, subangular to rounded;
15% cobbles, cobbles up 120 mm; trace clay; poorly sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica,
amphibole and other; many mineral types, includes granite, and chert.

Appendix A1

GEOSCIENCE

BOREHOLE NAME

P.O. Box 220


Claremont, CA 91711
Telephone: (909) 451-6650
Fax: (909) 451-6638
www.gssiwater.com

BOREHOLE LITHOLOGIC LOG (continued)

MDW-1

California American Water


13017-13

CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER

LOCATION

Castroville, CA
Lithologic Log

Depth
bgs
(feet)
0

GAMMA
(GAPI)

Zone
Test

CLID
(mmho/m)
110 1500

Graphic
Log

NOTE: Grain size distribution percentages are approximate. Material code


(e.g. SP) reference Unified Soil Classification visual method.
Color code (e.g. 10YR 5/2) reference Munsell Soil Color Charts.

Depth
bgs
(feet)

220

SANDY CLAY (CL): brown (7.5YR 4/4) and yellowish red (5YR 4/6), 60% clay, no
plasticity, dense/hard; 40% fine grained sand, subangular to subrounded; contains quartz,
feldspar and amphibole; rust colored mottling.

220

225

CLAYEY SAND (SC): strong brown (7.5YR 4/6), 80% fine grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; 20% clay; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar and amphibole; some rust
colored mottling.

225

SAND (SP): yellowish brown (10YR 5/4), 95% fine grained sand, subangular to subrounded;
5% clay; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar and amphibole; compact/tight.
SAND (SP): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/3), 100% fine grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, amphibole and other; moderately
cemented sand pieces from 229.0 - 229.6 ft bgs.
SAND (SP): grayish brown (2.5Y 5/2) and weak red (2.5YR 5/2), 100% fine grained sand,
subangular to subrounded; trace clay; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, amphibole and
other; purplish mottling with some fines.

230

Sample
Type

230

GRAB

235

235

Zone
#1

240

SAND (SP): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/3), 100% fine grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, amphibole and other; abundance of
spherical (~5/8 in.) cemented sand balls from 240.5 - 242.0 ft bgs, up to 3 balls fused,
possible storm event; small irregular cemented sand balls at 248.0 -248.7 ft bgs, moderately
cemented.

240

SC:
44,180
uS/cm
GRAB

245

SAND (SP): olive brown (2.5Y 4/4), 100% fine grained sand, subangular to subrounded;
well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, amphibole and other; small moderately cemented
sand balls at 249.8 ft bgs and 254.4 - 256.5 ft bgs.

255

260

250

255

SAND (SP): dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4), 100% fine to medium grained sand,
subangular to subrounded; trace clay; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, amphibole and
other; abundance (~1/2) of moderately to strongly cemented sand pieces/fragments up to 65
mm; some rusty/brown lamination; no cementation from 260 - 262 ft bgs.

260

GRAB

265

270

265

SAND (SP): brown (10YR 4/3), 100% fine to medium grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; trace clay; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, amphibole and other; some
small moderately to strongly cemented sand balls and fragments at 272.0 - 272.4 ft bgs and
273.5 - 274.5 ft bgs.

Geoscience Support Services, Inc.

A1-31

270

SS: Splitspoon sample GRAB: Grab sample PTS: Splitspoon submitted for analysis SIEVE: Grab sieved by GSSI

250

245

Appendix A1

GEOSCIENCE

BOREHOLE NAME

P.O. Box 220


Claremont, CA 91711
Telephone: (909) 451-6650
Fax: (909) 451-6638
www.gssiwater.com

BOREHOLE LITHOLOGIC LOG (continued)

MDW-1

California American Water


13017-13

CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER

LOCATION

Castroville, CA
Lithologic Log

Depth
bgs
(feet)
0

GAMMA
(GAPI)

Zone
Test

CLID
(mmho/m)
110 1500

275

280

Graphic
Log

NOTE: Grain size distribution percentages are approximate. Material code


(e.g. SP) reference Unified Soil Classification visual method.
Color code (e.g. 10YR 5/2) reference Munsell Soil Color Charts.

SANDY CLAY (CL): dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4), 60% clay, no plasticity, dense/hard;
40% fine grained sand; moderately cemented.
SAND WITH CLAY (SP-SC): yellowish brown (10YR 5/4), 90% fine grained sand,
subangular to subrounded; 10% clay; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, amphibole and
other; color transition.
SAND (SP): brown (7.5YR 4/4), 95% fine grained sand, subangular to subrounded; 5%
clay; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, amphibole and other; tight; moderately cemented
sand pieces up to 80 mm at 283.2 - 285.6 ft bgs; rusty mottled coloration and lamination.

285

Depth
bgs
(feet)

Sample
Type

275

280
GRAB

285
SAND (SP): dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2), 100% fine grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, amphibole and other.

290

290
GRAB

295

300

295

SAND (SP): brown (7.5YR 4/4), 100% fine grained sand, subangular to subrounded; well
sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, amphibole and other; some weak cementation.
Bottom of borehole at 300 feet.

300

SS: Splitspoon sample GRAB: Grab sample PTS: Splitspoon submitted for analysis SIEVE: Grab sieved by GSSI

Geoscience Support Services, Inc.

A1-32

Appendix A1

GEOSCIENCE

P.O. Box 220


Claremont, CA 91711
Telephone: (909) 451-6650
Fax: (909) 451-6638
www.gssiwater.com

BOREHOLE NAME

BOREHOLE LITHOLOGIC LOG

ML-1

California American Water


13017-13

CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER

5/23/2014

REPORT DATE
DRILLING CONTRACTOR
DRILLER
DRILLING
Prosonic 600T
RIG TYPE
SURFACE
8.0 ft
ELEVATION

Cascade Drilling
Jose Munguia
DRILLING
METHOD
TOTAL
DEPTH

LOCATION

Moss Landing, CA
Sandholdt Rd
36 47' 58.0632", -121 47' 20.31"

Geographic NAD83

LOGGED BY

N. Reynolds
Sonic
200 ft bgs

START
DATE
FINISH
DATE

10/02/13
10/07/13

BOREHOLE
DIAMETER
CORE
SIZE

8 in
6 in

Lithologic Log
Depth
bgs
(feet)
0

GAMMA
(GAPI)

Zone
Test

CLID
(mmho/m)
110 1500

Graphic
Log

NOTE: Grain size distribution percentages are approximate. Material code


(e.g. SP) reference Unified Soil Classification visual method.
Color code (e.g. 10YR 5/2) reference Munsell Soil Color Charts.

Depth
bgs
(feet)

Sample
Type

SAND (SP): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/3), 100% fine grained sand, subrounded, trace
medium to coarse grained; trace fine to coarse gravel up to 35 mm, subrounded; medium
sorted.
SILT (ML): dark gray (5Y 4/1), 100% silt.
5

10

10
CLAY (CL): dark gray (5Y 4/1), 100% clay, high plasticity; with visible alteration.
SILT (ML): very dark gray (5Y 3/1), 100% silt; with shells.

15

15
SAND (SP): light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/4), 100% medium to coarse grained sand,
subangular to rounded; trace fine to coarse gravel up to 30 mm, rounded; poorly sorted;
trace shells up to 120 mm.

20

CLAY WITH SAND (CL): very dark gray (5Y 3/1), 85% clay; 10% fine to coarse grained
sand, subrounded to rounded; 5% fine to coarse gravel up to 25 mm, rounded; trace shell
fragments.
SANDY SILT (ML): very dark gray (2.5Y 3/1), 60% silt; 40% fine grained sand, subangular
to subrounded; shells at 31.6 and 34.0 ft, trace organics at 29.4 ft.

20

25

30

30

35

CLAY (CL): very dark gray (5Y 3/1), 100% clay, medium plasticity.

35

SAND (SP): dark gray (5Y 4/1), 100% fine to medium grained sand, subangular; poorly
sorted.
CLAY (CL): very dark gray (2.5Y 3/1), 100% clay, high plasticity; trace shell fragments.
40

40
SANDY SILT (ML): very dark gray (2.5Y 3/1), 70% silt; 30% fine grained sand, subrounded;
abundant shell fragments.

45

SAND (SP): dark gray (5Y 4/1), 100% fine to medium grained sand, subangular, trace
coarse grained; trace fine to coarse gravel up to 25 mm, subrounded to rounded; poorly
sorted; abundance of shells and shell fragments.

50

45

50

Geoscience Support Services, Inc.

A1-33

SS: Splitspoon sample GRAB: Grab sample PTS: Splitspoon submitted for analysis SIEVE: Grab sieved by GSSI

25

Appendix A1

GEOSCIENCE

BOREHOLE NAME

P.O. Box 220


Claremont, CA 91711
Telephone: (909) 451-6650
Fax: (909) 451-6638
www.gssiwater.com

BOREHOLE LITHOLOGIC LOG (continued)

ML-1

California American Water


13017-13

CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER

LOCATION

Moss Landing, CA
Lithologic Log

Depth
bgs
(feet)
0

GAMMA
(GAPI)

Zone
Test

CLID
(mmho/m)
110 1500

Graphic
Log

NOTE: Grain size distribution percentages are approximate. Material code


(e.g. SP) reference Unified Soil Classification visual method.
Color code (e.g. 10YR 5/2) reference Munsell Soil Color Charts.

Depth
bgs
(feet)

Sample
Type

SIEVE

SAND (SP): dark gray (5Y 4/1), 100% fine grained sand, subrounded; trace fine to coarse
gravel up to 45 mm, rounded, at 54.5 ft; well sorted; trace shell fragments.

55

55

SIEVE

60

SILTY SAND (SM): very dark gray (5Y 3/1), 70% fine grained sand, subrounded; 30% silt;
well sorted.

SAND (SP): dark greenish gray (10Y 4/1), 100% fine grained sand, subrounded; well sorted;
trace shell fragments.

65

60

65
SIEVE

FAT CLAY (CH): very dark greenish gray (10Y 3/1), 100% clay, high plasticity, very dense;
trace shell fragments.
70

70

75

75
PTS

80

80

SANDY CLAY (CL): very dark greenish gray (10Y 3/1), 70% clay; 30% fine grained sand,
subrounded; trace shell fragments.
CLAY (CL): very dark greenish gray (10Y 3/1), 100% clay, high plasticity, dense; trace shell
fragments.
SAND (SP): very dark greenish gray (10Y 3/1), 100% fine to medium grained sand,
subrounded; poorly sorted; abundant shell fragments.

90

85

SIEVE

90
Zone
#2

SANDY CLAY (CL): very dark greenish gray (10Y 3/1), 60% clay; 40% fine grained sand,
subrounded; abundance of shells.
95

100

105

SC:
646
uS/cm

95
SAND (SP): very dark greenish gray (10Y 3/1), 100% fine grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; trace fine to coarse gravel up to 45 mm, subangular to rounded, includes
quartz and black minerals; medium sorted; contains quartz and amphibole; trace shell
fragments and organics.
SILT (ML): olive gray (5Y 5/2), 100% silt; trace fine grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; alteration visible with streaks of rust coloration (10YR 5/8).

SAND (SP): yellowish brown (10YR 5/8) and olive (5Y 5/3), 100% fine grained sand,
subangular to subrounded; trace fine to coarse gravel up to 23 mm, subangular to rounded,
includes quartz and black minerals; well sorted; contains quartz and amphibole, with visible

Geoscience Support Services, Inc.

A1-34

100

105

SIEVE

SS: Splitspoon sample GRAB: Grab sample PTS: Splitspoon submitted for analysis SIEVE: Grab sieved by GSSI

85

Appendix A1

GEOSCIENCE

BOREHOLE NAME

P.O. Box 220


Claremont, CA 91711
Telephone: (909) 451-6650
Fax: (909) 451-6638
www.gssiwater.com

BOREHOLE LITHOLOGIC LOG (continued)

ML-1

California American Water


13017-13

CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER

LOCATION

Moss Landing, CA
Lithologic Log

Depth
bgs
(feet)
0

GAMMA
(GAPI)

Zone
Test

CLID
(mmho/m)
110 1500

NOTE: Grain size distribution percentages are approximate. Material code


(e.g. SP) reference Unified Soil Classification visual method.
Color code (e.g. 10YR 5/2) reference Munsell Soil Color Charts.

alteration (2.5Y 5/6).


SAND (SP): olive gray (5Y 5/2), 100% fine grained sand, subrounded; trace fine to coarse
gravel up to 20 mm, subrounded; well sorted.
SAND WITH SILT AND GRAVEL (SP-SM): greenish gray (10Y 5/1), 75% medium to coarse
grained sand, subangular to subrounded; 15% fine to coarse gravel up to 60 mm, well
rounded; 10% silt; poorly sorted; contains quartz and amphibole.
SILT (ML): greenish gray (10GY 5/1), 100% silt; with visible alteration/streaks (10R 4/1).

110

115

Graphic
Log

Zone
#1
SC:
35,169
uS/cm

SAND WITH GRAVEL (SP): greenish gray (10GY 5/1), 80% fine to coarse grained sand,
subangular to rounded; 15% fine to coarse gravel up to 60 mm, rounded; 5% silt; poorly
sorted.

Depth
bgs
(feet)

Sample
Type

SS
PTS
SIEVE

110

115

SIEVE

120

SILT (ML): dark greenish gray (10Y 4/1), 100% silt; higher mica content at 124.2 ft, shell
fragments at 137 ft, moderately cemented siltstone fragments at 131 ft.

120

125

125

130

130

135

135

140

140

SILT (ML): very dark greenish gray (10Y 3/1), 100% silt; trace shell fragments.

145

145
CLAY (CL): dark gray (5Y 4/1), 100% clay.
PTS
SS
SS

150

150

155

155

160

160

Geoscience Support Services, Inc.

A1-35

SS: Splitspoon sample GRAB: Grab sample PTS: Splitspoon submitted for analysis SIEVE: Grab sieved by GSSI

CLAY (CL): very dark greenish gray (10Y 3/1), 100% clay.

Appendix A1

GEOSCIENCE

BOREHOLE NAME

P.O. Box 220


Claremont, CA 91711
Telephone: (909) 451-6650
Fax: (909) 451-6638
www.gssiwater.com

BOREHOLE LITHOLOGIC LOG (continued)

ML-1

California American Water


13017-13

CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER

LOCATION

Moss Landing, CA
Lithologic Log

Depth
bgs
(feet)
0

GAMMA
(GAPI)

Zone
Test

CLID
(mmho/m)
110 1500

Graphic
Log

NOTE: Grain size distribution percentages are approximate. Material code


(e.g. SP) reference Unified Soil Classification visual method.
Color code (e.g. 10YR 5/2) reference Munsell Soil Color Charts.

Depth
bgs
(feet)

Sample
Type

CLAY (CL): dark greenish gray (10Y 4/1), 100% clay, dense.
165

165

170

170
SS

175

175

CLAY (CL): dark greenish gray (5GY 4/1), 100% clay; trace silt.
180

180
CLAY (CL): dark greenish gray (5GY 4/1), 100% clay; trace shell fragments at 182.5 ft.

185

185
CLAY (CL): dark greenish gray (5GY 4/1), 100% clay, very dense; trace shell fragments.

190

190
SILT (ML): dark greenish gray (10Y 4/1), 100% silt; trace clay, interbedded.

200

195

CLAY (CL): dark greenish gray (5GY 4/1), 100% clay.


Bottom of borehole at 200 feet.

Geoscience Support Services, Inc.

A1-36

200

SS: Splitspoon sample GRAB: Grab sample PTS: Splitspoon submitted for analysis SIEVE: Grab sieved by GSSI

195

Appendix A1

GEOSCIENCE

P.O. Box 220


Claremont, CA 91711
Telephone: (909) 451-6650
Fax: (909) 451-6638
www.gssiwater.com

BOREHOLE NAME

BOREHOLE LITHOLOGIC LOG

ML-2

California American Water


13017-13

CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER

5/23/2014

REPORT DATE
DRILLING CONTRACTOR
DRILLER
DRILLING
Prosonic 600T
RIG TYPE
SURFACE
7.0 ft
ELEVATION

Cascade Drilling
Jose Munguia
DRILLING
METHOD
TOTAL
DEPTH

LOCATION

Moss Landing, CA
Del Mar Fisheries
36 48' 11.7648", -121 47' 12.4368"

Geographic NAD83

LOGGED BY

N. Reynolds
Sonic
200 ft bgs

START
DATE
FINISH
DATE

12/09/13
12/19/13

BOREHOLE
DIAMETER
CORE
SIZE

8 in
6 in

Lithologic Log
Depth
bgs
(feet)
0

GAMMA
(GAPI)

Zone
Test

CLID
(mmho/m)
110 1500

10

15

Graphic
Log

NOTE: Grain size distribution percentages are approximate. Material code


(e.g. SP) reference Unified Soil Classification visual method.
Color code (e.g. 10YR 5/2) reference Munsell Soil Color Charts.

SANDY SILT (ML): olive gray (5Y 4/2), 65% silt; 25% fine to medium grained sand,
subangular; 10% fine to coarse gravel up to 26 mm, subangular; contains quartz, feldspar,
and other; asphalt present.
SAND (SP): light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/4), 100% fine to medium grained sand,
subangular to subrounded, predominantly fine grained; trace silt; medium sorted; contains
quartz and feldspar.
SANDY SILT (ML): very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2), 60% silt; 40% fine grained sand,
subangular to subrounded; trace fine to coarse gravel up to 29 mm, subangular to
subrounded; contains quartz and feldspar; red brick and concrete block to 90 mm.
SAND (SP): very dark grayish brown (2.5Y 3/2) and dark grayish brown (2.5Y 4/2), 100%
fine to medium grained sand, subrounded to rounded, trace coarse grained; trace fine to
coarse gravel up to 41 mm, subangular; trace silt; poorly sorted; contains quartz, feldspar,
amphibole, and other.
SAND (SW): light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/4), 100% fine to coarse grained sand,
subrounded to rounded; trace fine to coarse gravel up to 27 mm, subrounded to rounded;
poorly sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, amphibole, and other; well rounded coarse sand
and fine gravel layer with shells at 13.7 ft.
SAND (SP): olive gray (5Y 4/2), 100% fine to medium grained sand, subangular to rounded;
trace silt; medium sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, amphibole, and other; trace shell
fragments.

20

10

15

20
SAND (SP): light olive gray (5Y 6/2), 100% fine to medium grained sand, subangular to
rounded; trace silt, trace thin silt lens; medium sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, amphibole,
and other; trace organics/wood.
SILT (ML): very dark greenish gray (10Y 3/1), 100% silt; trace fine grained sand,
subrounded; contains mica; organics/wood.
SAND (SW): light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/3), 100% fine to coarse grained sand,
subrounded to rounded; trace fine gravel up to 5 mm, rounded; poorly sorted; contains
quartz, feldspar, amphibole, and other; trace shell fragments.

25

CLAY (CL): dark greenish gray (5GY 4/1), 80% clay, medium plasticity, soft; 20% silt; silty
clay with an abundance of shells.
30

35

40

Sample
Type

SILT (ML): dark greenish gray (5G 4/1), 100% silt, low plasticity; abundant shells and shell
fragments.
SANDY SILT (ML): dark greenish gray (5GY 4/1), 51% silt; 49% fine grained sand,
subrounded; trace fine gravel up to 18 mm, rounded; contains quartz, feldspar, and other;
alternating fine sand and silt; abundance of shells and shell fragments; thin black/dark brown
laminations (organics/wood).
FAT CLAY (CH): dark greenish gray (5GY 4/1), 100% clay, high plasticity; trace shells.

SAND (SP): greenish gray (5GY 5/1) and dark greenish gray (5GY 4/1), 100% fine
grained sand, subangular to subrounded; trace silt; trace clay; well sorted; interbeded clays
and silts approx. every foot, thin black laminations in clays, trace shell and organics(wood),
large shells up to 61 mm at 39.0 ft; silt at 41.0 to 41.5, 46.3 to 46.6, 50.6 to 51.5 ft; clay at
52.5 to 54.1 ft.

30

35

40

45

45

50

50

Geoscience Support Services, Inc.

A1-37

SIEVE
SS: Splitspoon sample GRAB: Grab sample PTS: Splitspoon submitted for analysis SIEVE: Grab sieved by GSSI

25

Depth
bgs
(feet)

Appendix A1

GEOSCIENCE

BOREHOLE NAME

P.O. Box 220


Claremont, CA 91711
Telephone: (909) 451-6650
Fax: (909) 451-6638
www.gssiwater.com

BOREHOLE LITHOLOGIC LOG (continued)

ML-2

California American Water


13017-13

CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER

LOCATION

Moss Landing, CA
Lithologic Log

Depth
bgs
(feet)
0

GAMMA
(GAPI)

Zone
Test

CLID
(mmho/m)
110 1500

Graphic
Log

NOTE: Grain size distribution percentages are approximate. Material code


(e.g. SP) reference Unified Soil Classification visual method.
Color code (e.g. 10YR 5/2) reference Munsell Soil Color Charts.

Depth
bgs
(feet)

Sample
Type
SIEVE

55

55
FAT CLAY (CH): greenish black (10Y 2.5/1), 100% clay, medium plasticity.
SILT (ML): dark greenish gray (5GY 4/1), 100% silt; low plasticity; trace fine grained sand,
subrounded, 56.5 to 57.0 ft; trace thin black lamination.
FAT CLAY (CH): dark greenish gray (10Y 4/1), 100% clay, medium plasticity, dense.

60

60

FAT CLAY (CH): dark greenish gray (10Y 4/1) and black (N2.5), 100% clay, medium
plasticity; dense, heavily banded/laminated, alternating 1-inch black and gray bands; ashy,
possible organics, organics/wood at 61.5 ft.
65

FAT CLAY (CH): dark greenish gray (5GY 4/1), 100% clay, low plasticity, dense; trace black
ashy deposits.

65
SS

SILT (ML): dark greenish gray (10Y 4/1), 100% silt; trace clay, more dense/clayey below
69.6 ft; thin black and dark gray laminations.
70

70
FAT CLAY (CH): dark greenish gray (5GY 4/1), 100% clay, low plasticity; thin ashy dark
gray to black laminations and pt. deposits; dark brown organic rich lenses(wood) from 76.5
to 76.8 ft.

75

75

85

90
Zone
#2

95

100

SC:
11,825
uS/cm

SAND (SP): light brownish gray (2.5Y 6/2), 100% fine to medium grained sand, subangular
to subrounded; trace fine to coarse gravel up to 25 mm, at 84.3 to 84.7 ft, rounded; trace
silt, lenses; medium sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, amphibole, and other; some horizontal
rusty lamination.
SILT (ML): light brownish gray (10YR 6/2), 100% silt; trace fine grained sand, subrounded;
thin horizontal rusty laminations.
CLAY (CL): dark greenish gray (10Y 4/1), 100% clay, medium plasticity, silty; ashy/black and
rusty lamination.
SILT (ML): light olive gray (5Y 6/2), 100% silt; trace fine grained sand, subrounded; rusty
deposits/lamination.
SAND (SP): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/3), 100% fine to medium grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; trace silt; poorly sorted.
SAND (SW): light gray (5Y 7/2), 90% fine to coarse grained sand, subangular to rounded,
predominantly medium and coarse grained; 10% fine to coarse gravel up to 45 mm,
rounded; poorly sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole, and many other mineral
types.
SAND (SP): light olive gray (5Y 6/2), 100% fine to medium grained sand, subangular to
subrounded, trace coarse grained; trace fine to coarse gravel up to 38 mm, subangular to
subrounded; trace clay, trace clay balls up to 70 mm; poorly sorted; contains quartz,
feldspar, mica, amphibole, and other.
SAND (SW): pale olive (5Y 6/3), 90% fine to coarse grained sand, subangular to rounded;
10% fine to coarse gravel up to 44 mm, subrounded to rounded, beds at 99.3 and 107.2 to
107.8 ft; trace silt, trace silt beds at 99.4 to 100.0, 104.0 to 104.6, and 106.5 to 107.0 ft;
poorly sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole, and other.

80

85

PTS
SS
SS

90

95
GRAB

100

GRAB

105

105

Geoscience Support Services, Inc.

A1-38

SS: Splitspoon sample GRAB: Grab sample PTS: Splitspoon submitted for analysis SIEVE: Grab sieved by GSSI

SAND WITH CLAY (SP-SC): greenish gray (10Y 5/1), 90% fine grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; 10% clay; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar and amphibole.
FAT CLAY (CH): dark greenish gray (10Y 4/1), 60% clay, medium and high plasticity, clay at
78.9 to 79.3, 79.6 to 80.1, 82.5 to 84.3 ft; 40% silt, low plasticity, silt at 79.3 to 79.6, 80.1 to
82.5 ft; interbeded clays and silts, rusty alteration at 84.3 ft.

80

Appendix A1

GEOSCIENCE

BOREHOLE NAME

P.O. Box 220


Claremont, CA 91711
Telephone: (909) 451-6650
Fax: (909) 451-6638
www.gssiwater.com

BOREHOLE LITHOLOGIC LOG (continued)

ML-2

California American Water


13017-13

CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER

LOCATION

Moss Landing, CA
Lithologic Log

Depth
bgs
(feet)
0

GAMMA
(GAPI)

Zone
Test

CLID
(mmho/m)
110 1500

110

Graphic
Log

NOTE: Grain size distribution percentages are approximate. Material code


(e.g. SP) reference Unified Soil Classification visual method.
Color code (e.g. 10YR 5/2) reference Munsell Soil Color Charts.

SAND (SP): olive gray (5Y 5/2), 100% fine grained sand, subangular to subrounded; trace
fine to coarse gravel up to 26 mm, rounded; trace clay; well sorted; clayey gravel layer at
108.7 ft.
SAND WITH GRAVEL (SW): pale olive (5Y 6/4), 85% fine to coarse grained sand,
subangular to rounded, altered sand to dark brown at 115.3 to 115.7 ft; 15% fine to coarse
gravel up to 71 mm, rounded; trace cobbles; trace clay; poorly sorted; contains quartz,
feldspar, mica, amphibole, and other; cobbles to 80 mm at 111.0 ft.

115

120

Depth
bgs
(feet)

110
SIEVE

115
SAND (SP): olive gray (5Y 5/2), 100% fine grained sand, subangular to subrounded, very
fine grained; trace fine to coarse gravel up to 31 mm, well rounded; well sorted; contains
quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole, and other.
SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM): olive gray (5Y 5/2), 90% fine to medium grained sand,
subangular to subrounded; 10% silt; trace fine gravel up to 5 mm, subangular to
subrounded; poorly sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, amphibole, and other.
SILT (ML): olive gray (5Y 5/2), 100% silt; trace fine to coarse gravel up to 51 mm, well
rounded; trace fine to coarse grained sand, subangular to subrounded; trace clay; gravel
and silt bed at 121.3 to 122.2 ft; clays at 123.4 to 123.8 , 130.2 to 130.5, and 131.4 to 131.6
ft; altered rusty sand at 125.5 to 126.2 ft.

SS
PTS
SS

120

125

125

130

130

135

145

150

155

SAND (SW): olive gray (5Y 5/2), 90% fine to coarse grained sand, subangular to rounded,
predominantly fine grains; 10% fine to coarse gravel up to 42 mm, rounded; poorly sorted;
contains quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole, and other.
SAND (SP): olive gray (5Y 5/2), 95% fine grained sand, subangular to subrounded; 5% fine
to coarse gravel up to 40 mm, rounded; trace clay, trace clay layer at 136.2 to 136.5 ft; well
sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole, and other; thin rusty laminations,
transition from olive brown to gray at 138.6 ft.
SAND WITH SILT AND GRAVEL (SP-SM): greenish gray (5GY 5/1), 70% fine grained
sand, subangular to subrounded, trace medium and coarse grains; 20% fine to coarse
gravel up to 45 mm, rounded; 10% silt; trace clay; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar,
mica, amphibole, and other; clay and gravel at 139.3 to 139.8 ft.
SAND (SP): greenish gray (5GY 5/1), 100% fine grained sand, subangular to subrounded;
trace clay; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, and other; clay at 140.1 to 140.4 ft.
CLAY (CL): dark gray (N4), 60% clay, low plasticity; 40% silt; trace fine grained sand,
subrounded; alternating silt and clay beds with black and dark gray horizontal laminations;
contains organics/wood; trace thin fine sand beds.
SAND (SP): pale olive (5Y 6/3), 100% fine grained sand, subangular to subrounded; trace
fine gravel up to 18 mm, subangular to rounded; trace clay, trace clay lens at 146.1 ft; well
sorted.
SAND WITH GRAVEL (SW): light olive gray (5Y 6/2), 70% fine to coarse grained sand,
subangular to rounded; 25% fine to coarse gravel up to 37 mm, rounded; 5% silt; poorly
sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole, and other.
SAND (SP): olive gray (5Y 5/2), 95% fine grained sand, subangular to subrounded; 5% silt;
trace fine to coarse gravel up to 19 mm, rounded; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar,
mica, amphibole, and other.
CLAY (CL): olive gray (5Y 5/2), 70% clay; 30% silt; dense silty clay; no plasticity; olive
brown with gray lamination, trace rusty deposits.
SAND (SP): olive (5Y 5/3), 90% fine grained sand, subangular to subrounded; 10% fine to
coarse gravel up to 68 mm, subrounded to rounded; trace clay; well sorted; contains quartz,
feldspar, mica, amphibole, and other; higher mica; contains chert, many mineral types,
gravel from 157.0-158.5 ft; clay from 162.2 to 163.1 and 164.2 to 164.6 ft.

160

135

140

145

GRAB

150

SIEVE

155

SS
PTS
SS

160

Geoscience Support Services, Inc.

A1-39

GRAB

GRAB

SS: Splitspoon sample GRAB: Grab sample PTS: Splitspoon submitted for analysis SIEVE: Grab sieved by GSSI

140

Sample
Type

Appendix A1

GEOSCIENCE

BOREHOLE NAME

P.O. Box 220


Claremont, CA 91711
Telephone: (909) 451-6650
Fax: (909) 451-6638
www.gssiwater.com

BOREHOLE LITHOLOGIC LOG (continued)

ML-2

California American Water


13017-13

CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER

LOCATION

Moss Landing, CA
Lithologic Log

Depth
bgs
(feet)
0

GAMMA
(GAPI)

Zone
Test

CLID
(mmho/m)
110 1500

Graphic
Log

NOTE: Grain size distribution percentages are approximate. Material code


(e.g. SP) reference Unified Soil Classification visual method.
Color code (e.g. 10YR 5/2) reference Munsell Soil Color Charts.

165

Depth
bgs
(feet)

Sample
Type

165

Zone
#1

170

SAND WITH GRAVEL (SP): olive gray (5Y 5/2), 85% fine grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; 15% fine to coarse gravel up to 60 mm, subrounded to rounded, predominantly
coarse grained; trace cobbles; well sorted; trace cobbles, contains quartz, feldspar, mica,
amphibole, and other; coarse grained gravel and cobble bed at 173.7 ft; well rounded
cobbles up to 96 mm, gravel increases at 171.0 to 177.0 ft; chert, granite, and siltstone.

170

GRAB

SC:
34,730
uS/cm

175

180

185

175

SAND (SP): dark greenish gray (5GY 4/1), 95% fine grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; 5% fine to coarse gravel up to 35 mm, rounded and flat, gravelly from 180.5 to
182.0 ft; trace clay, clay at 182.0 to 182.3 ft; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica, and
amphibole; high mica; more purple and green minerals; contains rounded siltstones.

SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM): dark gray (N4), 90% fine grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; 10% silt, thin silty laminations (black and gray); trace fine to coarse gravel up to
60 mm, rounded and flat; trace clay, laminated clay at 184.2 to 184.5 ft, and 186.0 to 186.4
ft; well sorted.

180

GRAB

185

SIEVE

190

200

SAND (SP): dark gray (N4), 100% fine to coarse grained sand, subangular to rounded,
alternating well sorted and well graded beds; trace fine to coarse gravel up to 45 mm,
rounded and flat; contains quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole, and other; trace shell
fragments.
SANDY CLAY (CL): dark greenish gray (10Y 4/1), 51% clay; 49% fine grained sand,
subangular to subrounded; contains quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole, and other; alternating
1-inch bands of clay and fine sand; thin black/ashy lamination.
SAND (SP): dark gray (N4), 100% fine to medium grained sand, subangular to subrounded;
medium sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole, and other; trace shell fragments.
Bottom of borehole at 200 feet.

Geoscience Support Services, Inc.

A1-40

195

200

SS: Splitspoon sample GRAB: Grab sample PTS: Splitspoon submitted for analysis SIEVE: Grab sieved by GSSI

195

190

Appendix A1

GEOSCIENCE

P.O. Box 220


Claremont, CA 91711
Telephone: (909) 451-6650
Fax: (909) 451-6638
www.gssiwater.com

BOREHOLE NAME

BOREHOLE LITHOLOGIC LOG

ML-3

California American Water


13017-13

CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER

5/23/2014

REPORT DATE
DRILLING CONTRACTOR
DRILLER
DRILLING
Prosonic 600T
RIG TYPE
SURFACE
16.0 ft
ELEVATION

Cascade Drilling
Jose Munguia
DRILLING
METHOD
TOTAL
DEPTH

LOCATION

Moss Landing, CA
Nadar Agha Property
36 48' 00.6768", -121 47' 00.7656"

Geographic NAD83

LOGGED BY

N. Reynolds
Sonic
200 ft bgs

START
DATE
FINISH
DATE

1/07/14
1/13/13

BOREHOLE
DIAMETER
CORE
SIZE

8 in
6 in

Lithologic Log
Depth
bgs
(feet)
0

GAMMA
(GAPI)

Zone
Test

CLID
(mmho/m)
110 1500

10

15

20

30

NOTE: Grain size distribution percentages are approximate. Material code


(e.g. SP) reference Unified Soil Classification visual method.
Color code (e.g. 10YR 5/2) reference Munsell Soil Color Charts.

SANDY SILT (ML): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/3), 70% silt; 30% fine grained sand, subangular
to subrounded; trace fine to coarse gravel up to 22 mm, subangular; contains quartz,
feldspar, mica and amphibole.
SAND (SP): light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/4), 100% fine to medium grained sand,
predominantly fine, subangular to subrounded; trace fine to coarse gravel up to 25 mm, flat
and rounded; trace silt; medium sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole.

SAND (SW): light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/3), 100% fine to coarse grained sand, subangular
to subrounded; trace fine gravel up to 15 mm, subrounded; trace silt, some silty sand beds;
poorly sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole.
SAND (SP): light brownish gray (2.5Y 6/2), 95% fine to medium grained sand, subangular
to subrounded; 5% silt, 1-inch alternating dry powdery grey silt beds from 10.3 to 11.1 ft;
trace coarse gravel up to 60 mm, rounded, at 10.5 ft; medium sorted; contains quartz,
feldspar and mica.
SAND (SP): light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/3), 100% fine to medium grained sand,
subangular to subrounded; trace coarse gravel up to 60 mm, rounded; medium sorted;
contains quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole; higher mica content; rust colored altered
sand at 18.9 ft contact.

CLAY (CL): light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/3), 95% clay, medium plasticity, silty clay; 5% fine
to coarse grained sand, subrounded to rounded; trace fine to coarse gravel up to 30 mm,
rounded, interbeds; contains quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole; high mica content, some
horizontal ashy deposits.
SAND (SW): light olive gray (5Y 6/2), 95% fine to coarse grained sand, subangular to
rounded; 5% fine gravel up to 18 mm, rounded; poorly sorted; contains quartz, feldspar,
mica, amphibole, and other, higher mica content.
SAND (SP): olive (5Y 5/3), 95% fine grained sand, subangular to subrounded; 5% fine to
coarse gravel up to 39 mm, subrounded to rounded; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar,
mica, amphibole, and other, high mica content.
CLAY (CL): pale olive (5Y 6/3), 85% clay, no plasticity; 15% silt, thin silty interbeds; thin
black and rust colored laminations.
FAT CLAY (CH): dark greenish gray (10Y 4/1), 100% clay, medium plasticity, dense; trace
fine grained sand, subangular to subrounded, sand layer from 32.0 to 32.3 ft; dense clay
with trace ashy deposits/horizontal laminations; organics (wood) at 32.7, 36.0, 38.1, 40.1,
and 46.6 ft.

Depth
bgs
(feet)

10

15

20

GRAB

25

30

35

35

40

40

45

45

50

50

Geoscience Support Services, Inc.

A1-41

Sample
Type

SS: Splitspoon sample GRAB: Grab sample PTS: Splitspoon submitted for analysis SIEVE: Grab sieved by GSSI

25

Graphic
Log

Appendix A1

GEOSCIENCE

BOREHOLE NAME

P.O. Box 220


Claremont, CA 91711
Telephone: (909) 451-6650
Fax: (909) 451-6638
www.gssiwater.com

BOREHOLE LITHOLOGIC LOG (continued)

ML-3

California American Water


13017-13

CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER

LOCATION

Moss Landing, CA
Lithologic Log

Depth
bgs
(feet)
0

GAMMA
(GAPI)

Zone
Test

CLID
(mmho/m)
110 1500

Graphic
Log

NOTE: Grain size distribution percentages are approximate. Material code


(e.g. SP) reference Unified Soil Classification visual method.
Color code (e.g. 10YR 5/2) reference Munsell Soil Color Charts.

Depth
bgs
(feet)

Sample
Type

SILT (ML): dark greenish gray (10Y 4/1), 85% silt, clayey silt with clay interbeds, no
plasticity; 15% clay; trace horizontal laminations.
55

55
FAT CLAY (CH): dark greenish gray (10Y 4/1), 85% clay, dense, silty, low plasticity; 15%
silt; trace horizontal ashy laminations.

60

60
FAT CLAY (CH): dark greenish gray (5GY 4/1), 100% clay, low plasticity; dense clay with
higher organic/ashy content and some 1-inch horizontal dark banding.

65

65
FAT CLAY (CH): dark greenish gray (10Y 4/1), 100% clay, medium plasticity, dense.

70

70

75

75
FAT CLAY (CH): dark greenish gray (10Y 4/1), 100% clay, low plasticity, dense; high ashy
organic/wood content; dark horizontal laminations.

80

85

85
SAND (SP): gray (N5), 100% fine grained sand, subangular to subrounded; well sorted;
contains quartz and feldspar.
SILT (ML): greenish gray (10Y 5/1), 85% silt; 15% clay; clayey silt; trace organics/wood.
FAT CLAY (CH): dark greenish gray (10Y 4/1), 100% clay, dense clay, no plasticity; trace
horizontal ashy laminations; trace ashy organics/wood at 86.9 ft.

90

90

FAT CLAY (CH): greenish black (10Y 2.5/1), 100% clay, low to no plasticity; dense clay with
brownish grey banding and lamination, very dense from 93.5 to 94.7 ft.

95

95

100

Zone
#2

105

FAT CLAY WITH SAND (CH): black (5Y 2.5/1), 85% clay, no plasticity; 15% fine to medium
grained sand, subangular to subrounded.
FAT CLAY WITH SAND (CH): dark greenish gray (10Y 4/1), 80% clay, no plasticity; 20%
fine grained sand, subrounded; contains quartz and feldspar; trace black ashy deposits.
SILTY SAND (SM): greenish gray (10Y 5/1), 85% fine grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; 15% silt; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar and amphibole.
SILT (ML): dark greenish gray (5GY 4/1), 100% silt; trace thin horizontal ashy laminations.
SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM): dark greenish gray (10Y 4/1), 90% fine grained sand,
subangular to subrounded; 10% silt; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar and amphibole;
trace black ashy deposits.
FAT CLAY (CH): very dark greenish gray (10Y 3/1), 100% clay, medium plasticity, dense.
SAND (SP): olive (5Y 5/3), 100% fine grained sand, subangular to subrounded; well sorted;
contains quartz, feldspar and amphibole; transition from grey to olive sand at 104.7 ft.

Geoscience Support Services, Inc.

A1-42

100

105
GRAB

SS: Splitspoon sample GRAB: Grab sample PTS: Splitspoon submitted for analysis SIEVE: Grab sieved by GSSI

80

Appendix A1

GEOSCIENCE

BOREHOLE NAME

P.O. Box 220


Claremont, CA 91711
Telephone: (909) 451-6650
Fax: (909) 451-6638
www.gssiwater.com

BOREHOLE LITHOLOGIC LOG (continued)

ML-3

California American Water


13017-13

CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER

LOCATION

Moss Landing, CA
Lithologic Log

Depth
bgs
(feet)
0

GAMMA
(GAPI)

Zone
Test

CLID
(mmho/m)
110 1500

SC:
7,439
uS/cm

Graphic
Log

NOTE: Grain size distribution percentages are approximate. Material code


(e.g. SP) reference Unified Soil Classification visual method.
Color code (e.g. 10YR 5/2) reference Munsell Soil Color Charts.

110
SAND (SW): pale olive (5Y 6/3), 100% fine to coarse grained sand, subangular to
subrounded, fining upward; trace fine to coarse gravel up to 25 mm, subrounded; poorly
sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, amphibole, and other.
SILT (ML): dark greenish gray (5GY 4/1), 100% silt; trace clay; trace thin ashy laminations;
shell fragments from 116.1 to 117.0, 117.8 to 118.2, and 119.6 ft; clayey from 122.7 to 123.3
and 124.6 to 125.1 ft.

Sample
Type
SS
PTS
SS

SAND (SP): olive gray (5Y 5/2), 100% fine grained sand, subangular to subrounded; trace
fine to coarse gravel up to 30 mm, subrounded; trace clay, trace clay lenses; well sorted;
contains quartz, feldspar, amphibole, and other; trace rust and purple colored
lamination/alteration.

110

115

Depth
bgs
(feet)

SIEVE

SIEVE

115

120

120

125

125
SILT (ML): dark greenish gray (10Y 4/1), 85% silt, dense; 15% clay; trace thin black ashy
lamination/deposits; clayey.

130

130

135

135

FAT CLAY (CH): dark greenish gray (5GY 4/1), 85% clay, low plasticity; 15% silt; silty; trace
thin horizontal ashy laminations.
SILT (ML): dark greenish gray (5GY 4/1), 100% silt; contains mica; trace thin horizontal
ashy laminations; trace shell fragments.

145

140

145

SILT (ML): dark greenish gray (5GY 4/1), 85% silt, clayey; 15% clay; trace round gravel to
21mm at 157.6 ft; trace thin horizontal ashy laminations/deposits.
150

150

155

155

160

FAT CLAY (CH): dark greenish gray (5GY 4/1), 100% clay, low plasticity; trace silt;
horizontal ashy black lamination.
SILT (ML): dark greenish gray (5GY 4/1), 100% silt; trace clay; trace thin horizontal ashy
laminations; organics/wood at 163.5 ft.

Geoscience Support Services, Inc.

A1-43

160

SS: Splitspoon sample GRAB: Grab sample PTS: Splitspoon submitted for analysis SIEVE: Grab sieved by GSSI

140

Appendix A1

GEOSCIENCE

BOREHOLE NAME

P.O. Box 220


Claremont, CA 91711
Telephone: (909) 451-6650
Fax: (909) 451-6638
www.gssiwater.com

BOREHOLE LITHOLOGIC LOG (continued)

ML-3

California American Water


13017-13

CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER

LOCATION

Moss Landing, CA
Lithologic Log

Depth
bgs
(feet)
0

GAMMA
(GAPI)

Zone
Test

CLID
(mmho/m)
110 1500

Graphic
Log

NOTE: Grain size distribution percentages are approximate. Material code


(e.g. SP) reference Unified Soil Classification visual method.
Color code (e.g. 10YR 5/2) reference Munsell Soil Color Charts.

165
SAND (SP): dark greenish gray (5GY 4/1), 100% fine grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; trace fine gravel up to 13 mm, rounded; well sorted; contains quartz and
feldspar.
SILT (ML): dark greenish gray (5GY 4/1), 100% silt, low to no plasticity; trace fine gravel up
to 16 mm, rounded, at 169.5 ft; trace fine grained sand, subrounded; trace clay, clayey from
168.8 to 169.8 ft; trace horizontal ashy laminations.

175

180
Zone
#1

190

SC:
11,704
uS/cm

SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM): dark greenish gray (10Y 4/1), 85% fine to medium grained
sand, subangular to subrounded, trace rounded coarse grains; 10% silt; 5% fine to coarse
gravel up to 40 mm, rounded; medium sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole,
and other; many mineral types; siltstone.
SAND (SW): greenish gray (10Y 5/1), 85% fine to coarse grained sand, subangular to
rounded; 10% fine to coarse gravel up to 37 mm, rounded; 5% silt; poorly sorted; contains
quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole, siltstone, and other; many mineral types.
SAND WITH GRAVEL (SW): pale olive (5Y 6/3), 80% fine to coarse grained sand,
subangular to rounded; 20% fine to coarse gravel up to 57 mm, rounded; trace cobbles;
poorly sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole, and other; many mineral types;
trace rounded cobbles up to 77 mm.
SAND (SP): olive (5Y 5/3), 95% fine to medium grained sand, subangular to rounded, trace
coarse grained; 5% clay; trace fine gravel up to 18 mm, rounded; poorly sorted; dense, weak
cementation; contains quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole, and other; many mineral types.
SAND WITH CLAY AND GRAVEL (SW-SC): pale olive (5Y 6/3), 70% fine to coarse grained
sand, subangular to rounded; 20% fine to coarse gravel up to 45 mm, rounded; 10% clay;
poorly sorted; dense, weak cementation; contains quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole, and
other; many mineral types.
SAND (SP): pale olive (5Y 6/3), 100% fine to medium grained sand, subangular to
subrounded, trace coarse grained; trace fine to coarse gravel up to 45 mm, rounded;
medium sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole; contains quartz, feldspar,
mica, amphibole, siltstone, and other; many mineral types.

SS
PTS

170

175

GRAB

180

SIEVE

185

190

SIEVE

195
SAND WITH GRAVEL (SW): pale olive (5Y 6/3), 70% fine to coarse grained sand,
subangular to subrounded; 25% fine to coarse gravel up to 44 mm, subrounded to rounded;
5% clay; poorly sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole, and other; many mineral
types.
SAND WITH GRAVEL (SW): olive (5Y 5/4), 85% fine to coarse grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; 15% fine to coarse gravel up to 35 mm, subrounded to rounded; poorly sorted;
contains quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole, and other; many mineral types.
Bottom of borehole at 200 feet.

Geoscience Support Services, Inc.

A1-44

SIEVE

GRAB

200

SS: Splitspoon sample GRAB: Grab sample PTS: Splitspoon submitted for analysis SIEVE: Grab sieved by GSSI

195

200

Sample
Type

165

170

185

Depth
bgs
(feet)

Appendix A1

GEOSCIENCE

P.O. Box 220


Claremont, CA 91711
Telephone: (909) 451-6650
Fax: (909) 451-6638
www.gssiwater.com

BOREHOLE NAME

BOREHOLE LITHOLOGIC LOG

ML-4

California American Water


13017-13

CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER

5/23/2014

REPORT DATE
DRILLING CONTRACTOR
DRILLER
DRILLING
Prosonic 600T
RIG TYPE
SURFACE
32.0 ft
ELEVATION

Cascade Drilling
Jose Munguia
DRILLING
METHOD
TOTAL
DEPTH

LOCATION

Moss Landing, CA
Nadar Agha Property
36 48' 09.342",

-121 47' 02.526"

Geographic NAD83

LOGGED BY

N. Reynolds
Sonic
201 ft bgs

START
DATE
FINISH
DATE

12/02/13
12/06/13

BOREHOLE
DIAMETER
CORE
SIZE

8 in
7 in

Lithologic Log
Depth
bgs
(feet)
0

GAMMA
(GAPI)

Zone
Test

CLID
(mmho/m)
110 1500

10

15

20

NOTE: Grain size distribution percentages are approximate. Material code


(e.g. SP) reference Unified Soil Classification visual method.
Color code (e.g. 10YR 5/2) reference Munsell Soil Color Charts.

SILTY SAND (SM): yellowish brown (10YR 5/4), 80% fine grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; 20% silt; trace fine to coarse gravel up to 20 mm, subangular to subrounded;
well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole; trace organics/roots.
SANDY SILT (ML): dark brown (10YR 3/3), 70% silt; 30% fine grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; trace fine gravel up to 5 mm, subangular to subrounded; contains quartz and
feldspar; trace organics/roots.
SANDY SILT (ML): very dark brown (10YR 2/2), 70% silt; 30% fine grained sand,
subangular to subrounded; trace fine gravel up to 5 mm, subangular to rounded; contains
quartz and feldspar; trace organics/roots.
CLAY (CL): olive (5Y 5/3), 90% clay, low plasticity; 10% fine grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; contains quartz and feldspar; some rusty alteration.
CLAY (CL): light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/4), 90% clay, low plasticity, trace cemented clay;
10% silt; trace fine grained sand, subangular to subrounded; friable, organics (black),
evaporite minerals (spherical).
SILT (ML): light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/3), 90% silt, clayey silt; 10% fine to medium
grained sand, subangular to subrounded, 4-inch rusty sand interbeds; contains quartz and
feldspar; trace rusty alteration and organics.
SAND (SP): light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/4), 100% fine grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; well sorted; dry sample; contains quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole; with
visible rust colored alteration.
CLAY (CL): olive (5Y 5/3), 100% clay, clay with silty interbeds; trace fine grained sand,
subangular to subrounded, rusty alteration; rust and black horizontal laminations.
SAND (SP): light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/4), 95% fine to medium grained sand, subangular
to subrounded, predominantly fine grained, some rusty alteration; 5% silt; trace fine gravel
up to 18 mm, rounded; medium sorted; dry sample; contains quartz, feldspar, mica and
amphibole; trace weakly cemented sand and silt interbeds.

SAND (SP): pale olive (5Y 6/3), 100% fine to medium grained sand, subangular to
subrounded, trace coarse grained; trace fine gravel up to 18 mm, subangular to rounded;
medium sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole.

Depth
bgs
(feet)

Sample
Type

10

15

20

25

SIEVE

30

30
SAND (SW): pale olive (5Y 6/3), 95% fine to coarse grained sand, subangular to rounded;
5% fine to coarse gravel up to 65 mm, subangular to rounded, coarse subrounded gravel at
30.7 and 32.1 ft; poorly sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole.

35

SAND (SP): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/3), 100% fine grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar and amphibole; higher mica content.

35

SAND (SP): light olive gray (5Y 6/2), 100% fine to medium grained sand, subangular to
rounded, trace coarse grained; trace fine gravel up to 18 mm, rounded; trace clay, trace clay
balls; poorly sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole, and other.
SAND (SP): olive gray (5Y 5/2), 100% fine grained sand, subangular to subrounded, trace
coarse black grains; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole; high mica.
40

40
CLAY (CL): olive gray (5Y 5/2), 100% clay, low to no plasticity; alteration visible, rusty
horizontal laminations.

45

50

FAT CLAY (CH): dark greenish gray (5GY 4/1), 100% clay, medium plasticity, dense;
alteration visible, dark gray laminations.
SILT WITH SAND (ML): olive gray (5Y 5/2), 85% silt; 15% fine grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; alteration visible, rusty horizontal laminations; contains mica.
CLAY (CL): olive gray (5Y 5/2), 100% clay, medium plasticity; trace silt; alteration visible,
rusty horizontal laminations (silt).
CLAY (CL): dark greenish gray (10Y 4/1), 100% clay, medium plasticity; gray to black

Geoscience Support Services, Inc.

A1-45

45

50

GRAB

SS: Splitspoon sample GRAB: Grab sample PTS: Splitspoon submitted for analysis SIEVE: Grab sieved by GSSI

25

Graphic
Log

Appendix A1

GEOSCIENCE

BOREHOLE NAME

P.O. Box 220


Claremont, CA 91711
Telephone: (909) 451-6650
Fax: (909) 451-6638
www.gssiwater.com

BOREHOLE LITHOLOGIC LOG (continued)

ML-4

California American Water


13017-13

CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER

LOCATION

Moss Landing, CA
Lithologic Log

Depth
bgs
(feet)
0

GAMMA
(GAPI)

Zone
Test

CLID
(mmho/m)
110 1500

Graphic
Log

NOTE: Grain size distribution percentages are approximate. Material code


(e.g. SP) reference Unified Soil Classification visual method.
Color code (e.g. 10YR 5/2) reference Munsell Soil Color Charts.

Depth
bgs
(feet)

Sample
Type

horizontal laminations.
SILT (ML): dark greenish gray (10Y 4/1), 100% silt; grey silt with black horizontal
laminations, trace mica.
55

55
CLAY (CL): dark greenish gray (10Y 4/1), 80% clay, low plasticity; 20% silt; silty clay, trace
mica.
SILT WITH SAND (ML): dark greenish gray (10Y 4/1), 80% silt; 15% fine grained sand,
subangular to subrounded; 5% clay, trace clay lenses; silt with alternating thin fine sand
lenses and thin black horizontal laminations; trace woody organics.

60

60

SAND (SP): greenish gray (5GY 5/1), 100% fine to medium grained sand, subangular to
rounded; trace fine to coarse gravel up to 44 mm, flat and rounded; medium sorted; contains
quartz, feldspar and amphibole; contains quartz, feldspar, amphibole, and other; trace
organics/wood at 65.5 ft.
SAND (SP): greenish gray (5GY 5/1), 100% fine grained sand, subangular to subrounded;
trace silt, silt lenses; trace clay, clay lenses; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar and mica;
trace organics/wood at 75.2 and 80.2 ft.

65

70

65

70
SIEVE

75

75

Zone
#2

SS
PTS
SS

80

SC:
12,933
uS/cm

80

85

85
CLAY (CL): dark greenish gray (10Y 4/1), 100% clay, low plasticity; dense clay with black
horizontal laminations.

90

90
FAT CLAY (CH): dark greenish gray (10Y 4/1), 100% clay, high plasticity, very dense and
waxy.

95

FAT CLAY (CH): dark greenish gray (5GY 4/1) to greenish black (10Y 2.5/1), 100% clay,
high plasticity; very dense and waxy clay with partially cemented black/brown laminations
(3/4-inch alternating).

95

FAT CLAY (CH): dark greenish gray (10Y 4/1), 100% clay, medium plasticity, dense and
waxy; brownish gray laminations from 98.5 to 100.4 ft.

100

100
SAND WITH CLAY (SP-SC): greenish gray (10Y 5/1), 90% fine to medium grained sand,
subangular to subrounded; 10% clay, 4 to 6 inch sandy clay interbeds; medium sorted;
contains quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole.

105

FAT CLAY (CH): dark greenish gray (5GY 4/1), 100% clay, medium plasticity, dense; trace
black laminations/ashy deposits.

Geoscience Support Services, Inc.

A1-46

105

SS: Splitspoon sample GRAB: Grab sample PTS: Splitspoon submitted for analysis SIEVE: Grab sieved by GSSI

SAND (SP): greenish gray (5GY 6/1), 100% fine grained sand, subangular to subrounded;
trace fine gravel up to 10 mm, rounded; trace silt, silt lenses; trace clay, clay lenses; well
sorted; contains quartz, feldspar and mica; trace organics/wood 83.3 ft.

Appendix A1

GEOSCIENCE

BOREHOLE NAME

P.O. Box 220


Claremont, CA 91711
Telephone: (909) 451-6650
Fax: (909) 451-6638
www.gssiwater.com

BOREHOLE LITHOLOGIC LOG (continued)

ML-4

California American Water


13017-13

CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER

LOCATION

Moss Landing, CA
Lithologic Log

Depth
bgs
(feet)
0

GAMMA
(GAPI)

Zone
Test

CLID
(mmho/m)
110 1500

110

Graphic
Log

NOTE: Grain size distribution percentages are approximate. Material code


(e.g. SP) reference Unified Soil Classification visual method.
Color code (e.g. 10YR 5/2) reference Munsell Soil Color Charts.

SANDY CLAY (CL): dark greenish gray (5GY 4/1), 70% clay, low plasticity; 30% fine to
coarse grained sand, subangular; contains quartz and feldspar; trace small black ashy
deposits; trace organics/wood at 106 ft.
SAND (SP): dark greenish gray (10Y 4/1) to greenish gray (5GY 5/1), 100% fine to
medium grained sand, subangular to subrounded; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar and
amphibole; trace organics/wood; high quartz content.

Depth
bgs
(feet)

Sample
Type

110

SIEVE

115

120

125

130

115

CLAY (CL): dark greenish gray (10G 4/1), 80% clay, low plasticity; 20% silt; trace fine
grained sand, subangular to subrounded; trace small black/ashy deposits; silty clay.
SAND (SP): dark greenish gray (10Y 4/1), 100% fine to medium grained sand, subangular to
subrounded, predominantly fine grained; trace fine gravel up to 17 mm, subrounded to
rounded; trace clay, clay lens at 119.0 ft; medium sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica,
amphibole, and other; trace organics/wood.
CLAY (CL): dark greenish gray (5GY 4/1), 95% clay, low plasticity, silty clay; 5% fine
grained sand, subangular to subrounded; contains quartz and feldspar; trace black ashy
deposits.
CLAYEY SAND (SC): greenish gray (10G 5/1), 70% fine grained sand, subrounded; 30%
clay, medium plasticity; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar and amphibole; alternating
beds of sand and clay.
FAT CLAY (CH): very dark greenish gray (10Y 3/1), 100% clay, medium plasticity, dense.
CLAY WITH SAND (CL): dark greenish gray (10G 4/1), 80% clay, no plasticity; 20% fine
grained sand, subrounded; trace organics/wood.
FAT CLAY (CH): greenish gray (10G 5/1), 100% clay, medium plasticity, dense and waxy;
trace sand balls; highly altered/rusty laminations at 131.3 ft.

120

125
SS
PTS
SS

130

SAND (SP): pale yellow (2.5Y 7/3), 100% fine to medium grained sand, subangular to
subrounded, predominantly fine grained, trace coarse; trace fine to coarse gravel up to 43
mm, subrounded to rounded, flat; trace silt, 2.5-inch silt at 133.8 ft; medium sorted; contains
quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole, and other; some purple colored alteration.
135

145

150

155

135
SANDY CLAY WITH GRAVEL (CL): light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/3), 60% clay, no plasticity;
25% fine to coarse grained sand, subangular to subrounded; 15% fine to coarse gravel up to
40 mm, subrounded to rounded; contains quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole, and other; with
visible alteration of sands.
SAND (SW): light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/3), 100% fine to coarse grained sand, subangular
to rounded, predominantly medium to coarse grained; trace fine to coarse gravel up to 32
mm, rounded; poorly sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole, and other.
SAND (SP): pale olive (5Y 6/3), 100% fine grained sand, subangular to subrounded, coarse
grained from 138.8 to 139.2 ft; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole;
trace rust colored laminations.
SILT (ML): olive (5Y 5/3), 100% silt; rusty and black/ashy laminations/alteration (at 139.2 ft).
SILTY SAND (SM): olive (5Y 5/3), 85% fine grained sand, subangular to subrounded; 15%
silt; trace fine to coarse gravel up to 57 mm, subangular to rounded; trace clay, 1-inch clay
lens at 141.3 ft; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar and amphibole; rust colored horizontal
laminations.
SILT (ML): olive (5Y 5/3), 100% silt; trace fine grained sand, subrounded; contains mica;
rust colored horizontal laminations.
SAND (SP): light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/3), 100% fine to coarse grained sand, subangular
to rounded, predominantly fine to medium grained; trace fine to coarse gravel up to 39 mm,
rounded, quartz-rich and sandstone, higher gravel content at 144.5 to 146 ft and 149.5 to
150.5 ft; poorly sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole, and other; many mineral
types.
SAND (SP): light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/4), 100% fine to medium grained sand,
subangular to subrounded; trace fine to coarse gravel up to 24 mm, rounded; medium
sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole, and other.

GRAB

140

145
SS
PTS
SS

150

SIEVE

155

SAND (SP): olive (5Y 5/3), 100% fine to coarse grained sand, subangular to rounded,
predominantly fine to medium grained; trace fine gravel up to 15 mm, rounded; trace clay;
poorly sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole, and other.
160

160
SAND WITH CLAY AND GRAVEL (SW-SC): light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/3), 65% fine to

Geoscience Support Services, Inc.

A1-47

SS: Splitspoon sample GRAB: Grab sample PTS: Splitspoon submitted for analysis SIEVE: Grab sieved by GSSI

140

GRAB

Appendix A1

GEOSCIENCE

BOREHOLE NAME

P.O. Box 220


Claremont, CA 91711
Telephone: (909) 451-6650
Fax: (909) 451-6638
www.gssiwater.com

BOREHOLE LITHOLOGIC LOG (continued)

ML-4

California American Water


13017-13

CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER

LOCATION

Moss Landing, CA
Lithologic Log

Depth
bgs
(feet)
0

GAMMA
(GAPI)

Zone
Test

CLID
(mmho/m)
110 1500

165

Zone
#1

SC:
30,671
uS/cm

170

175

180

185

190

200

NOTE: Grain size distribution percentages are approximate. Material code


(e.g. SP) reference Unified Soil Classification visual method.
Color code (e.g. 10YR 5/2) reference Munsell Soil Color Charts.

coarse grained sand, subangular to rounded; 25% fine to coarse gravel up to 28 mm,
rounded; 10% clay; poorly sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole, and other.
SAND (SP): olive (5Y 5/3), 90% fine to coarse grained sand, subangular to rounded,
predominantly fine to medium grained; 5% fine to coarse gravel up to 20 mm, subrounded to
rounded; 5% silt; poorly sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole, and other.
CLAYEY GRAVEL WITH SAND (GC): yellowish brown (10YR 5/4), 60% fine to coarse
gravel up to 33 mm, rounded; 25% fine to coarse grained sand, subrounded to rounded,
predominantly coarse grained; 15% clay; poorly sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica,
amphibole, and other; pink colored deposit.
SAND (SW): olive (5Y 5/4), 95% fine to coarse grained sand, subangular to rounded; 5%
fine to coarse gravel up to 43 mm, rounded; trace clay; poorly sorted; contains quartz,
feldspar, mica, amphibole, and other; well rounded coarse grained sand and fine gravel
interbed from 171.4 to 171.9 ft.
SAND (SP): olive (5Y 5/4), 100% fine to medium grained sand, subangular to subrounded,
predominantly fine grained, trace coarse grained; trace fine to coarse gravel up to 34 mm,
flat and rounded; poorly sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole, and other.
SAND (SP): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/3), 100% fine to coarse grained sand, subangular to
rounded, predominantly medium grained; trace fine to coarse gravel up to 32 mm, rounded;
poorly sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole, and other; abundance of minerals.
SAND (SP): pale olive (5Y 6/4), 100% fine to medium grained sand, subangular to
subrounded, predominantly fine grained; trace fine to coarse gravel up to 31 mm, flat and
rounded; medium sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole, and other;.

SAND (SP): olive (5Y 5/4), 100% fine grained sand, subangular to subrounded; well sorted;
contains quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole, and other.
SAND (SP): greenish gray (5GY 6/1), 100% fine grained sand, subangular to subrounded,
trace medium grained; trace fine to coarse gravel up to 22 mm, rounded; well sorted;
contains quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole; contains quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole,
and other; trace orange alteration.
SILT (ML): greenish gray (5GY 5/1), 100% silt; trace fine to coarse gravel up to 22 mm,
rounded; trace fine grained sand, subrounded; contains quartz, feldspar, mica and
amphibole; some rust colored horizontal laminations.
SAND (SP): dark gray (N4), 95% fine grained sand, subrounded, very fine grained; 5% silt,
thin silt lenses; trace fine to coarse gravel up to 56 mm, well rounded, predominantly green
and purple minerals; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole, and other; high
mica content.
SAND (SP): gray (N5), 100% fine to coarse grained sand, subangular to rounded; trace fine
to coarse gravel up to 69 mm, well rounded; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica and
amphibole; alternating fine to coarse well graded sand and well sorted fine grained sand
beds; fine to coarse grained sand beds at 188.9 to 189.7, 190.2 to 191.2, 192.0 to 193.1 ft;
fine grained sand beds at 189.7 to 190.2, 191.2 to 192.0 ft; trace shells.
CLAY (CL): dark gray (N4), 100% clay; trace silt; trace horizontal black/ashy laminations.
SILT (ML): dark gray (N4), 100% silt; trace clay; trace horizontal black/ashy laminations,
trace organics.
SAND (SP): dark gray (N4), 100% fine grained sand, subrounded; well sorted; contains
quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole; high mica content.
CLAY (CL): dark greenish gray (10Y 4/1), 100% clay, medium plasticity; trace silt; trace
black/ashy deposits.
SILT (ML): dark greenish gray (10Y 4/1), 100% silt; trace clay; trace black/ashy deposits.
CLAY (CL): dark greenish gray (10Y 4/1), 100% clay; trace silt; trace black/ashy deposits.
SILT (ML): dark gray (N4), 70% silt; 30% clay; clayey silt.
Bottom of borehole at 201 feet.

Geoscience Support Services, Inc.

A1-48

Depth
bgs
(feet)

Sample
Type

165

170
GRAB

175

180
SIEVE

185

GRAB

190

195

200

SS: Splitspoon sample GRAB: Grab sample PTS: Splitspoon submitted for analysis SIEVE: Grab sieved by GSSI

195

Graphic
Log

Appendix A1

GEOSCIENCE

P.O. Box 220


Claremont, CA 91711
Telephone: (909) 451-6650
Fax: (909) 451-6638
www.gssiwater.com

BOREHOLE NAME

BOREHOLE LITHOLOGIC LOG

ML-6

California American Water


13017-13

CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER

5/23/2014

REPORT DATE
DRILLING CONTRACTOR
DRILLER
DRILLING
Prosonic 600T
RIG TYPE
SURFACE
15.0 ft
ELEVATION

Cascade Drilling
Jose Munguia
DRILLING
METHOD
TOTAL
DEPTH

LOCATION

Moss Landing, CA
MBARI
36 48' 21.4992", -121 47' 16.0188"

Geographic NAD83

LOGGED BY

N. Reynolds
Sonic
200 ft bgs

START
DATE
FINISH
DATE

11/18/13
11/23/13

BOREHOLE
DIAMETER
CORE
SIZE

8 in
7 in

Lithologic Log
Depth
bgs
(feet)
0

GAMMA
(GAPI)

Zone
Test

CLID
(mmho/m)
110 1500

Graphic
Log

NOTE: Grain size distribution percentages are approximate. Material code


(e.g. SP) reference Unified Soil Classification visual method.
Color code (e.g. 10YR 5/2) reference Munsell Soil Color Charts.

Depth
bgs
(feet)

Sample
Type

CLAYEY SAND (SC): olive (5Y 4/4), 85% fine to medium grained sand, subangular to
rounded; 15% clay, sandy clay balls; trace fine gravel up to 5 mm, rounded; poorly sorted;
contains quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole; trace shells and shell fragments.

CLAYEY SAND (SC): olive (5Y 4/4), 70% fine to medium grained sand, subangular to
rounded; 30% clay; trace fine to coarse gravel up to 62 mm, angular to rounded; poorly
sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole; contains shells.

10

SAND (SP): olive (5Y 4/4), 100% fine to medium grained sand, subangular to subrounded;
trace coarse gravel rounded, interbedded; trace silt, silt from 8.7 to 9.2 ft with high mica
content and some alteration; poorly sorted; contains quartz, feldspar and amphibole.

15

10

15
SAND (SP): olive gray (5Y 5/2), 100% fine to medium grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; medium sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole; altered rust and
black colored sands from 22.0 to 23.5 ft.

20

SAND (SP): olive (5Y 5/4), 95% medium to coarse grained sand, subangular to rounded;
5% fine to coarse gravel up to 40 mm, rounded; poorly sorted; contains quartz, feldspar,
mica, amphibole, and other; trace shells and shell fragments.

30

35

40

25

30
CLAY (CL): olive brown (2.5Y 4/4), 100% clay, low plasticity; with visible rust and black
colored alteration.
CLAY (CL): very dark greenish gray (5GY 3/1), 100% clay, medium plasticity; trace
organics, altered black and dark gray and weakly cemented from 33.7 to 34.2 ft.
CLAY (CL): very dark greenish gray (5GY 3/1), 100% clay, low plasticity; dark gray/black
laminations.
SILT (ML): very dark greenish gray (10Y 3/1), 95% silt; 5% fine grained sand, subrounded,
very fine grained; contains mica; thin black laminations.
FAT CLAY (CH): very dark greenish gray (10Y 3/1), 100% clay, medium plasticity; trace fine
grained sand, subrounded, fine sand layer at 40.2 to 40.4 ft; trace black/gray laminations,
trace organics.

35

40

CLAY (CL): greenish black (10Y 2.5/1), 100% clay, medium plasticity; trace silt, silt interbed
at 42.4 to 42.8 ft.

45

50

CLAY (CL): olive (5Y 4/3), 100% clay, low plasticity; trace fine grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; alteration visible with black/grey and brown coloration.
SANDY CLAY (CL): yellowish red (5YR 4/6), 50% fine grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; 50% clay; with visible rust colored alteration; sandy clay to clayey sand.
CLAY (CL): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/3), 95% clay; 5% fine grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; trace silt; with visible rust colored alteration.
SAND (SP): light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/3), 95% fine grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; 5% silt; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole; with trace

Geoscience Support Services, Inc.

A1-49

45

50

SS: Splitspoon sample GRAB: Grab sample PTS: Splitspoon submitted for analysis SIEVE: Grab sieved by GSSI

25

20

Appendix A1

GEOSCIENCE

BOREHOLE NAME

P.O. Box 220


Claremont, CA 91711
Telephone: (909) 451-6650
Fax: (909) 451-6638
www.gssiwater.com

BOREHOLE LITHOLOGIC LOG (continued)

ML-6

California American Water


13017-13

CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER

LOCATION

Moss Landing, CA
Lithologic Log

Depth
bgs
(feet)
0

GAMMA
(GAPI)

Zone
Test

CLID
(mmho/m)
110 1500

Graphic
Log

NOTE: Grain size distribution percentages are approximate. Material code


(e.g. SP) reference Unified Soil Classification visual method.
Color code (e.g. 10YR 5/2) reference Munsell Soil Color Charts.

Depth
bgs
(feet)

Sample
Type

visible alteration.
SAND (SP): light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/3), 95% medium to coarse grained sand,
subangular to rounded; 5% fine to coarse gravel up to 45 mm, rounded; poorly sorted;
contains quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole; with visible alteration; gravelly sand from
53.7 to 54.9 ft.
55

55
CLAY (CL): olive (5Y 5/3), 100% clay; trace silt; silt/fine sand laminations, rusty altered
laminations.
SAND (SP): light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/3), 95% fine grained sand, subangular to
subrounded, very fine grained; 5% silt; trace fine to coarse gravel up to 23 mm, subrounded;
trace clay; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole; with visible alteration;
thin altered rusty laminations.
SAND (SP): light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/4), 100% fine to medium grained sand,
subangular to subrounded, predominantly fine; medium sorted; contains quartz, feldspar,
amphibole, and other.
SAND (SW): light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/4), 100% fine to coarse grained sand, subangular
to rounded; trace fine to coarse gravel up to 32 mm, subangular to rounded; trace clay, clay
balls; poorly sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, amphibole, and other.

60

65

60

65
SAND (SP): light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/4), 100% fine to medium grained sand,
subangular to subrounded, predominantly fine; medium sorted; contains quartz, feldspar,
amphibole, and other.
SILT (ML): olive (5Y 5/4), 95% silt, olive and gray laminated silt; 5% medium grained sand,
subangular to subrounded; oxidized silt laminations and sand interbeds.
SAND (SP): strong brown (7.5YR 4/6), 100% fine to medium grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar and amphibole; highly oxidized sand.
CLAY (CL): olive (5Y 4/4), 100% clay, no plasticity, silty clay; black/grey and rusty colored
laminations.
CLAY (CL): very dark greenish gray (10Y 3/1), 95% clay, low plasticity; 5% fine grained
sand, subangular to subrounded; dark gray clay with 1-inch gray sand interbeds, black and
rusty colored laminations, organics.
CLAY (CL): black (N2.5), 100% clay, low plasticity; black clay with dark brown and gray
laminations; trace organics (seed).
SAND (SP): olive (5Y 4/4), 100% fine to medium grained sand, subangular to subrounded;
medium sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole; higher mica content; with
visible alteration/oxidation.
CLAY (CL): very dark greenish gray (10Y 3/1), 100% clay, low plasticity, dense; rich in
organics (wood) especially from 78.0 to 79.0 ft, laminated.

70

75

80

70

75

80

PTS

85

90

95

100
Zone
#2

105

SC:
42,650
uS/cm

CLAY (CL): olive (5Y 5/3), 100% clay, medium plasticity; trace fine grained sand,
subrounded, interbedded; contains quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole; alteration visible,
rusty colored laminations in sand and clay.
SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/3), 90% fine grained sand,
subrounded, very fine grained; 10% silt; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica and
amphibole.
SILT WITH SAND (ML): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/4), 85% silt; 15% fine grained sand,
subrounded, fine sand bed from 89.2 to 89.6 ft; contains quartz, feldspar and mica;
alteration visible, rusty laminations.
SILT (ML): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/4), 100% silt, clayey silt, dense; trace clay; trace
alteration/oxidizing.
SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM): light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/4), 90% fine grained sand,
subrounded; 10% silt; well sorted.

85

CLAY (CL): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/4), 100% clay, low plasticity; trace alteration including
rusty colored and small black ashy deposits.
SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/3), 90% fine grained sand,
subrounded, very fine grained; 10% silt; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica and
amphibole; trace purple alteration.
CLAY (CL): olive (5Y 4/4), 100% clay, no plasticity; trace fine grained sand, subrounded;
trace silt; with trace rust colored alteration.
SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/3), 90% fine grained sand,
subrounded; 10% silt; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole; with some
rust colored alteration.
SILT (ML): olive (5Y 5/4), 100% silt; rounded; trace coarse gravel up to 30 mm, rounded,
flat; alternating 1/2-inch bands of oxidized/rust color and olive brown.
SAND (SP): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/3), 100% fine grained sand, subrounded, trace
medium to coarse grained; trace fine gravel up to 5 mm, subrounded; trace silt; well sorted;

95

Geoscience Support Services, Inc.

A1-50

90

SIEVE

SS
SS
SS

100

105

SIEVE

SS: Splitspoon sample GRAB: Grab sample PTS: Splitspoon submitted for analysis SIEVE: Grab sieved by GSSI

SAND (SP): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/4), 100% fine grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole; alteration visible,
rusty colored lamination.

Appendix A1

GEOSCIENCE

BOREHOLE NAME

P.O. Box 220


Claremont, CA 91711
Telephone: (909) 451-6650
Fax: (909) 451-6638
www.gssiwater.com

BOREHOLE LITHOLOGIC LOG (continued)

ML-6

California American Water


13017-13

CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER

LOCATION

Moss Landing, CA
Lithologic Log

Depth
bgs
(feet)
0

GAMMA
(GAPI)

Zone
Test

CLID
(mmho/m)
110 1500

Graphic
Log

NOTE: Grain size distribution percentages are approximate. Material code


(e.g. SP) reference Unified Soil Classification visual method.
Color code (e.g. 10YR 5/2) reference Munsell Soil Color Charts.

contains quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole.


SAND (SW): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/4), 95% fine to coarse grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; 5% fine to coarse gravel up to 70 mm, rounded; poorly sorted; contains quartz,
feldspar, mica and amphibole.
SAND (SP): olive (5Y 4/4), 100% fine grained sand, subrounded to rounded; trace fine
gravel up to 18 mm, rounded; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar and amphibole.
SAND WITH GRAVEL (SW): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/3), 60% fine to coarse grained sand,
subangular to rounded; 40% fine to coarse gravel up to 58 mm, rounded; trace rounded
cobbles to 108 mm; trace clay; poorly sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole,
and other; many mineral types.
SILT (ML): olive (5Y 5/4), 90% silt; 10% fine grained sand, subrounded, very fine grained;
some visible alteration, purple alteration.
SAND (SP): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/3), 90% fine to medium grained sand, subangular to
subrounded, trace coarse grained; 10% fine to coarse gravel up to 55 mm, rounded; poorly
sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, amphibole, and other; alteration visible at 111.8 ft.
SAND (SP): olive (5Y 5/3), 100% fine grained sand, subrounded; trace fine to coarse gravel
up to 36 mm, rounded; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole, and other;
high mica content; sand with gravel interbeds at 114.4, 115.4, 115.9, 116.4, and 120.4 ft;
weakly cemented from 124.1 to 125.5 ft.

110

115

120

Depth
bgs
(feet)

Sample
Type

SS
PTS
SS

110

115

120
SIEVE

125

125
SAND WITH GRAVEL (SW): pale olive (5Y 6/3), 60% fine to coarse grained sand,
subangular to subrounded; 40% fine to coarse gravel up to 35 mm, well rounded; poorly
sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole, and other, many mineral types.
SAND (SP): pale olive (5Y 6/4), 100% fine to medium grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; trace fine gravel up to 10 mm, rounded; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar
and amphibole.
SILTY SAND (SM): olive (5Y 5/3), 70% fine grained sand, subrounded; 30% silt; well
sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole; higher mica content; sandy silt with
rusty alteration at 130.0 to 130.5 ft.
SAND (SP): pale olive (5Y 6/3), 100% fine to medium grained sand, subangular to
subrounded, trace coarse grained; trace fine to coarse gravel up to 25 mm, rounded;
medium sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole, and other.

130

135

130

135

SAND (SP): pale olive (5Y 6/3), 95% fine grained sand, subrounded, very fine grained; 5%
silt; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole.

140
SIEVE

145

145
SAND (SP): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/6), 100% fine to medium grained sand, subangular to
subrounded, trace coarse grained; trace fine to coarse gravel up to 38 mm, rounded;
medium sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole, and other, higher mica content;
alteration visible, partially oxidized/rusty sand.

150

150

Zone
#1

155
SC:
48,132
uS/cm

160

SAND (SW): olive (5Y 5/3), 90% fine to coarse grained sand, subangular to rounded; 5%
fine to coarse gravel up to 45 mm, rounded; 5% silt; poorly sorted; weak cementation;
contains quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole, and other; gravel and coarse grained sand
interbeds.
SAND (SP): greenish gray (10Y 5/1), 100% fine to medium grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; trace fine to coarse gravel up to 33 mm, rounded; medium sorted; contains
quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole, and other; with visible alteration; first sign of green/grey
color change.
SAND WITH GRAVEL (SW): greenish gray (5GY 5/1), 85% fine to coarse grained sand,
subangular to rounded; 15% fine to coarse gravel up to 45 mm, rounded; poorly sorted;
contains quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole, and other; sandy gravel from 154.1 to 154.6 ft.
SAND (SP): very dark greenish gray (5GY 3/1), 95% fine grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; 5% silt; trace fine to coarse gravel up to 75 mm, rounded; well sorted; contains
quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole, and other, high mica content.

Geoscience Support Services, Inc.

A1-51

155

160

SS: Splitspoon sample GRAB: Grab sample PTS: Splitspoon submitted for analysis SIEVE: Grab sieved by GSSI

140

Appendix A1

GEOSCIENCE

BOREHOLE NAME

P.O. Box 220


Claremont, CA 91711
Telephone: (909) 451-6650
Fax: (909) 451-6638
www.gssiwater.com

BOREHOLE LITHOLOGIC LOG (continued)

ML-6

California American Water


13017-13

CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER

LOCATION

Moss Landing, CA
Lithologic Log

Depth
bgs
(feet)
0

GAMMA
(GAPI)

Zone
Test

CLID
(mmho/m)
110 1500

165

170

175

Graphic
Log

NOTE: Grain size distribution percentages are approximate. Material code


(e.g. SP) reference Unified Soil Classification visual method.
Color code (e.g. 10YR 5/2) reference Munsell Soil Color Charts.

SAND (SP): dark greenish gray (5G 4/1), 95% fine to coarse grained sand, subangular to
rounded; 5% fine to coarse gravel up to 74 mm, rounded, interbeds at 159.8 and 161.9 ft;
trace silt, silt balls; poorly sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole, and other;
trace black/sooty laminations.
SILT (ML): very dark greenish gray (10Y 3/1), 95% silt; 5% coarse gravel up to 55 mm, flat,
rounded, gravel interbeds, trace fine gravel; trace fine grained sand, subrounded to
rounded; contains mica; high mica content.
SAND (SP): dark greenish gray (5G 4/1), 100% fine grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; trace fine gravel up to 18 mm, rounded; well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar,
mica and amphibole.
SILTY SAND (SM): very dark greenish gray (5GY 3/1), 65% fine grained sand, subrounded
to rounded; 30% silt; 5% fine to coarse gravel up to 40 mm, rounded, with gravel fragments;
well sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole, and other.
SILT (ML): dark greenish gray (5G 4/1), 100% silt; trace fine to coarse gravel up to 60 mm,
subangular to rounded, coarse gravel bed at 173.0 ft; trace fine grained sand, subrounded
to rounded, well sorted; interbedded fine sands and clay with black laminations; organics
(wood) at 173.3 ft.

Depth
bgs
(feet)

Sample
Type

165
SIEVE
PTS
PTS
PTS

170

175

SILT (ML): dark greenish gray (5G 4/1), 100% silt; trace fine to coarse gravel up to 33 mm,
subrounded; trace fine to medium grained sand, subrounded, thin sand bed at 176.2 ft;
trace clay; thin black/sooty laminations and clay layers.
180

SILT (ML): greenish gray (10GY 5/1), 50% silt, dense; 40% clay; 10% fine grained sand,
subrounded; alternating silt, clay and fine sand laminations, fine sand interbeds (2 to 3 inch)
at 181.9 and 182.3 ft.

185

190

180

185
SILT (ML): dark greenish gray (5G 4/1), 60% silt; 40% clay, no plasticity; trace fine grained
sand, subrounded; alternating olive and black/sooty laminations; 1 to 4 inch fine sand
interbeds at 191.5, 194.8, 195.6, and 198.5 ft; moderately cemented silt at 193.5 ft; trace
shells and shell fragments at 196.3 ft.

195

200

200
Bottom of borehole at 200 feet.

Geoscience Support Services, Inc.

A1-52

SS: Splitspoon sample GRAB: Grab sample PTS: Splitspoon submitted for analysis SIEVE: Grab sieved by GSSI

195

190

Appendix A1

GEOSCIENCE

P.O. Box 220


Claremont, CA 91711
Telephone: (909) 451-6650
Fax: (909) 451-6638
www.gssiwater.com

BOREHOLE NAME

BOREHOLE LITHOLOGIC LOG

PR-1

LOCATION

California American Water


13017-13

CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER

Castroville, CA
Potrero Rd

5/23/2014

REPORT DATE
DRILLING CONTRACTOR
DRILLER
DRILLING
Prosonic 600T
RIG TYPE
SURFACE
9.0 ft
ELEVATION

36 47' 25.9368", -121 47' 30.7248"

DRILLING
METHOD
TOTAL
DEPTH

Geographic NAD83

LOGGED BY

Cascade Drilling
Jose Munguia

B. Villalobos
Sonic
201.5 ft bgs

START
DATE
FINISH
DATE

9/21/13
9/25/13

BOREHOLE
DIAMETER
CORE
SIZE

8 in
6 in

Lithologic Log
Depth
bgs
(feet)
0

GAMMA
(GAPI)

Zone
Test

CLID
(mmho/m)
110 1500

Graphic
Log

NOTE: Grain size distribution percentages are approximate. Material code


(e.g. SP) reference Unified Soil Classification visual method.
Color code (e.g. 10YR 5/2) reference Munsell Soil Color Charts.

Depth
bgs
(feet)

Sample
Type

NO SAMPLE.

10

10

15

20

SAND (SP): brown (7.5YR 5/3), 100% fine to medium grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; poorly sorted; moist sample.
SILTY SAND (SM): dark brown (10YR 3/3), 80% fine to medium grained sand, subangular
to subrounded; 20% silt; poorly sorted; moist sample.
SANDY CLAY (CL): greenish black (5GY 2.5/1), 70% clay, organic clay; 30% fine grained
sand, subrounded, very fine grained; moist sample; contains quartz, feldspar, mica and
amphibole.
SAND (SP): brown (7.5YR 5/3), 95% medium to coarse grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; 5% fine gravel up to 5 mm, subangular to subrounded; poorly sorted; contains
quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole.

15

20

SILTY SAND (SM): dark greenish gray (5GB 4/1), 80% fine grained sand, subangular to
subrounded, very fine grained; 20% silt; well sorted; moist sample.
NO SAMPLE.
25
SAND (SP): dark greenish gray (5GB 4/1), 100% medium to coarse grained sand,
subangular to subrounded; poorly sorted; moist sample.
SILTY SAND (SM): dark greenish gray (5GB 4/1), 85% fine to medium grained sand,
subangular to subrounded; 15% silt; trace fine gravel up to 5 mm; poorly sorted; few clayey
silt beds.
30

35

SAND (SP): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/4), 100% medium to coarse grained sand, subangular
to subrounded; trace fine gravel up to 5 mm; poorly sorted; moist sample.
SAND (SP): dark olive gray (5Y 3/2), 100% fine grained sand, subangular to subrounded;
well sorted; moist sample.
SANDY SILT (ML): dark greenish gray (5GB 4/1), 70% silt; 30% fine grained sand,
subangular to subrounded, very fine grained; moist to wet sample; contains mica.
SILT (MH): dark greenish gray (5GB 4/1), 90% silt, organic silt; 10% fine grained sand,
subangular to subrounded, very fine grained; moist to wet sample; contains mica.

30

35

SAND (SP): dark greenish gray (5GB 4/1), 100% medium grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; well sorted; moist to wet sample; contains quartz and feldspar.
40

CLAY (CL): dark greenish gray (5GB 4/1), 80% clay, medium plasticity; 20% silt; moist
sample; moderately firm; massive; few 3 mm black organic stringers.

40

45

SILTY SAND (SM): dark greenish gray (5GB 4/1), 80% medium to coarse grained sand,
subangular to subrounded; 20% silt; trace fine gravel up to 5 mm; poorly sorted; moist to wet
sample; contains quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole; abundant shell fragments including 1
inch bi-valve shells.

45

50

50

Geoscience Support Services, Inc.

A1-53

SS: Splitspoon sample GRAB: Grab sample PTS: Splitspoon submitted for analysis SIEVE: Grab sieved by GSSI

25

Appendix A1

GEOSCIENCE

BOREHOLE NAME

P.O. Box 220


Claremont, CA 91711
Telephone: (909) 451-6650
Fax: (909) 451-6638
www.gssiwater.com

BOREHOLE LITHOLOGIC LOG (continued)

PR-1

California American Water


13017-13

CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER

LOCATION

Castroville, CA
Lithologic Log

Depth
bgs
(feet)
0

GAMMA
(GAPI)

Zone
Test

CLID
(mmho/m)
110 1500

55

60

Graphic
Log

NOTE: Grain size distribution percentages are approximate. Material code


(e.g. SP) reference Unified Soil Classification visual method.
Color code (e.g. 10YR 5/2) reference Munsell Soil Color Charts.

SAND (SP): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/4), 100% fine to medium grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; trace fine to coarse gravel up to 25 mm; poorly sorted; moist to wet sample;
contains quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole, and chert.
SAND WITH GRAVEL (SP): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/4), 80% fine to medium grained sand,
subangular to subrounded; 20% fine to coarse gravel up to 74 mm, subangular to rounded,
gravel includes chert, quartz, and granite; poorly sorted; moist to wet sample; contains
quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole; ; several 6-inch beds with larger gravel and small
cobbles up to 76 mm at 58.5, 59.5, and 61.0 ft.

65

Depth
bgs
(feet)

Sample
Type

55
SIEVE

60

65
SIEVE
PTS

70

GRAVEL (GW): olive yellow (2.5Y 6/8), 100% fine to coarse gravel up to 64 mm,
subangular to rounded; poorly sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole.
SAND WITH GRAVEL (SP): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/4) and olive yellow (2.5Y 6/8), 85%
fine to medium grained sand, subangular to subrounded; 15% fine to coarse gravel up to 74
mm, subangular to subrounded; poorly sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica and
amphibole; 6 inch gravel bed at 71 ft.

75

80

75
SIEVE

80

85

SAND (SW): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/6), 90% fine to coarse grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; 10% fine to coarse gravel up to 25 mm, subangular to subrounded, gravel bed
at 93.5 ft; trace silt; poorly sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole; chert and
siliceous shale and granitic material.

95

90

95
NO SAMPLE.

100

105

SAND (SP): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/3), 100% medium to coarse grained sand, subangular
to subrounded; poorly sorted; moist to wet sample; contains quartz, feldspar, mica and
amphibole.
SAND WITH GRAVEL (SW): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/3), 80% fine to coarse grained sand,
subangular to subrounded; 20% fine to coarse gravel up to 25 mm, subangular to
subrounded, bed of coarse gravel to 38 mm from 105-106 ft; poorly sorted; contains quartz,
feldspar, mica, amphibole, siliceous shale, granitic, volcanic and epidote bearing quartz.

Geoscience Support Services, Inc.

A1-54

100

105

SS: Splitspoon sample GRAB: Grab sample PTS: Splitspoon submitted for analysis SIEVE: Grab sieved by GSSI

SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SM): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/3), 40% medium to coarse
grained sand, subangular to subrounded; 30% fine to coarse gravel up to 51 mm,
subangular to subrounded; 20% silt; 10% clay; poorly sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica
and amphibole; chert and siliceous shale.
SAND WITH GRAVEL (SP): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/6), 70% medium to coarse grained
sand, subangular to subrounded; 30% fine to coarse gravel up to 51 mm, subangular to
subrounded, gravel beds at 80.0 and 83.0 ft; trace silt; poorly sorted; moist to wet sample;
contains quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole.

85

90

70

Appendix A1

GEOSCIENCE

BOREHOLE NAME

P.O. Box 220


Claremont, CA 91711
Telephone: (909) 451-6650
Fax: (909) 451-6638
www.gssiwater.com

BOREHOLE LITHOLOGIC LOG (continued)

PR-1

California American Water


13017-13

CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER

LOCATION

Castroville, CA
Lithologic Log

Depth
bgs
(feet)
0

GAMMA
(GAPI)

Zone
Test

CLID
(mmho/m)
110 1500

NOTE: Grain size distribution percentages are approximate. Material code


(e.g. SP) reference Unified Soil Classification visual method.
Color code (e.g. 10YR 5/2) reference Munsell Soil Color Charts.

GRAVEL (GP): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/3), 100% fine to coarse gravel up to 38 mm,
subangular to subrounded; poorly sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica, amphibole and
siliceous shale; granitic, volcanic and epidote bearing quartz.
SAND WITH GRAVEL (SW): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/3), 80% fine to coarse grained sand,
subangular to subrounded; 20% fine to coarse gravel up to 25 mm, subangular to
subrounded; poorly sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole.
GRAVEL (GP): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/3), 100% fine to coarse gravel up to 38 mm,
subangular to subrounded; subangular to rounded; poorly sorted; contains quartz, feldspar,
mica and amphibole.
SAND WITH GRAVEL (SW): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/3), 80% fine to coarse grained sand,
subangular to subrounded; 20% fine to coarse gravel up to 25 mm, subangular to
subrounded; poorly sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole.
SAND (SP): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/4), 100% medium to coarse grained sand, subangular
to subrounded; trace fine to coarse gravel up to 25 mm, subangular to subrounded; poorly
sorted; moist to wet sample; contains quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole.

110

115

120

125
Zone
#2

130

Graphic
Log

GRAVEL (GP): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/4), 100% coarse gravel up to 75 mm, subangular
to rounded; trace silt; trace clay; poorly sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica and
amphibole.
SAND (SW): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/4), 100% medium to coarse grained sand,
subangular to subrounded; trace fine to coarse gravel up to 25 mm, subangular to
subrounded; poorly sorted; moist to wet sample; contains quartz, feldspar, mica and
amphibole.

SC:
53,610
uS/cm

Depth
bgs
(feet)

Sample
Type

110
SIEVE

115

120

125

SIEVE

130
GRAVEL (GW): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/4), 100% fine to coarse gravel up to 38 mm,
subangular to rounded; trace silt; trace clay; poorly sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica
and amphibole.

135

CLAY (CL): olive brown (2.5Y 4/3) and light olive brown (2.5Y 5/3), 70% clay, medium
plasticity, stiff; 30% silt; massive, black organic streaks, very faint grey mottling, 4.6 - 6.4
mm elongated carbonate pods, 4.6 mm reddish brown sandy pods.

145

135

140

145
PTS

150

SILT (ML): olive brown (2.5Y 4/3), 60% silt, soft to firm; 30% clay; 10% fine grained sand,
subangular to subrounded; moist sample; contains mica.

150

PTS

CLAY (CL): dark greenish gray (5GB 4/1), 70% clay, medium plasticity; 30% silt; trace fine
grained sand, subrounded, very fine grained elongate sand pods to 6.4 mm; massive,
compression slicken sides, small carbonate flecks, very faint yellow-blue mottling.
155

155

160

160
SANDY CLAY (CL): grayish brown (2.5Y 5/2), 70% clay; 30% fine grained sand,
subrounded; contains quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole; ; sand increases at 161.5 ft with

Geoscience Support Services, Inc.

A1-55

SS: Splitspoon sample GRAB: Grab sample PTS: Splitspoon submitted for analysis SIEVE: Grab sieved by GSSI

140

SAND WITH GRAVEL (SP): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/4), 85% medium to coarse grained
sand, subangular to subrounded; 15% fine to coarse gravel up to 25 mm, subangular to
subrounded, predominantly fine; coarse gravel bed from 138.5-139.0 ft; poorly sorted;
contains quartz, feldspar, mica and amphibole.

Appendix A1

GEOSCIENCE

BOREHOLE NAME

P.O. Box 220


Claremont, CA 91711
Telephone: (909) 451-6650
Fax: (909) 451-6638
www.gssiwater.com

BOREHOLE LITHOLOGIC LOG (continued)

PR-1

California American Water


13017-13

CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER

LOCATION

Castroville, CA
Lithologic Log

Depth
bgs
(feet)
0

GAMMA
(GAPI)

Zone
Test

CLID
(mmho/m)
110 1500

Graphic
Log

NOTE: Grain size distribution percentages are approximate. Material code


(e.g. SP) reference Unified Soil Classification visual method.
Color code (e.g. 10YR 5/2) reference Munsell Soil Color Charts.

faint reddish brown mottling.


SAND WITH CLAY (SP-SC): light olive brown (2.5Y 5/4), 90% fine to medium grained
sand, subangular to subrounded; 10% clay; poorly sorted; contains quartz, feldspar, mica
and amphibole; ; micaceous.

165

SANDY CLAY (CL): olive brown (2.5Y 4/3) and dark brown (7.5YR 3/2), 70% clay,
medium plasticity, firm; 30% fine grained sand, subangular to subrounded; horizontal and
verticle mottling.
CLAY (CL): dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/6), 70% clay, medium plasticity, stiff; 30% silt, 13
mm silt pods; very faint grey mottling-compression slicken sides; trace fine sand lens at 170
ft, black flecs and white pods.

170

175

Depth
bgs
(feet)

Sample
Type

165

170

175
SANDY CLAY (CL): strong brown (7.5YR 4/6), 70% clay, medium plasticity, stiff, firm; 30%
medium grained sand, subangular to subrounded; moist sample; very faintly bedded to
laminated.
CLAYEY SAND (SC): strong brown (7.5YR 4/6), 70% fine grained sand, subangular to
subrounded, very soft; 25% clay; 5% silt; well sorted; wet sample.
SANDY CLAY (CL): strong brown (7.5YR 4/6), 70% clay, medium plasticity; 30% medium
grained sand, subangular to subrounded; moist sample; very faintly bedded to laminated.

180

180

CLAYEY SAND (SC): strong brown (7.5YR 4/6), 70% fine grained sand, subangular to
subrounded, soft; 25% clay; 5% silt; well sorted; moist sample.
185

185

190
Zone
#1

SC:
1,296
uS/cm

SILTY SAND (SM): olive brown (2.5Y 4/3), 80% medium grained sand, subangular to
subrounded; 20% silt; well sorted; wet sample; unit contains beds that are indurated,
0.25-inches thick - breaks into gravel-sized pieces under firm pressure; contains quartz,
amphibole, and biotite.

SIEVE

190

195

SIEVE

200

200
Bottom of borehole at 201.5 feet.

Geoscience Support Services, Inc.

A1-56

PTS
SS

SS: Splitspoon sample GRAB: Grab sample PTS: Splitspoon submitted for analysis SIEVE: Grab sieved by GSSI

195

CLAYEY SAND (SC): dark gray (10YR 4/1), 70% fine grained sand, subangular to
subrounded, soft; 25% clay; 5% silt; well sorted.
SILTY SAND (SM): dark greenish gray (5GY 4/1), 80% fine to medium grained sand,
subangular to subrounded; 20% silt; trace fine gravel up to 5 mm, subangular to
subrounded; poorly sorted; wet sample; unit contains beds that are indurated, 0.25-inches
thick--breaks into gravel-sized pieces under firm finger pressure.

APPENDIX A2
Well Logs Used for Cross-Sections

Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Attachment 1 Technical Memorandum (TM 1) Summary of Results Exploratory Boreholes

DRAFT

23-May-14

APPENDIX A2:
WELL LOGS USED FOR CROSS-SECTIONS
CONTENTS
Description

Page

13S/1E-36H (Monterey Dunes Colony Well) ........................................................................................... A2-1


14S/1E-24L2-5 (DMW1) .......................................................................................................................... A2-3
14S/2E-6L1 .............................................................................................................................................. A2-4
14S/2E-17K1 ............................................................................................................................................ A2-6
14S/2E-17L1 ............................................................................................................................................ A2-7
14S/2E-18E1 ............................................................................................................................................ A2-8
14S/2E-20B3 (?) ...................................................................................................................................... A2-9
14S/2E-21E1 ............................................................................................................................................ A2-11
14S/2E-21F2 ............................................................................................................................................ A2-11
Borehole TH-1 ......................................................................................................................................... A2-14
Borehole TH-2 ......................................................................................................................................... A2-15
Borehole TH-3 ......................................................................................................................................... A2-16

California American Water & RBF Consulting

A2-i

Appendix A2

A2-1

Appendix A2

A2-2

Appendix A2

A2-3

Appendix A2

A2-4

Appendix A2

A2-5

Appendix A2

A2-6

Appendix A2

A2-7

Appendix A2

A2-8

Appendix A2

A2-9

Appendix A2

A2-10

Appendix A2

A2-11

Appendix A2

A2-12

Appendix A2

A2-13

Appendix A2

A2-14

Appendix A2

A2-15

Appendix A2

A2-16

APPENDIX B
Photographs of Cores and Chip Trays
(See attached DVD)

APPENDIX C
Soil Physical Properties Data Reports

Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Attachment 1 Technical Memorandum (TM 1) Summary of Results Exploratory Boreholes

DRAFT

23-May-14

APPENDIX C:
SOIL PHYSICAL PROPERTIES DATA REPORTS
CONTENTS
Description

Page

Cover Letter (October 14, 2013) ............................................................................................................. C-1


Cover Letter (March 5, 2014) .................................................................................................................. C-2
Soil Physical Properties Data Reports ..................................................................................................... C-3
Chain of Custody Records ........................................................................................................................ C-10

California American Water & RBF Consulting

C-i

Appendix C

C-1

Appendix C

C-2

Appendix C

C-3

PTS Laboratories
Project Name:
Project Number:

CORE ID

Appendix C
MPWSP
13017-13

Depth
ft.

Date Received: 20140204

CX-B1 66.5-67
CX-B1 257.5-258

66.5-67
166.5167.0
257.5-258

CX-B2 207.5-208

TEST PROGRAM - 20140206

Core
Hydraulic
Recovery Conductivity
ft.
Pkg.
Vert. 1"
Plugs:

Hydraulic
Conductivity
API RP40/EPA 9100
Horz. 1"

0.50

0.50

0.50

207.5-208

0.50

CX-B2 259-259.5

259-259.5

0.50

CX-B3 107.5-108

107.5-108

0.50

CX-B3 129-129.5

129-129.5

0.50

CX-B3 177.5-178

177.5-178

0.50

CX-B3 197.5-198

197.5-198

0.50

ML-1 76-76.5

76-76.5

0.50

ML-1 107.5-108

107.5-108

0.50

ML-1 147-147.5

147-147.5

0.50

ML-2 87-87.5

87-87.5

0.50

ML-2 117.5-118

117.5-118

0.50

ML-2 157.5-158

157.5-158

0.50

ML-3 106.5-107

106.5-107

0.50

ML-3 166.5-167

166.5-167

0.50

ML-4 76.5-77

76.5-77

0.50

ML-4 126.5-127

126.5-127

0.50

ML-4 146.5-147

146.5-147

0.50

ML-6 79.5-80

79.5-80

0.50

ML-6 107.5-108

107.5-108

0.50

ML-6 167-168.5

167-168.5

0.50

TOTALS:

23 cores

11.50

22

14

CX-B1 166.5-167.0

PTS File No: 44073


Client: Geoscience Support Services

Notes

X
X

X
X

C-4
CLIENT CONFIDENTIAL

23

PTS Laboratories
Project Name:
Project Number:

CORE ID

Appendix C
MPWSP
13017-13

Depth
ft.

Laboratory Test Program Notes

TEST PROGRAM - 20140206

Core
Hydraulic
Recovery Conductivity
ft.
Pkg.
Vert. 1"
Plugs:

Hydraulic
Conductivity
API RP40/EPA 9100
Horz. 1"

PTS File No: 44073


Client: Geoscience Support Services

Notes

Contaminant identification:
NONE
Standard TAT for basic analysis is 10 business days.
Hydraulic Conductivity Package Saturated Zone: Native-state permeability to water, total and air-filled porosity, grain and bulk density,
moisture content, total pore fluid (water only) saturation.

C-5
CLIENT CONFIDENTIAL

Appendix C
PTS File No:
Client:
Report Date:

PTS Laboratories

44073
Geoscience Support Services
03/05/14

PHYSICAL PROPERTIES DATA - HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY PACKAGE


Project Name:
Project No:

MPWSP
13017-13
METHODS:

API RP 40 /
ASTM D2216

API RP 40
DENSITY
DRY BULK, GRAIN,
g/cc
g/cc

SAMPLE
ID.

DEPTH,
ft.

SAMPLE
ORIENTATION
(1)

MOISTURE
CONTENT,
% weight

CX-B1 66.5-67
CX-B1 166.5-167.0
CX-B1 257.5-258
CX-B2 207.5-208
CX-B2 259-259.5
CX-B3 107.5-108
CX-B3 129-129.5
CX-B3 197.5-198
ML-1 76-76.5
ML-1 107.5-108
ML-1 147-147.5
ML-2 87-87.5
ML-2 117.5-118
ML-2 157.5-158
ML-3 106.5-107
ML-3 166.5-167
ML-4 76.5-77
ML-4 126.5-127
ML-4 146.5-147
ML-6 79.5-80
ML-6 107.5-108
ML-6 167-168.5

66.6
166.6
257.5-258
207.6
259.1
107.6
129.1
197.6
76.1
107.6
147.1
87.1
117.6
157.6
106.6
166.6
76.6
126.6
146.6
79.6
107.6
167.6

V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V

22.9
24.7
41.1
21.5
31.0
20.6
35.5
18.1
42.4
15.0
32.4
20.5
24.3
19.2
12.9
28.6
21.4
25.0
14.1
32.2
15.0
25.6

1.46
1.58
1.11
1.48
1.33
1.43
1.25
1.66
1.17
1.53
1.31
1.50
1.43
1.52
1.53
1.31
1.41
1.44
1.45
1.33
1.41
1.38

2.66
2.82
2.61
2.67
2.63
2.64
2.62
2.69
2.67
2.65
2.66
2.66
2.64
2.61
2.64
2.65
2.62
2.64
2.61
2.64
2.64
2.62

(1) Sample Orientation: H = horizontal; V = vertical; R = remold


(2) Total Porosity = all interconnected pore channels; Air Filled = pore channels not occupied by pore fluids.
(3) Fluid density used to calculate pore fluid saturations: Water = 0.9996 g/cc.
(4) Effective (Native) = With as-received pore fluids in place.
(5) Permeability to water and hydraulic conductivity measured at saturated conditions.
Vb = Bulk Volume, cc; Pv = Pore Volume, cc; ND = Not Detected
Water = filtered Laboratory Fresh (tap) or Site water.

C-6

API RP 40

API RP 40

POROSITY, %Vb (2)

TOTAL PORE FLUID


SATURATIONS (3),
% Pv

TOTAL

AIR-FILLED

45.0
43.8
57.7
44.6
49.3
45.8
52.1
38.2
56.1
42.1
50.8
43.4
45.8
41.6
42.0
50.7
46.3
45.5
44.3
49.7
46.3
47.4

11.6
4.7
12.2
12.9
7.9
16.4
7.6
8.1
6.3
19.0
8.4
12.7
11.0
12.3
22.3
13.2
16.2
9.5
23.8
6.9
25.2
12.1

74.2
89.3
78.8
71.1
83.9
64.2
85.5
78.8
88.7
54.8
83.4
70.8
76.0
70.5
47.0
73.9
65.1
79.1
46.3
86.0
45.6
74.3

API RP 40; EPA 9100


25 PSI CONFINING STRESS
EFFECTIVE (4,5)
HYDRAULIC
PERMEABILITY TO WATER,
CONDUCTIVITY (4,5),
millidarcy
cm/s

273
484
1.75
3820
1.83
5210
2.83
101
4.89
8540
1.97
101
47.3
110
1900
9.6
954
1.18
6180
2.43
4710
72.6

2.76E-04
4.87E-04
1.75E-06
3.76E-03
1.85E-06
5.26E-03
2.86E-06
1.00E-04
4.83E-06
8.52E-03
1.98E-06
1.00E-04
4.70E-05
1.10E-04
1.87E-03
9.51E-06
9.49E-04
1.18E-06
6.10E-03
2.43E-06
4.65E-03
7.23E-05

Appendix C
PTS File No:
Client:
Report Date:

PTS Laboratories

44073
Geoscience Support Services
03/13/14

PHYSICAL PROPERTIES DATA - HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY Rev.01


(Methodology: API RP 40; EPA 9100)

Project Name:
Project No:

MPWSP
13017-13
25 PSI CONFINING STRESS

SAMPLE
ID.

DEPTH,
ft.

SAMPLE
ORIENTATION
(1)

CX-B1 66.5-67
CX-B1 166.5-167.0
CX-B2 207.5-208
CX-B3 107.5-108
CX-B3 197.5-198
ML-1 107.5-108
ML-2 117.5-118
ML-2 157.5-158
ML-3 106.5-107
ML-3 166.5-167
ML-4 76.5-77
ML-4 146.5-147
ML-6 107.5-108
ML-6 167-168.5

66.95
466.95
207.95
107.95
197.95
107.95
117.95
157.95
106.95
166.95
76.95
146.95
107.95
167.95

H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H

ANALYSIS
DATE

EFFECTIVE
PERMEABILITY
TO WATER (2,3),
millidarcy

20140305
20140305
20140305
20140305
20140305
20140305
20140305
20140305
20140305
20140305
20140305
20140305
20140305
20140305

1560
622
1440
5200
644
6330
111
3270
851
7.59
873
12900
3990
130

(1) Sample Orientation: H = horizontal; V = vertical; R = remold


(2) Effective (Native) = With as-received pore fluids in place.
(3) Permeability to water and hydraulic conductivity measured at saturated conditions.
Water = filtered Laboratory Fresh (tap) or Site water.

C-7

HYDRAULIC
CONDUCTIVITY (3),
cm/s

INTRINSIC
PERMEABILITY
TO WATER (3),
cm2

1.53E-03
6.10E-04
1.41E-03
5.12E-03
6.34E-04
6.26E-03
1.10E-04
3.21E-03
8.42E-04
7.53E-06
8.68E-04
1.29E-02
4.00E-03
1.30E-04

1.54E-08
6.14E-09
1.42E-08
5.13E-08
6.35E-09
6.25E-08
1.10E-09
3.23E-08
8.40E-09
7.49E-11
8.62E-09
1.28E-07
3.94E-08
1.28E-09

PTS Laboratories
Project Name:
Project Number:

CORE ID

Appendix C
MPWSP
13017-13

Depth
ft.

Date Received: 20130926

TEST PROGRAM - 20131002

Core
Hydraulic
Recovery Conductivity
ft.
Pkg.
Vert. 1"
Plugs:

Hydraulic
Conductivity
API RP40/EPA 9100
Horz. 1"

PR-1 67 ft - 67.5 ft

67-67.5

0.50

PR-1 145.5 ft - 146 ft

145.5-146

0.50

PR-1 152 ft - 152.5 ft

152-152.5

0.50

PR-1 200.5 ft - 201 ft

200.5-201

0.50

2.00

TOTALS:
4 cores
Laboratory Test Program Notes

PTS File No: 43626


Client: Geoscience Support Services

Notes

Contaminant identification:
Standard TAT for basic analysis is 10 business days.
Hydraulic Conductivity Package Saturated Zone: Native-state permeability to water, total and air-filled porosity, grain and bulk density,
moisture content, total pore fluid (water only) saturation.

C-8
CLIENT CONFIDENTIAL

Page 1 of 1

Appendix C
PTS File No:
Client:
Report Date:

PTS Laboratories

43626
Geoscience Support Services
10/14/13

PHYSICAL PROPERTIES DATA - HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY PACKAGE


Project Name:
Project No:

MPWSP
13017-13
METHODS:

API RP 40 /
ASTM D2216

API RP 40
DENSITY
DRY BULK, GRAIN,
g/cc
g/cc

SAMPLE
ID.

DEPTH,
ft.

SAMPLE
ORIENTATION
(1)

MOISTURE
CONTENT,
% weight

PR-1 67 ft - 67.5 ft
PR-1 145.5 ft - 146 ft
PR-1 152 ft - 152.5 ft
PR-1 200.5 ft - 201 ft

67.2
145.6
152.1
200.65

V
V
V
V

15.1
28.6
27.1
16.5

1.69
1.38
1.45
1.61

2.59
2.68
2.72
2.67

API RP 40

API RP 40

POROSITY, %Vb (2)

TOTAL PORE FLUID


SATURATIONS (3),
% Pv

TOTAL

AIR-FILLED

34.8
48.5
46.5
39.8

9.4
9.0
7.1
13.3

73.0
81.4
84.8
66.6

API RP 40; EPA 9100


25 PSI CONFINING STRESS
EFFECTIVE (4,5)
HYDRAULIC
PERMEABILITY TO WATER,
CONDUCTIVITY (4,5),
millidarcy
cm/s

91.1
2.08
2.03
5120

9.13E-05
2.08E-06
2.04E-06
5.10E-03

(1) Sample Orientation: H = horizontal; V = vertical; R = remold


(2) Total Porosity = all interconnected pore channels; Air Filled = pore channels not occupied by pore fluids.
(3) Fluid density used to calculate pore fluid saturations: Water = 0.9996 g/cc.
(4) Effective (Native) = With as-received pore fluids in place.
(5) Permeability to water and hydraulic conductivity measured at saturated conditions.
Vb = Bulk Volume, cc; Pv = Pore Volume, cc; ND = Not Detected
Water = filtered Laboratory Fresh (tap) or Site water.

C-9

Page 1 of 1

Appendix C
PTS File No:
Client:
Report Date:

PTS Laboratories

43626
Geoscience Support Services
10/14/13

PHYSICAL PROPERTIES DATA - HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY


(Methodology: API RP 40; EPA 9100)

Project Name:
Project No:

MPWSP
13017-13
25 PSI CONFINING STRESS

SAMPLE
ID.

DEPTH,
ft.

SAMPLE
ORIENTATION
(1)

PR-1 67 ft - 67.5 ft
PR-1 200.5 ft - 201 ft

67.05
200.55

H
H

ANALYSIS
DATE

EFFECTIVE
PERMEABILITY
TO WATER (2,3),
millidarcy

20131010
20131010

61.1
269

HYDRAULIC
CONDUCTIVITY (3),
cm/s

INTRINSIC
PERMEABILITY
TO WATER (3),
2
cm

6.03E-05
2.73E-04

6.03E-10
2.65E-09

(1) Sample Orientation: H = horizontal; V = vertical; R = remold


(2) Effective (Native) = With as-received pore fluids in place.
(3) Permeability to water and hydraulic conductivity measured at saturated conditions.
Water = filtered Laboratory Fresh (tap) or Site water.

C-10

Page 1 of 1

Appendix C

C-11

Appendix C

C-12

Appendix C

C-13

Appendix C

C-14

Appendix C

C-15

Appendix C

C-16

PTS Laboratories
Project Name:
Project Number:

CORE ID

Appendix C
MPWSP
13017-13

Depth
ft.

Date Received: 20140204

CX-B1 66.5-67
CX-B1 257.5-258

66.5-67
166.5167.0
257.5-258

CX-B2 207.5-208

TEST PROGRAM - 20140206

Core
Hydraulic
Recovery Conductivity
ft.
Pkg.
Vert. 1"
Plugs:

Hydraulic
Conductivity
API RP40/EPA 9100

Notes

Horz. 1"

0.50

0.50

0.50

207.5-208

0.50

CX-B2 259-259.5

259-259.5

0.50

CX-B3 107.5-108

107.5-108

0.50

CX-B3 129-129.5

129-129.5

0.50

CX-B3 177.5-178

177.5-178

0.50

CX-B3 197.5-198

197.5-198

0.50

ML-1 76-76.5

76-76.5

0.50

ML-1 107.5-108

107.5-108

0.50

ML-1 147-147.5

147-147.5

0.50

ML-2 87-87.5

87-87.5

0.50

ML-2 117.5-118

117.5-118

0.50

ML-2 157.5-158

157.5-158

0.50

ML-3 106.5-107

106.5-107

0.50

ML-3 166.5-167

166.5-167

0.50

ML-4 76.5-77

76.5-77

0.50

ML-4 126.5-127

126.5-127

0.50

ML-4 146.5-147

146.5-147

0.50

ML-6 79.5-80

79.5-80

0.50

ML-6 107.5-108

107.5-108

0.50

ML-6 167-168.5

167-168.5

0.50

TOTALS:

23 cores

11.50

22

14

CX-B1 166.5-167.0

PTS File No: 44073


Client: Geoscience Support Services

X
X

X
X

C-17
CLIENT CONFIDENTIAL

23

PTS Laboratories
Project Name:
Project Number:

CORE ID

Appendix C
MPWSP
13017-13

Depth
ft.

Laboratory Test Program Notes

TEST PROGRAM - 20140206

Core
Hydraulic
Recovery Conductivity
ft.
Pkg.
Vert. 1"
Plugs:

Hydraulic
Conductivity
API RP40/EPA 9100

PTS File No: 44073


Client: Geoscience Support Services

Notes

Horz. 1"

Contaminant identification:
NONE
Standard TAT for basic analysis is 10 business days.
Hydraulic Conductivity Package Saturated Zone: Native-state permeability to water, total and air-filled porosity, grain and bulk density,
moisture content, total pore fluid (water only) saturation.

C-18
CLIENT CONFIDENTIAL

Appendix C
PTS File No:
Client:
Report Date:

PTS Laboratories

44073
Geoscience Support Services
03/13/14

PHYSICAL PROPERTIES DATA - HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY PACKAGE Rev.01


Project Name:
Project No:

MPWSP
13017-13
METHODS:

API RP 40 /
ASTM D2216

API RP 40
DENSITY
DRY BULK, GRAIN,
g/cc
g/cc

SAMPLE
ID.

DEPTH,
ft.

SAMPLE
ORIENTATION
(1)

MOISTURE
CONTENT,
% weight

CX-B1 66.5-67
CX-B1 166.5-167.0
CX-B1 257.5-258
CX-B2 207.5-208
CX-B2 259-259.5
CX-B3 107.5-108
CX-B3 129-129.5
CX-B3 197.5-198
ML-1 76-76.5
ML-1 107.5-108
ML-1 147-147.5
ML-2 87-87.5
ML-2 117.5-118
ML-2 157.5-158
ML-3 106.5-107
ML-3 166.5-167
ML-4 76.5-77
ML-4 126.5-127
ML-4 146.5-147
ML-6 79.5-80
ML-6 107.5-108
ML-6 167-168.5

66.6
166.6
257.5-258
207.6
259.1
107.6
129.1
197.6
76.1
107.6
147.1
87.1
117.6
157.6
106.6
166.6
76.6
126.6
146.6
79.6
107.6
167.6

V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V

22.9
24.7
41.1
21.5
31.0
20.6
35.5
18.1
42.4
15.0
32.4
20.5
24.3
19.2
12.9
28.6
21.4
25.0
14.1
32.2
15.0
25.6

1.46
1.58
1.11
1.48
1.33
1.43
1.25
1.66
1.17
1.53
1.31
1.50
1.43
1.52
1.53
1.31
1.41
1.44
1.45
1.33
1.41
1.38

API RP 40

API RP 40

POROSITY, %Vb (2)

TOTAL PORE FLUID


SATURATIONS (3),
% Pv

TOTAL

AIR-FILLED

45.0
43.8
57.7
44.6
49.3
45.8
52.1
38.2
56.1
42.1
50.8
43.4
45.8
41.6
42.0
50.7
46.3
45.5
44.3
49.7
46.3
47.4

11.6
4.7
12.2
12.9
7.9
16.4
7.6
8.1
6.3
19.0
8.4
12.7
11.0
12.3
22.3
13.2
16.2
9.5
23.8
6.9
25.2
12.1

2.66
2.82
2.61
2.67
2.63
2.64
2.62
2.69
2.67
2.65
2.66
2.66
2.64
2.61
2.64
2.65
2.62
2.64
2.61
2.64
2.64
2.62

(1) Sample Orientation: H = horizontal; V = vertical; R = remold


(2) Total Porosity = all interconnected pore channels; Air Filled = pore channels not occupied by pore fluids.
(3) Fluid density used to calculate pore fluid saturations: Water = 0.9996 g/cc.
(4) Effective (Native) = With as-received pore fluids in place.
(5) Permeability to water and hydraulic conductivity measured at saturated conditions.
Vb = Bulk Volume, cc; Pv = Pore Volume, cc; ND = Not Detected
Water = filtered Laboratory Fresh (tap) or Site water.

C-19

74.2
89.3
78.8
71.1
83.9
64.2
85.5
78.8
88.7
54.8
83.4
70.8
76.0
70.5
47.0
73.9
65.1
79.1
46.3
86.0
45.6
74.3

API RP 40; EPA 9100


25 PSI CONFINING STRESS
EFFECTIVE (4,5)
HYDRAULIC
PERMEABILITY TO WATER,
CONDUCTIVITY (4,5),
millidarcy
cm/s

273
484
1.75
3820
1.83
5210
2.83
101
4.89
8540
1.97
101
47.3
110
1900
9.6
954
1.18
6180
2.43
4710
72.6

2.76E-04
4.87E-04
1.75E-06
3.76E-03
1.85E-06
5.26E-03
2.86E-06
1.00E-04
4.83E-06
8.52E-03
1.98E-06
1.00E-04
4.70E-05
1.10E-04
1.87E-03
9.51E-06
9.49E-04
1.18E-06
6.10E-03
2.43E-06
4.65E-03
7.23E-05

Appendix C

C-20

Appendix C

C-21

Appendix C

C-22

Appendix C

C-23

Appendix C

C-24

APPENDIX D
Mechanical Grading Analyses Formation Materials

Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Attachment 1 Technical Memorandum (TM 1) Summary of Results Exploratory Boreholes

DRAFT

23-May-14

APPENDIX D:
MECHANICAL GRADING ANALYSES FORMATION MATERIALS
CONTENTS
Description

Page

Borehole CX-B1 ....................................................................................................................................... D-1


Borehole CX-B2........................................................................................................................................ D-2
Borehole CX-B3........................................................................................................................................ D-3
Borehole CX-B4........................................................................................................................................ D-4
Borehole MDW-1 .................................................................................................................................... D-5
Borehole ML-1 ......................................................................................................................................... D-6
Borehole ML-2 ......................................................................................................................................... D-7
Borehole ML-3 ......................................................................................................................................... D-8
Borehole ML-4 ......................................................................................................................................... D-9
Borehole ML-6 ......................................................................................................................................... D-10
Borehole PR-1 .......................................................................................................................................... D-11

California American Water & RBF Consulting

D-i

Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Attachment 1 - Technical Memorandum (TM 1) - Summary of Results - Exploratory Boreholes

Unified Soil
Classification System

DRAFT

Mechanical Grading Analysis


RBF-MPWSP CX-B1
Sand

Silt
Fine

Medium

Cobble

Gravel
Coarse

Fine

Coarse

100
79-79.5

90
88-88.5

80

104.5-105
115-116

70

Percent Passing, %

187-188

60

245-245.5
295-296

50

40

30

20

10

US Std. Sieve

0.01

100

200

0.1

60

50

40

30

20

18 16

12 10 8

1
Sieve Opening, mm

23-May-14

1/4 in.

3/8 in.

10

100

Appendix D

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.


D-1

Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Attachment 1 - Technical Memorandum (TM 1) - Summary of Results - Exploratory Boreholes

Unified Soil
Classification System

DRAFT

Mechanical Grading Analysis


RBF-MPWSP CX-B2
Sand

Silt
Fine

Medium

Cobble

Gravel
Coarse

Fine

Coarse

100

90

53-53.5

116-116.5

80
141-141.5

70

Percent Passing, %

203-203.5

60
273-273.5

50

40

30

20

10

US Std. Sieve

0.01

100

200

0.1

60

50

40

30

20

18 16

12 10 8

1
Sieve Opening, mm

23-May-14

1/4 in.

3/8 in.

10

100

Appendix D

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.


D-2

Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Attachment 1 - Technical Memorandum (TM 1) - Summary of Results - Exploratory Boreholes

Unified Soil
Classification System

DRAFT

Mechanical Grading Analysis


RBF-MPWSP CX-B3
Sand

Silt
Fine

Medium

Cobble

Gravel
Coarse

Fine

Coarse

100
45-45.5

90
121-121.5

80
240-240.5

70

Percent Passing, %

291-291.5

60
312-312.5

50

40

30

20

10

US Std. Sieve

0.01

23-May-14

100

200

0.1

60

50

40

30

20

18 16

12 10 8

1
Sieve Opening, mm

1/4 in.

3/8 in.

10

100

Appendix D

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.

Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Attachment 1 - Technical Memorandum (TM 1) - Summary of Results - Exploratory Boreholes

DRAFT

Mechanical Grading Analysis


RBF-MPWSP CX-B4
Unified Soil
Classification System

Sand

Silt
Fine

Gravel
Coarse

Medium

Fine

Cobble
Coarse

100
110

90
112

80
183

70

Percent Passing, %

189.5

60
195.5

50

40

30

20

10

US Std. Sieve

0.01

23-May-14

100

200

0.1

60

50

40

30

20

18 16

12 10 8

1
Sieve Opening, mm

1/4 in.

3/8 in.

10

100

Appendix D

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.

Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Attachment 1 - Technical Memorandum (TM 1) - Summary of Results - Exploratory Boreholes

DRAFT

Mechanical Grading Analysis


RBF-MPWSP MDW-1
Unified Soil
Classification System

Sand

Silt
Fine

Gravel
Coarse

Medium

Fine

Cobble
Coarse

100
22-23

90
59-60

80
70-71

70

Percent Passing, %

153-154

60
181-182

50

40

30

20

10

US Std. Sieve

0.01

23-May-14

100

200

0.1

60

50

40

30

20

18 16

12 10 8

1
Sieve Opening, mm

1/4 in.

3/8 in.

10

100

Appendix D

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.

Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Attachment 1 - Technical Memorandum (TM 1) - Summary of Results - Exploratory Boreholes

Unified Soil
Classification System

DRAFT

Mechanical Grading Analysis


RBF-MPWSP ML-1
Sand

Silt
Fine

Gravel
Coarse

Medium

Fine

Cobble
Coarse

100
52-53

90
58-59

80

65-66
88-89

70

Percent Passing, %

104-106

60

108-109
117-118

50

40

30

20

10

US Std. Sieve

0.01

100

200

0.1

60

50

40

30

20

18 16

12 10 8

1
Sieve Opening, mm

23-May-14

1/4 in.

3/8 in.

10

100

Appendix D

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.


D-6

Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Attachment 1 - Technical Memorandum (TM 1) - Summary of Results - Exploratory Boreholes

Unified Soil
Classification System

DRAFT

Mechanical Grading Analysis


RBF-MPWSP ML-2
Sand

Silt
Fine

Medium

Cobble

Gravel
Coarse

Fine

Coarse

100
24-24.5

90
50-50.5

80
110.5-111

70

Percent Passing, %

152-152.5

60
188.5-189

50

40

30

20

10

US Std. Sieve

0.01

100

200

0.1

60

50

40

30

20

18 16

12 10 8

1
Sieve Opening, mm

23-May-14

1/4 in.

3/8 in.

10

100

Appendix D

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.


D-7

Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Attachment 1 - Technical Memorandum (TM 1) - Summary of Results - Exploratory Boreholes

Unified Soil
Classification System

DRAFT

Mechanical Grading Analysis


RBF-MPWSP ML-3
Sand

Silt
Fine

Coarse

Medium

Cobble

Gravel
Fine

Coarse

100
109.5-110

90
111.5-112

80
182.5-183

70

Percent Passing, %

189-189.5

60
195-195.5

50

40

30

20

10

US Std. Sieve

0.01

100

200

0.1

60

50

40

30

20

18 16

12 10 8

1
Sieve Opening, mm

23-May-14

1/4 in.

3/8 in.

10

100

Appendix D

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.


D-8

Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Attachment 1 - Technical Memorandum (TM 1) - Summary of Results - Exploratory Boreholes

Unified Soil
Classification System

DRAFT

Mechanical Grading Analysis


RBF-MPWSP ML-4
Sand

Silt
Fine

Medium

Cobble

Gravel
Coarse

Fine

Coarse

100
28-28.5

90
71-71.5

80
112-112.5

70

Percent Passing, %

152-152.5

60
180-180.5

50

40

30

20

10

US Std. Sieve

0.01

100

200

0.1

60

50

40

30

20

18 16

12 10 8

1
Sieve Opening, mm

23-May-14

1/4 in.

3/8 in.

10

100

Appendix D

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.


D-9

Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Attachment 1 - Technical Memorandum (TM 1) - Summary of Results - Exploratory Boreholes

Unified Soil
Classification System

DRAFT

Mechanical Grading Analysis


RBF-MPWSP ML-6
Sand

Silt
Fine

Medium

Cobble

Gravel

Coarse

Fine

Coarse

100
94-94.5

90
104-104.5

80
121.5-122

70

Percent Passing, %

141.5-142

60
166-166.5

50

40

30

20

10

US Std. Sieve

0.01

100

200

0.1

60

50

40

30

20

18 16

12 10 8

1
Sieve Opening, mm

23-May-14

1/4 in.

3/8 in.

10

100

Appendix D

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.


D-10

Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Attachment 1 - Technical Memorandum (TM 1) - Summary of Results - Exploratory Boreholes

Unified Soil
Classification System

DRAFT

Mechanical Grading Analysis


RBF-MPWSP PR-1
Sand

Silt
Fine

Medium

Cobble

Gravel

Coarse

Fine

Coarse

100
56-57

90
66-67

80

76-77
110-111

70

Percent Passing, %

124-125

60

188-189
197-198

50

40

30

20

10

US Std. Sieve

0.01

100

200

0.1

60

50

40

30

20

18 16

12 10 8

1
Sieve Opening, mm

23-May-14

1/4 in.

3/8 in.

10

100

Appendix D

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.


D-11

APPENDIX E
Geophysical Borehole Logs

Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Attachment 1 Technical Memorandum (TM 1) Summary of Results Exploratory Boreholes

DRAFT

23-May-14

APPENDIX E:
GEOPHYSICAL BOREHOLE LOGS
CONTENTS
Description

Page

Borehole CX-B1 ....................................................................................................................................... E-1


Borehole CX-B2........................................................................................................................................ E-6
Borehole CX-B3........................................................................................................................................ E-11
Borehole CX-B4........................................................................................................................................ E-17
Borehole MDW-1 .................................................................................................................................... E-22
Borehole ML-1 ......................................................................................................................................... E-27
Borehole ML-2 ......................................................................................................................................... E-31
Borehole ML-3 ......................................................................................................................................... E-35
Borehole ML-4 ......................................................................................................................................... E-39
Borehole ML-6 ......................................................................................................................................... E-42
Borehole PR-1 .......................................................................................................................................... E-46

California American Water & RBF Consulting

E-i

Appendix E

E-1

Appendix E

E-2

Appendix E

E-3

Appendix E

E-4

Appendix E

E-5

Appendix E

E-6

Appendix E

E-7

Appendix E

E-8

Appendix E

E-9

Appendix E

E-10

Appendix E

E-11

Appendix E

E-12

Appendix E

E-13

Appendix E

E-14

Appendix E

E-15

Appendix E

E-16

Appendix E

E-17

Appendix E

E-18

Appendix E

E-19

Appendix E

E-20

Appendix E

E-21

Appendix E

E-22

Appendix E

E-23

Appendix E

E-24

Appendix E

E-25

Appendix E

E-26

Appendix E

E-27

Appendix E

E-28

Appendix E

E-29

Appendix E

E-30

Appendix E

E-31

Appendix E

E-32

Appendix E

E-33

Appendix E

E-34

Appendix E

E-35

Appendix E

E-36

Appendix E

E-37

Appendix E

E-38

Appendix E

E-39

Appendix E

E-40

Appendix E

E-41

Appendix E

E-42

Appendix E

E-43

Appendix E

E-44

Appendix E

E-45

Appendix E

E-46

Appendix E

E-47

Appendix E

E-48

Appendix E

E-49

APPENDIX F
Isolated Aquifer Zones Construction Forms
And Well Sampling Data Forms

Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Attachment 1 Technical Memorandum (TM 1) Summary of Results Exploratory Boreholes

DRAFT

23-May-14

APPENDIX F:
ISOLATED AQUIFER ZONES CONSTRUCTION
FORMS AND WELL SAMPLING DATA FORMS

CONTENTS
Description

Page

Borehole CX-B1........................................................................................................................................ F-1


Borehole CX-B2........................................................................................................................................ F-19
Borehole CX-B4........................................................................................................................................ F-28
Borehole MDW-1 .................................................................................................................................... F-44
Borehole ML-1 ......................................................................................................................................... F-58
Borehole ML-2 ......................................................................................................................................... F-61
Borehole ML-3 ......................................................................................................................................... F-69
Borehole ML-4 ......................................................................................................................................... F-76
Borehole ML-6 ......................................................................................................................................... F-82
Borehole PR-1 .......................................................................................................................................... F-87

California American Water & RBF Consulting

F-i

Appendix F

F-1

Appendix F

F-2

Appendix F

F-3

Appendix F

F-4

Appendix F

F-5

Appendix F

F-6

Appendix F

F-7

Appendix F

F-8

Appendix F

F-9

Appendix F

F-10

Appendix F

F-11

Appendix F

F-12

Appendix F

F-13

Appendix F

F-14

Appendix F

F-15

Appendix F

F-16

Appendix F

F-17

Appendix F

F-18

Appendix F

F-19

Appendix F

F-20

Appendix F

F-21

Appendix F

F-22

Appendix F

F-23

Appendix F

F-24

Appendix F

F-25

Appendix F

F-26

Appendix F

F-27

Appendix F

F-28

Appendix F

F-29

Appendix F

F-30

Appendix F

F-31

Appendix F

F-32

Appendix F

F-33

Appendix F

F-34

Appendix F

F-35

Appendix F

F-36

Appendix F

F-37

Appendix F

F-38

Appendix F

F-39

Appendix F

F-40

Appendix F

F-41

Appendix F

F-42

Appendix F

F-43

Appendix F

F-44

Appendix F

F-45

Appendix F

F-46

Appendix F

F-47

Appendix F

F-48

Appendix F

F-49

Appendix F

F-50

Appendix F

F-51

Appendix F

F-52

Appendix F

F-53

Appendix F

F-54

Appendix F

F-55

Appendix F

F-56

Appendix F

F-57

Appendix F

F-58

Appendix F

F-59

Appendix F

F-60

Appendix F

F-61

Appendix F

F-62

Appendix F

F-63

Appendix F

F-64

Appendix F

F-65

Appendix F

F-66

Appendix F

F-67

Appendix F

F-68

Appendix F

F-69

Appendix F

F-70

Appendix F

F-71

Appendix F

F-72

Appendix F

F-73

Appendix F

F-74

Appendix F

F-75

Appendix F

F-76

Appendix F

F-77

Appendix F

F-78

Appendix F

F-79

Appendix F

F-80

Appendix F

F-81

Appendix F

F-82

Appendix F

F-83

Appendix F

F-84

Appendix F

F-85

Appendix F

F-86

Appendix F

F-87

Appendix F

F-88

Appendix F

F-89

Appendix F

F-90

Appendix F

F-91

Appendix F

F-92

Appendix F

F-93

Appendix F

F-94

Appendix F

F-95

APPENDIX G
Groundwater Quality Laboratory Reports
(See attached CD)

Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Attachment 1 Technical Memorandum (TM 1) Summary of Results Exploratory Boreholes

DRAFT

23-May-14

APPENDIX G:
GROUNDWATER QUALITY
LABORATORY REPORTS

CONTENTS
Description

Page

Borehole CX-B1
Zone 1 (274 - 284 ft bgs).G-1
Zone 2 (237 - 247 ft bgs)........G-58
Zone 3 (182 - 192 ft bgs).......G-113
Zone 4 (134 - 144 ft bgs).......G-180
Zone 5 (84 - 94 ft bgs)G-248
Zone 6 (51 - 61 ft bgs)G-316
Borehole ML-1
Zone 1 (113.5 - 118.5 ft bgs).G-378
Zone 2 (90 - 100 ft bgs).G-438
Borehole ML-2
Zone 1 (167 - 177 ft bgs).G-502
Zone 2 (90 - 100 ft bgs)G-563
Borehole ML-3
Zone 1 (180 - 190 ft bgs)G-624
Zone 2 (103 -113 ft bgs).G-656

California American Water & RBF Consulting

G-i

Surface and Ground Water Model of the Murrieta-Temecula Ground Water Basin, California
Model Update and Refinement

DRAFT

15-Nov-13

Borehole ML-4
Zone 1 (163.5 - 173.5 ft bgs).G-691
Zone 2 (74.5 - 84.5 ft bgs)G-753
Borehole ML-6
Zone 1 (152 - 162 ft bgs).G-799
Zone 2 (100 - 110 ft bgs).G-857
Borehole PR-1
Zone 1 (190 - 200 ft bgs)G-915
Zone 2 (125 - 135 ft bgs)G-976

California American Water & RBF Consulting

G-ii

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc. | P (909) 451-6650 | F (909) 451-6638


620 W. Arrow Highway, Suite 2000, La Verne, CA 91750 | Mailing: P.O. Box 220, Claremont, CA 91711

APPENDIX D1

Modeling Brine Disposal into Monterey Bay

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

D1-1

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

This page intentionally left blank

Modeling Brine Disposal into Monterey Bay

Philip J. W. Roberts, PhD, PE


Consulting Engineer
Atlanta, Georgia, USA

Final report

Prepared for
ESA | Environmental Science Associates
San Francisco, California

July 6, 2016

CONTENTS
Contents ..................................................................................................................................... i
Executive Summary .................................................................................................................. i
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................ i
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................ ii
1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Study Purpose .............................................................................................................. 1
1.2 California Ocean Plan ................................................................................................ 2
2. Modeling Scenarios ............................................................................................................ 3
2.1 Environmental Conditions ........................................................................................ 3
2.2 Discharge Scenarios Under Proposed Project .......................................................... 5
2.3 Discharge Scenarios Under Project Variant ..............................................................7
2.4 Updated Model Scenarios .......................................................................................... 9
3. Outfall Hydraulics .............................................................................................................. 12
4. Dense Discharge Dilution .................................................................................................. 14
4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 14
4.2 Results ........................................................................................................................ 16
4.3 Other Considerations ................................................................................................ 19
5. Buoyant Discharge Dilution .............................................................................................. 21
5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 21
5.2 Results ....................................................................................................................... 22
6. Shear and Turbulence Effects .......................................................................................... 24
6.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 24
6.2 Plankton Field Data .................................................................................................. 25
6.3 Jet Turbulence and Entrainment ............................................................................ 26
6.4 Results and Discussion ............................................................................................ 30
6.5 Plankton Entrainment and Mortality...................................................................... 33
7. Dilution Mitigation ........................................................................................................... 35
7.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 35
7.2 Flow Augmentation .................................................................................................. 36
7.3 Varied Port Flow ....................................................................................................... 39
7.4 Effect of Inclined Nozzles ......................................................................................... 41
7.4.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 41
7.4.2 Diffuser Retrofit ................................................................................................. 42
7.4.3 Dedicated Diffuser ............................................................................................. 43
7.4.4 Effect of Inclined Nozzles on Buoyant Flows ................................................... 45
References .............................................................................................................................. 47
Appendix A. Diffuser Hydraulics with Check Valves .......................................................... 49
1.
Introduction .............................................................................................................. 49
2.
Check Valves ............................................................................................................. 49
3.
Port Head Loss .......................................................................................................... 51
4.
End Gate Port ........................................................................................................... 52
5.
Diffuser and Pipe Head Loss ................................................................................... 52
6.
Calculation Procedure .............................................................................................. 53
Appendix B. Density Profiles ................................................................................................. 56
Appendix C. Turbulence Effects on Organisms ....................................................................57
Bibliography ....................................................................................................................... 61

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
It is proposed to dispose of brine concentrate resulting from reverse osmosis
(RO) seawater desalination into Monterey Bay, California. The disposal will be
through an existing outfall and diffuser usually used for domestic wastewater.
Previous analyses of the mixing characteristics and dilution of the effluent are
updated to account for new flow scenarios, new research on the dynamics of dense
jets, the internal hydraulics of the outfall, revision of the California Ocean Plan,
and potential mortality of organisms due to jet-induced turbulence.
The California Ocean Plan (SWRCB, 2015) contains new requirements on
concentrate disposal, in particular the definition of a brine mixing zone (BMZ) at
whose boundary salinity increment limitations must be met and within which
salinity must be estimated. It also requires estimates of the effect of velocity shear
and turbulence on the mortality of larvae and other organisms that are entrained
into the high velocity diffuser jets. New flow scenarios consisting of various
combinations of brine and treated domestic effluent have also been proposed, and
new data on density stratification around the diffuser have been obtained. Finally,
no detailed computations of the internal flow hydraulics of the diffuser have
previously been made to address the variation of flow along the diffuser and its
effect on dilution.
The outfall diffuser consists of duckbill check valves whose opening varies
with changing flow rate and it has a fixed opening in the end gate for flushing
purposes. An iterative procedure was used that accounts for the flow
characteristics of the valves, friction losses, and density head. The total head loss
in the outfall and the flow distribution between the various ports were computed
for the various flow scenarios. For dense discharges, the flow per port increases
towards the diffuser end; for buoyant discharges the flows decrease. Flow
variations were generally less than about 7% from the average flow. About 5% of
the total flow exits from the end gate opening. These flow variations were
accounted for in the dilution simulations.
Several flow and environmental scenarios were analyzed. They consist of
various combinations of brine and brine blended with secondary effluent and GWR
effluent. The flow combinations occur at different times of the year and the
environmental conditions that correspond to each scenario was analyzed. The
most important ambient characteristics that affect dilution are the density
stratification in the water column and the ambient density at the discharge depth.
Density data obtained for the project (Figure 2) were analyzed and seasonal
profiles obtained. The final combinations of flow and ambient conditions that were
analyzed are summarized in Table 6. Zero current speed was assumed for all
dilution calculations.
i

Dilutions for brine solutions resulting in dense effluents were first computed.
For each flow scenario, the internal hydraulics were computed and the maximum
and minimum flows per port and their corresponding equivalent port diameters
were computed. Dilutions were calculated for each and the lowest dilution
adopted. Dilution was calculated by a semi-empirical equation due to Cederwall
and by the UM3 module of the US EPA model suite Visual Plumes (Table 7). The
results were in close agreement and the Cederwall predictions were adopted as the
most conservative. Minimum (centerline) dilutions on the seabed were generally
greater than 16:1 at distances of about 10 to 30 ft from the diffuser. The salinity
requirement of the Ocean Plan that the salinity increment be less than 2 ppt over
natural background within 100 m from the diffuser was met in all cases. Increases
in salinity are highest on the seabed, and will only be above background for a few
meters above the seabed. They will be zero throughout most of the water column.
Discharges of flows that are positively buoyant were analyzed separately.
Dilution and plume rise height were modeled by the modules UM3 and NRFIELD
of Visual Plumes. NRFIELD is the most appropriate model and its predictions of
minimum dilution were in good agreement with UM3 predictions of average
dilution. The results are summarized in Table 8. Dilutions are generally very high,
always exceeding 100:1, and the plume is usually trapped below the water surface
by the ambient stratification.
For some dense flow cases, particularly when small volumes of secondary
effluent are added to the brine, it is possible that dilutions may not be sufficient to
achieve water quality standards. Mitigation schemes to enhance dilution for these
cases were considered and analyzed, including:
1. Increase the jet velocity and decrease the density difference between the
effluent and receiving water by augmenting the discharges with treated
freshwater from the GWR or desalination facility.
The effect of adding freshwater on dilution for the problematical cases are
shown in Figure 18. Small additions do not substantially increase dilution.
As the effluent density approaches background levels, dilution increases
exponentially. The water quality requirements for these cases could be
achieved by adding about 2 to 4 mgd of freshwater.
2. Vary the flow per port by either temporarily storing on site in a storage
basin and pumping briefly at higher flow rates, by closing off some ports,
or by opening some closed ports.
The effect of varying the flow per port is shown in Figure 20. The dilution
is relatively insensitive to flow rate. As the flow increases, the jet velocity
increases and entrainment increases. However, the check valves also open
offsetting this increase. The flow and heads needed to meet the water
ii

quality requirements are excessive. Varying the flow rate is not an effective
strategy for increasing dilution.
3. Discharge through upwardly inclined nozzles either by retrofitting the
existing horizontal nozzles or by constructing a new dedicated brine
diffuser.
Discharge through upwardly inclined jets increases the length of dense jet
trajectories and increases dilution. Jets at 60 to the horizontal (the de
facto standard) were evaluated. The results are shown in Table 16. The
inclined nozzles increase dilution of dense discharges substantially. All
dilution requirements, including the problematical cases, would be met.
The effect of retrofitting the nozzles on the dilution of positively buoyant
discharges was also evaluated. The effect was small, dilutions were reduced
by less than 10% compared to horizontal nozzles.
The 2015 California Ocean Plan requires an evaluation of mortality that
occurs due to shearing stress resulting from the facilitys discharge... It has been
suggested that planktonic organisms entrained into the high velocity turbulent jets
could be subject to possibly fatal injury. Experimental evidence suggests that the
main effect occurs to organisms whose size is about the same as the small-scale
turbulent eddies, known as the Kolmogorov scales, which subject them to high
strain rates and viscous shear stresses. The effects vary by organism; the relevant
literature is summarized in Appendix C. Surveys of plankton in the vicinity of the
diffuser were made and are summarized in Figure 9. As precise estimates of
plankton mortality due to turbulence are not presently possible several approaches
to this problem are taken.
The turbulence characteristics of jets are reviewed and turbulent length scales
estimated for the various brine discharge scenarios (Table 10). The Kolmogorov
scales range from about 0.012 mm near the nozzle to 2.5 mm at the jet edges at
seabed impact. Exposure of larvae to jet turbulence ranges from a few seconds to
minutes. The scales are smaller than or comparable to the smallest organisms of
interest (Table 9) so some effects may be anticipated. The scales are somewhat
smaller than those due to natural turbulence in the ocean, which is about 1 mm.
Therefore, the Kolmogorov scale of the ocean is also comparable to larvae size and
may cause natural mortality. The major issue is then incremental mortality due to
the jets.
The total volumes in the jets where turbulent intensities are greater than
background effects were computed (Table 10). They are almost infinitesimally
small compared to the volume of the BMZ, ranging from 0.006% to 0.4%.

iii

The fraction of the ambient flow passing over the BMZ that is entrained by the
diffuser, and therefore the fraction of larvae that is entrained, was estimated (Table
10). For the brine discharges, it ranges from 1.7% to 6.4%.
Not all of the organisms that are entrained by the diffuser will die. The fraction
of organisms passing over the diffuser that die is estimated to be less than 0.23%.
As discussed, this is believed to be a very conservative estimate. Total incremental
mortality was also estimated in Table 11.
The volumes entrained into the brine discharges are compared to that for the
present baseline domestic wastewater discharge case (P1). They are much lower,
ranging from 7 to 22%. This is mainly because the dilutions for the domestic
discharges are much higher. Therefore, organism mortality for the brine
discharges would also be expected to be about 7 to 22% of the baseline case.

iv

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. MRWPCA outfall near Marina, CA., and sampling locations for water
column profiles. Bathymetry is in meters. ............................................................. 3
Figure 2. Seasonal density profiles at the sites shown in Figure 1. ...................................... 4
Figure 3. Seasonally averaged density profiles. ..................................................................... 5
Figure 4. Monthly salinity variations at 27 and 29 m depths. .............................................. 5
Figure 5. The MRWPCA outfall .............................................................................................12
Figure 6. Typical diffuser cross section ................................................................................13
Figure 7. Typical port flow distributions. .............................................................................13
Figure 8. Horizontal dense jet dynamics (DEIR, Appendix D2). ....................................... 14
Figure 9. 3DLIF images of horizontal dense jet (Nemlioglu and Roberts, 2006). ............ 14
Figure 10. Centerline dilution of a horizontal buoyant jet into a stationary
homogeneous environment (Roberts et al. 2010). .............................................. 16
Figure 11. Typical graphics output of jet trajectory from UM3: Pure brine case, P2. ........ 17
Figure 12. Cross sections of a jet from a check valve illustrating the transition from
elliptical to round shapes. From Lee and Tang (1999). ....................................... 19
Figure 13. Dense jet impacting a local boundary. From Shao and Law (2011). ................ 20
Figure 14. Trapped buoyant plume from multiport diffuser in stratified environment,
from Roberts et al. (1989). .....................................................................................21
Figure 15. Graphics outputs from UM3 simulations. .......................................................... 22
Figure 16. Transect lines for plankton samples 5/14/16. ..................................................... 25
Figure 17. LIF image and main properties of a jet ............................................................... 27
Figure 18. Effect on dilution of added freshwater flows to cases V6, V7, and V8. ............. 36
Figure 19. Jet trajectories predicted by UM3 for flow cases V6.10 (red) and V6.14
(blue). ..................................................................................................................... 38
Figure 20. Effect of pumping rate on dilution for flow cases V6, V7, and V8. ................... 39
Figure 21. Jet trajectories predicted by UM3 for flow cases V7.10 (red) and V7.14
(blue). ..................................................................................................................... 41
Figure 22. Laser Induced Fluorescence (LIF) image of a 60 jet and definition
diagram. ................................................................................................................. 42
Figure 23. A brine diffuser with multiport rosettes. ............................................................ 43
Figure 24. UM3 predicted trajectories for horizontal (red) and 60 inclined (blue)
nozzles for case P1 with upwelling density profile. .............................................. 46
Figure A-1. Typical Duckbill Check Valves ....................................................................... 49
Figure A-2. Characteristics of 4 wide bill TideFlex check valve Hydraulic Code 61 ........ 50
Figure A-3. Port and check valve arrangement ....................................................................51
Figure A-4. End gate opening. .............................................................................................. 52

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Seasonal Average Properties at Diffuser Depth........................................................ 5
Table 2. Monthly Average Flows of Secondary Wastewater from the MRWPCS
Treatment Plant (mgd) (19982012) and Estimated Brine Flows Under the
MWPWSP ................................................................................................................. 6
Table 3. Proposed Project Discharge Scenarios ..................................................................... 7
Table 4. Variant Project Discharge Scenarios ........................................................................ 9
Table 5. Assumed Effluent Characteristics ............................................................................. 9
Table 6. Modeled Discharge Scenarios .................................................................................. 11
Table 7. Summary of Dilution Simulations for Dense Effluent Scenarios .......................... 18
Table 8. Summary of Dilution Simulations for Buoyant Effluent Scenarios ...................... 22
Table 9. Summary of Plankton Tows Monterey May 14, 2016 ............................................ 26
Table 10. Summary of Turbulence and Entrainment Calculations ..................................... 32
Table 11. Estimates of entrainment and mortality. Organisms sorted by size, small to
large. Case P2 ......................................................................................................... 34
Table 12. Minimum Dms required for Variant Project with GWR concentrate flow
(Trussell, 2016) ...................................................................................................... 35
Table 13. Effect of added flow on dilution for selected scenarios........................................ 37
Table 14. Effect of added freshwater volumes ...................................................................... 38
Table 15. Effect of added flow on dilution for selected scenarios ........................................ 40
Table 16. Effect of discharge through 60 nozzles ............................................................... 44
Table 17. Summary of UM3 Dilution Simulations for Buoyant Effluent Scenarios with
Horizontal and 60 Nozzles .................................................................................. 45

ii

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Study Purpose
It is proposed to dispose of the brine concentrate resulting from reverse
osmosis (RO) seawater desalination into Monterey Bay, California. The disposal
will be through an existing outfall and diffuser usually used for domestic
wastewater disposal. Previous analyses of the mixing characteristics and dilution
of the effluent were made by Flow Science (2008), and updated in 2014 (Flow
Science, 2014) to accommodate new flow scenarios. The 2014 analysis used the
same procedures as the 2008 report although new research on the dynamics of
dense jets has been reported since 2008 and reviews and testimony have raised
new questions. In addition, water quality requirements for concentrate discharges
around the world and the literature on the environmental impacts of brine
discharges were reviewed in SCCWRP (2012), leading to the revision of the
California Ocean Plan (SWRCB, 2016) to include brine discharges. These revisions
include new requirements on concentrate disposal, in particular the definition of a
brine mixing zone (BMZ) at whose boundary salinity increment limitations must
be met and within which salinity must be estimated. New issues were also raised,
particularly the effect of velocity shear and turbulence on the mortality of larvae
and other organisms that are entrained into the high velocity diffuser jets. New
flow scenarios consisting of various combinations of brine and treated domestic
effluent have also been proposed, and new data on density stratification around
the diffuser have been obtained. Finally, no detailed computations of the internal
flow hydraulics of the diffuser have been made to address the variation of flow
along the diffuser and its effect on dilution.
The purpose of this report is to analyze the internal hydraulics of the outfall
and diffuser, to update the analyses of the dynamics and mixing of various
discharge scenarios, and to address the new issues raised, particularly the effects
of velocity shear and jet turbulence.
Specific tasks are:
Compute outfall and diffuser internal hydraulics and flow distribution
accounting for the effects of check valves;
Recompute dilutions for various scenarios of flow and effluent density;
For dense discharges, compute salinity within the BMZ and at its
boundary;
Estimate regions where salinity exceeds 2 ppt;
For buoyant discharges, compute dilutions and plume behavior for the
new oceanic density stratification data;
Address shear and turbulence mortality;

Discuss mitigation, i.e. modifications to the diffuser if improvements to


mixing are indicated.

The ambient receiving water conditions and new data are discussed in Section
2.1, and the discharge scenarios are discussed in Sections 2.2 and 2.3 and
summarized in Section 2.4. Details of the outfall and diffuser are presented in
Section 3 and results of the hydraulics analyses are summarized. The calculation
procedure is detailed in Appendix A.
1.2 California Ocean Plan
The 2015 California Ocean Plan (SWRCB, 2016, revised and effective January
28, 2016), contains new requirements to address brine discharges. The most
relevant of these to the present report are contained in Section III.M.3, Receiving
Water Limitation for Salinity which states that:
Discharges shall not exceed a daily maximum of 2.0 parts per thousand
(ppt) above natural background salinity measured no further than 100 meters
(328 ft) horizontally from each discharge point. There is no vertical limit to this
zone
the Brine Mixing Zone is the area where salinity may exceed 2.0 parts per
thousand above natural background salinity, or the concentration of salinity
approved as part of an alternative receiving water limitation. The standard brine
mixing zone shall not exceed 100 meters (328 feet) laterally from the points of
discharge and throughout the water column
The brine mixing zone is an allocated impact zone where there may be toxic
effects on marine life due to elevated salinity
For operational mortality related to discharges, the report shall estimate the
area in which salinity exceeds 2.0 parts per thousand above natural background
salinity or a facility-specific alternative receiving water limitation (see chapter
III.M.3). The area in excess of the receiving water limitation for salinity shall be
determined by modeling and confirmed with monitoring. The report shall use
any acceptable approach approved by the regional water board for evaluating
mortality that occurs due to shearing stress resulting from the facilitys
discharge, including any incremental increase in mortality resulting from a
commingled discharge.

2. MODELING SCENARIOS
2.1 Environmental Conditions
The discharges are to be made through the existing Monterey Regional Water
Pollution Control Agency (MRWPCA) wastewater outfall offshore of Marina,
California, shown in Figure 1. The dynamics and mixing of the discharges depend
on the receiving water density structure and ocean currents. The analyses
presented here assume zero current speed, which is the worst-case condition in
terms of dilution, so the main environmental parameter is the receiving water
density structure. Particularly important is the density difference between the
effluent and receiving water, and, for buoyant discharges, the density stratification
over the water column.

Figure 1. MRWPCA outfall near Marina, CA., and sampling


locations for water column profiles. Bathymetry is in meters.

Monthly measurements of CTD (conductivity-temperature-depth) were made


by Applied Marine Sciences (AMS, 2016) over the water column at the four
locations shown in Figure 1. The objective of the monitoring was to gather data
over a two-year period that reflected ocean conditions during this time period
around the MRWPCA outfall. Monthly data were collected between February 2014
and December 2015.
Traditionally, three oceanic seasons have been defined in Monterey Bay:
Upwelling (March-September), Oceanic (September-November), and Davidson
(November-March). Therefore, the profiles were assessed with consideration given
to these seasons, as well as over the entire sampling period.

It was found that there was little variation between the profiles taken at the
four sites in any one day, so they were averaged together; they are plotted by season
in Figure 2. The Upwelling season showed the most variable vertical structure in
temperature and density. The Oceanic and Davidson seasons showed weak
stratifications with essentially well-mixed temperature profiles with the oceanic
season somewhat cooler than Davidson. Salinity was fairly uniform over depth so
density was often controlled by temperature. The Upwelling season showed the
strongest stratifications over the water column, and the profiles separate into two
distinct groups with stratification for the other seasons being generally quite weak.
Density differences over the water column ranged from zero (homogeneous) in
December 2012 to 1.17 kg/m3 in August 2014. For most of the profiles the density
differences over the water column ranges from 0.11 to 0.65 kg/m3.

Figure 2. Seasonal density profiles at the sites shown in Figure 1.

The profiles within each season were then averaged to obtain representative
profiles for the dilution simulations. The profiles are shown in Figure 3 and are
tabulated in Appendix B.
Monthly variations of salinity near the depth of the diffuser (assumed to be the
measurements around 27 to 29 m) are shown in Figure 4. The salinities vary
seasonally, but little between the sites or the chosen depths. The bottom salinities
and temperatures were averaged seasonally as summarized in Table 1.

Figure 3. Seasonally averaged density


profiles.

Figure 4. Monthly salinity variations at 27 and 29 m depths.

Table 1. Seasonal Average Properties at


Diffuser Depth
Season

Temperature
(C)

Salinity
(ppt)

Density
(kg/m3)

Davidson
Upwelling
Oceanic

14.46
11.48
13.68

33.34
33.89
33.57

1024.8
1025.8
1025.1

2.2 Discharge Scenarios Under Proposed Project


The Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP) Desalination Plant
would treat the source oceanic water at a 42 percent recovery rate to produce 9.5

mgd of desalinated product water. Approximately 14 mgd of brine would be


generated, consisting of concentrates from the pretreatment and reverse osmosis
(RO) processes as well as waste effluent produced during routine backwashing and
operation and maintenance of the pretreatment filters. The brine generated in the
desalination process would be discharged into Monterey Bay through the
MRWPCAs existing ocean outfall. The outfall consists of an 11,260-foot-long
pipeline terminating in a diffuser with 129 operational ports at a depth of
approximately 100 feet. The outfall and diffuser and their internal hydraulics are
discussed further in Section 3.
During certain times of the year, the brine would be blended with treated
wastewater (when available) from the MRWPCA Regional Wastewater Treatment
Plant, forming a combined discharge. Table 2 (Table 4.3-8 from the DEIR) shows
the monthly projected brine flows from the MPWSP Desalination Plant and the
average monthly wastewater flows from MRWPCA.
Table 2. Monthly Average Flows of Secondary Wastewater from the MRWPCS
Treatment Plant (mgd) (19982012) and Estimated Brine Flows Under the MWPWSP
Months

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

Brine-Only

13.98

13.98

13.98

13.98

13.98

13.98

13.98

13.98

13.98

13.98

13.98

13.98

Treated Wastewater
from MRWPCA

19.78

18.41

14.68

7.02

2.40

1.89

0.90

1.03

2.79

9.89

17.98

19.27

Combined Discharge
(Brine+wastewater)

33.76

32.39

28.66

21.00

16.38

15.87

14.88

15.01

16.77

23.87

31.96

33.25

NOTE: Shaded cells represent the seasonal discharge scenarios used in the analysis of operational water quality impacts.
Numbers in italics represent the flow rates used in the modeling analysis of salinity (discussed in Impact 4.3-5), the results of which were
used to analyze other constituents in the brine and combined discharges (discussed below in this impact analysis). In the case of the combined
discharge, the modeling analysis also used low wastewater flow rates of 0.25, 0.5, 1, and 2 mgd and a moderate flow of 9 mgd.
SOURCES: MRWPCA, 2013; Trussell Technologies, 2015 in DEIR Appendix D4.

As shown in Table 2, the treated wastewater flow varies throughout the year,
with the highest flows observed during the non-irrigation season (November
through March) and the lowest flows during the irrigation season (April through
October), when the treated wastewater is processed through the SVRP for tertiary
treatment and distributed to irrigators through the Castroville Seawater Intrusion
Project (CSIP).
During the irrigation season, on some days, all of the wastewater flows could
be provided to irrigators, and only the project brine would be discharged into
Monterey Bay through the outfall. The analysis presented in the DEIR assumed
that the brine would be discharged without dilution during the entire irrigation
season (dry months), reflected in scenario 2 in Table 3.

During the non-irrigation season (wet months), the analysis presented in the
DEIR assumed that a combined discharge (i.e. brine blended with treated
wastewater) would be released. For the combined discharge scenario, the data
analysis accounted for different wastewater flows ranging from 19.78 mgd in the
winter/Davidson season (when higher discharge flows are anticipated) to lower
flows of 1 and 2 mgd (Table 3). Scenarios 3 through 6 reflect the proposed
combined project discharges during the non-irrigation season as well as during the
irrigation season when a low volume of secondary effluent is discharged.
Table 3. Proposed Project Discharge Scenarios
Discharge flows
(mgd)
No.
Scenario
Secondary
Desal
Effluent
Brine
1
Baseline
19.78a
0
2
Desal only
0
13.98
3
Desal and low SEb
1
13.98
4
Desal with low SE
2
13.98
5
Desal with moderate SE
9
13.98
6
Desal with high SE
19.78
13.98
a
All model scenarios involving high secondary effluent flows
used for assessing impacts related to the proposed and
variant project conditions use the maximum documented
average wet season wastewater flow of 19.78 mgd.
b
Secondary effluent

2.3 Discharge Scenarios Under Project Variant


Under the Project Variant, the MPWSP Desalination Plant would treat 15.5
mgd of source water at a 42 percent recovery rate. Approximately 8.99 mgd of
brine would be generated, consisting of concentrates from the pretreatment and
reverse osmosis (RO) processes as well as waste effluent produced during routine
backwashing and operation and maintenance of the pretreatment filters. The brine
generated in the desalination process would be discharged through the MRWPCA
ocean outfall as with the Proposed Project (above).
The Project Variant would also include operation of the proposed
Groundwater Replenishment Project (GWR) Project, which would involve RO
treatment of a minimum of 3.9 mgd of source water to produce 3.2 mgd of product
water and 0.73 mgd of effluent1. Operation of the Project Variant would result in
discharge scenarios that would include brine from the MPWSP Desalination Plant,
1 A minimum of 4,320 acre-feet per year (AFY) of source water would be treated to produce 3,500 AFY of product

water. At the time of this analysis, the available data for the GWR Project, i.e., 0.73 mgd of GWR effluent flow was used
for the modeling analysis (also see Flow Science, Inc., 2014).

and/or effluent from the proposed GWR project, and/or treated wastewater from
the existing MRWPCA wastewater treatment plant. Depending on the operational
scenario, the following discharges (also summarized in Table 4) would be released
into Monterey Bay through the MRWPCA outfall:
Variant Scenario 1, Brine-only: 8.99 mgd of brine would be generated at the

Desalination Plant and discharged alone through the MRWPCA outfall. This
operating scenario would occur if the GWR Project comes on line after the MPWSP
Desalination Plant, or the GWR Project periodically shuts down.
Variant Scenarios 2 through 5, Brine-with-Wastewater: 8.99 mgd of brine
would be discharged with varying volumes of treated wastewater from the
MRWPCA Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant. This operating scenario would
occur when treated wastewater is available and if the GWR Project comes on line
after the MPWSP Desalination Plant, or the GWR Project periodically shuts down.
(Previously modeled, no update needed) GWR-only discharge: 0.94 v of
effluent generated under the MRWPCA-proposed GWR Project would be
discharged alone through the MRWPCA outfall. This operating scenario would
occur if the GWR Project comes on line before the MPWSP Desalination Plant, or
the MPWSP Desalination Plant periodically shuts down.
Variant Scenario 6, Blended discharge: 8.99 mgd of brine generated from
the MPWSP Desalination Plant would be blended with 0.94 mgd of GWR-effluent.
This operating scenario would typically occur in the irrigation season.
Variant Scenarios 7 through 10, Combined discharge: The blended
discharge (brine and GWR effluent) would be combined with varying volumes of
treated wastewater from the MRWPCA Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant.
This operating scenario would typically occur in the non-irrigation season.
Not Modeled, GWR-with-Wastewater: 0.94 mgd of GWR-effluent would
be discharged with varying volumes of treated wastewater from the MRWPCA
Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant without brine generated from the MPWSP
Desalination Plant. This operating scenario would occur when treated wastewater
is available and if the GWR Project comes on line before the MPWSP Desalination
Plant, or the MPWSP Desalination Plant periodically shuts down. These scenarios
have been modeled and impacts assessed and documented in the Final EIR for the
Pure Water Monterey GWR Project (MPWPCA, 2015).

Table 4. Variant Project Discharge Scenarios


No

Discharge flows (mgd)


Secondary
Desal Brine
Effluent
0
8.99
1
8.99
2
8.99
5.8 (Davidson)
8.99
19.78
8.99
0
8.99
1
8.99
3
8.99
5.3 (Upwelling)
8.99
15.92
8.99

Scenario

GWR

1
Desal only
0
2
Desal and low (1) SE
0
3
Desal and low (2) SE
0
4
Desal and moderate SE
0
5
Desal and high SE
0
6
Desal and GWR
0.94
7
Desal and GWR and low (1) SE
0.94
8
Desal and GWR and low (2) SE
0.94
9
Desal and moderate SE and GWR
0.94
10 Desal and high SE and GWR
0.94
Notes:
a
All model scenarios involving high secondary effluent flows used for assessing impacts related to the
proposed and variant project conditions use the maximum documented average wet season wastewater
flow of 19.78 mgd.

2.4 Updated Model Scenarios


The assumed effluent characteristics for the three seasonal scenarios are
summarized in Table 5.
Table 5. Assumed Effluent Characteristics
Secondary
Effluent1
Salinity
Temp
(PPT)
(C)

Brine1
Season

Salinity
(PPT)

Temp
(C)

Upwelling

58.23

9.9

0.8

Davidson

57.40

11.6

0.8

GWR
Salinity
2
(PPT)

Temp1
(C)

24

5.8

24.4

20

5.8

20.2

Oceanic
57.64
11.1
0.9
24
5.8
24.4
FlowScience (2014), Table C3 and C6 (p.C-7 and C-17), Appendix C.
2
Pure Water Monterey Groundwater Replenishment Project Consolidated FEIR (2016):
The discharge of reverse osmosis concentrate would not involve high salinities because the
concentrate would be far less saline than ambient ocean water (5,800 mg/L of TDS compared
to 33,000 to 34,000 mg/L). The secondary effluent (approximately 1,000 mg/L of TDS) and
GWR reverse osmosis concentrate (approximately 5,000 mg/L of TDS) are relatively light and
would rise when discharged.
Note: Salinity value of 4 PPT for GWR effluent estimated in Flow Science (2014).
1

Using the discharge scenarios in Table 3 for the Proposed Project and in Table
4 for the Project Variant, previous model analyses will be updated as follows:
Revise the near-field brine discharge modeling by adjusting the number of
open ports (129 versus 120 used prior), the height of the ports off the ocean floor
(4 feet versus 3.5 feet used prior), and flow scenarios (Table 2 for the Project and
Table 3 for the Variant).

Using the revised modeling for each scenario, compute dilution ratios,
calculate the volume of ocean water that exceeds 2 ppt above ambient, plot the
gradient of salinity between the port and the edge of the Zone of Initial Dilution
ZID, calculate the eddy size and velocity of the plume and determine marine losses
due to shear stress, if any. Also calculate the salinity beyond the ZID but within the
regulatory mixing zone (100 m from the port).
Combining the assumed environmental conditions from Table 1, the flows
from Tables 3 and 4, and the assumed effluent conditions from Table 5, we arrive
at 16 possible flow scenarios. Their conditions are summarized in Table 6. The
Proposed Project scenarios are labeled P1 though P6 and the Project Variant
scenarios are Labeled V1 through V10.

10

Table 6. Modeled Discharge Scenarios


Background

Brine

Secondary effluent

Case
No.

Season

Temp.
(C)

Salinity
(ppt)

Density
(kg/m3)

Flow
(mgd)

Temp.
(C)

Salinity
(ppt)

P1
P2
P3
P4
P5
P6
V1
V2
V3
V4
V5
V6
V7
V8
V9
V10

Baseline
Upwelling
Davidson
Davidson
Davidson
Davidson
Upwelling
Upwelling
Upwelling
Davidson
Upwelling
Upwelling
Davidson
Davidson
Upwelling
Davidson

11.48
14.46
14.46
14.46
14.46
11.48
11.48
11.48
14.46
11.48
11.48
14.46
14.46
11.48
14.46

33.89
33.34
33.34
33.34
33.34
33.89
33.89
33.89
33.34
33.89
33.89
33.34
33.34
33.89
33.34

1025.8
1024.8
1024.8
1024.8
1024.8
1025.8
1025.8
1025.8
1024.8
1025.8
1025.8
1024.8
1024.8
1025.8
1024.8

13.98
13.98
13.98
13.98
13.98
8.99
8.99
8.99
8.99
8.99
8.99
8.99
8.99
8.99
8.99

9.9
11.6
11.6
11.6
11.6
9.9
9.9
9.9
11.6
9.9
9.9
11.6
11.6
9.9
11.6

58.23
57.40
57.40
57.40
57.40
58.23
58.23
58.23
57.40
58.23
58.23
57.40
57.40
58.23
57.40

Flow
(mgd)

19.78
0
1.00
2.00
9.00
19.78
0
1.00
2.00
5.80
19.78
0
1.00
3.00
5.30
15.92

11

GWR

Combined discharge

Temp.
(C)

Salinity
(ppt)

Flow
(mgd)

Temp.
(C)

Salinity
(ppt)

Flow
(mgd)

Salinity
(ppt)

Density
(kg/m3)

20.0
24.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
24.0
24.0
24.0
20.0
24.0
24.0
20.0
20.0
24.0
20.0

0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94

20.0
24.4
20.2
20.2
20.2
20.2
24.4
24.4
24.4
20.2
24.4
24.4
20.2
20.2
24.4
20.2

5.8
5.8
5.8
5.8
5.8
5.8
5.8
5.8
5.8
5.8
5.8
5.8
5.8
5.8
5.8
5.8

19.78
13.98
14.98
15.98
22.98
33.76
8.99
9.99
10.99
14.79
28.77
9.93
10.93
12.93
15.23
25.85

0.80
58.23
53.62
50.32
35.23
24.24
58.23
52.48
47.78
35.20
18.75
53.27
47.78
40.52
35.01
20.67

998.8
1045.2
1041.2
1038.5
1026.4
1017.6
1045.2
1040.5
1036.6
1026.4
1012.7
1041.1
1036.5
1030.6
1026.1
1014.7

3. OUTFALL HYDRAULICS
The Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency (MRWPCA) outfall at
Marina, shown in Figure 5, conveys the effluent to the Pacific Ocean to a depth of
about 100 ft below Mean Sea Level (MSL). The ocean segment extends a distance
of 9,892 ft from the Beach Junction Structure (BJS). Beyond this there is a diffuser
section 1,406 ft long. The outfall pipe consists of a 60-inch internal diameter (ID)
reinforced concrete pipe (RCP), and the diffuser consists of 480 ft of 60-inch RCP
with a single taper to 840 ft of 48-inch ID. The diffuser has 171 ports of two-inch
diameter: 65 in the 60-inch section and 106 in the 48-inch section. The ports
discharge horizontally alternately from both sides of the diffuser at a spacing of 16
ft on each side except for one port in the taper section that discharges vertically for
air release. The 42 ports closest to shore are presently closed, so there are 129 open
ports distributed over a length of approximately 1024 ft. The 129 open ports are
fitted with four inch Tideflex duckbill check valves (the four inch refers to the
flange size not the valve opening). The valves open as the flow through them
increases so the cross-sectional area is variable. The end gate has an opening at the
bottom about two inches high. The effect of the valves on the flow distribution in
the diffuser is discussed in Appendix A.

Figure 5. The MRWPCA outfall

The diffuser section sits on rock ballast as shown in Figure 6. The ports are
approximately six inches above the rock ballast and nominally 54 inches above the
sea bed, although this varies. For the dilution calculations, they are assumed to be
4 ft above the bed. The diffuser is laid on a slope of about 0.011 and the depths of
the open ports range from about 98 to 110 ft below MSL.

12

Figure 6. Typical diffuser cross section

The procedure for analyzing the internal hydraulics of the outfall and diffuser
is discussed in Appendix A. Using these procedures, the head losses and the flow
distribution between the ports and the end gate port were computed for the various
flow scenarios of Table 6. Some typical distributions of flow among the ports, for
scenarios P1 (19.78 mgd of secondary effluent), P2 (13.98 mgd of pure brine), and
P6 (33.76 mgd of brine and secondary effluent) are shown in Figure 7.

Figure 7. Typical port flow distributions.

For the pure brine discharge P2 (density greater than seawater) the flow per
port increases in the offshore direction because of the density head. For the
buoyant discharges P1 and P6 (less dense than seawater) the flow decreases in the
offshore direction. The port discharges vary by about 7% from the average, and
about 5% of the flow exits from the opening in the end gate. These flow variations
are accounted for in the dilution simulations, and the worst cases for dilution are
chosen.

13

4. DENSE DISCHARGE DILUTION


4.1 Introduction
Discharges that are more dense than the receiving seawater result in a sinking
plume that impacts the sea floor at some distance from the nozzle as shown in
Figure 8. The jet, because of its high exit velocity, entrains seawater that mixes with
and dilutes the effluent.

Figure 8. Horizontal dense jet dynamics (DEIR, Appendix D2).

Three-dimensional laser-induced fluorescence (3DLIF) images of a horizontal


negatively buoyant jet similar to those considered here are shown in Figure 9. The
images are obtained by scanning a laser sheet horizontally thought the flow to
which a small amount of fluorescent dye has been added. The fluoresced light is
captured and converted to tracer concentrations and dilution and imaged by
computer graphics techniques as described in Tian and Roberts (2003). The left
image shows the outer surface of the jet in gray scale and the right image shows
the outer surface as semi-transparent with tracer concentrations in false color in a
vertical plane through the jet centerline.

Figure 9. 3DLIF images of horizontal dense jet (Nemlioglu and Roberts, 2006).

14

It can be seen that high tracer concentrations (i.e. salinity) are confined to a
relatively small volume near the nozzle and attenuate rapidly with distance from
the nozzle. The highest salinity on the floor occurs where the jet centerline impacts
it, and it is the dilution and salinity at this point that is computed here.
In the Flow Science (2014) report, they analyze this situation using a semiempirical method and also the mathematical model UM3 in the US EPA model
suite Visual Plumes. In the semi-empirical method, the jet trajectory and impact
point are predicted by an analysis due to Kikkert et al. (2007) and dilution was
then predicted by assuming it to occur from jet-induced entrainment. Although the
Kikkert analysis can be applied, it was derived primarily for upwardly-inclined
dense jets rather than horizontal, as occur here, and the dilution analysis neglects
any effects of buoyancy on entrainment. Furthermore, the Flow Science report
considers the centerline dilution predictions of the entrainment model UM3 to be
unreliable due to a study by Palomar at al. (2012a, 2012b) which concluded that
UM3 (and other entrainment models) underestimated impact dilutions by 5065%. They therefore used UM3 average dilutions as estimates of centerline
dilutions. The observations of Palomar et al., however, only applied to jets inclined
upwards at 30 to 60 to the horizontal, where mixing is greater due to
gravitational instabilities. For small fractional density differences, the dynamics of
horizontal dense jets are the same as for positively buoyant jets (with a change in
the sign of the density difference). Therefore, a simpler semi-empirical analysis can
be applied, and UM3, which is well-tested and validated for such situations, is also
applicable. The new analysis and application of UM3 are described below.
For the jet situation shown in Figures 8 and 9 it can be shown that the
centerline dilution Sm at any vertical distance z from the nozzle is given by (Roberts
et al. 2010):
z
Sm
f
dF
Fj
j

(1)

where Fj is the densimetric Froude number of the jet:


Fj

uj
g od

(2)

uj is the jet velocity, go g a o o is the modified acceleration due to gravity,


g is the acceleration due to gravity, a and o are the ambient and effluent densities,
respectively, and d the (round) nozzle diameter. Experimental measurements of
the centerline dilutions plotted according to Eq. 1 are shown in Figure 10.

15

Figure 10. Centerline dilution of a horizontal buoyant jet into


a stationary homogeneous environment (Roberts et al. 2010).

A fit to these data for z/dFj > 0.5 has been suggested by Cederwall (1968):

Sm
z
0.54 0.66 0.38

Fj
dFj

5/3

(3)

which is plotted on Figure 10. This equation is used to predict dilutions below.
The dilution and trajectories of the jets can also be predicted by UM3. UM3 is
a Lagrangian entrainment model described in Frick (2003, 2004).
4.2 Results
The following procedure was followed to determine the dilutions for dense
discharges. First the internal hydraulics program (Section 3) was run for each case
summarized in Table 6 to determine the flow distribution between the ports.
Because the flow varies between the ports and because the effective port diameter
varies with flow rate, it is not immediately obvious where along the diffuser the
lowest dilution will occur. Therefore, dilutions were computed for the innermost
and outermost ports. Depending on flow and density, the innermost ports would
sometimes discharge the lowest flow, and sometimes the highest. The conditions
resulting in lowest dilutions were chosen; sometimes this would occur at the
innermost port and sometimes the outermost.
A typical jet trajectory output from UM3 (for the pure brine case, P2) is shown
in Figure 11. For this case, the jet centerline impacts the seabed about 10 ft from
the nozzle and the jet diameter is about 5 ft. Similar simulations were run for all
dense scenarios, and the results, using the Cederwall formula and UM3, are
summarized in Table 7.

16

Figure 11. Typical graphics output of jet trajectory


from UM3: Pure brine case, P2.

It is remarkable how close the dilution predictions of UM3 and Cederwall are.
Cederwalls are generally more conservative, so these values are adopted. Jet
impact distances from UM3 are also shown in Table 7. Jet diameters are generally
much less than the port spacing of 16 ft, so no merging is expected before bottom
impaction. The results are comparable to the Flow Science semi-empirical method.
The worst case, as expected, is the pure brine case, P2. For this case, the
minimum centerline dilution is 15.5 and the salinity increment is 1.6 ppt, well
within the BMZ limit of 2 ppt. The distance up to the impact point can be
interpreted as the Zone of Initial Dilution (ZID). In all cases, the salinity limit is
met within the ZID, whose length ranges from about 9 ft for scenario V1 up to 42
ft for scenario V9, where the density difference is much less and the jet trajectory
is much flatter.
The jets will continue to dilute and will ultimately merge beyond the ZID. The
increase in dilution up to the edge of the BMZ is difficult to estimate as there are
no experiments available for these horizontal dense jet flows. Some guidance can
be obtained from experiments on buoyant jets and inclined dense jets, however.
Roberts et al. (1997) estimates a dilution increase of about 60% from the impact
point to the end of the near field for single (non-merging) 60 inclined jets. For
merged jets or plumes the increase in dilution is less; Abessi and Roberts (2014)
reported a dilution increase of about 22% from impact point to the end of the near
field. This is in keeping with the differences in dilution between non-merged and
merged positively buoyant jets impacting water surfaces reported in Tian et al.
(2004). The spacing between the individual jets on each side of the diffuser is 16 ft
therefore it is conservatively assumed that they will merge within the BMZ and the
increase in dilution from the impact point to the BMZ is 20%. This increase is used
to predict the BMZ dilutions in Table 7.

17

Table 7. Summary of Dilution Simulations for Dense Effluent Scenarios

Case
No.

Background
conditions

Effluent
conditions

Cederwall formula

Port conditions

Cederwall at
BMZ

UM3

Salinity

Salinity Density Salinity Density Flow Diam. Height Velocity Froude


(ppt)
(kg/m3)
(ppt)
(kg/m3) (gpm) (in)
(ft)
(ft/s)
no.
P1

0.80

998.8

P2

33.89

1025.8

58.23

1045.2

76.3

1.87

P3

33.34

1024.8

53.62

1041.2

75.0

P4

33.34

1024.8

50.32

1038.5

P5

33.34

1024.8

35.23

P6

33.34

1024.8

V1

33.89

V2

4.0

8.9

1.86

4.0

80.8

1.89

1026.4

117.8

24.24

1017.6

1025.8

58.23

33.89

1025.8

V3

33.89

V4

zo/dF

Dilution

Salinity
Impact
At
Incre- Dilution distance Dilution incrementimpact ment
(ft)
(ppt)
(ppt)
(ppt)

29.0

0.89

15.6

35.45

1.56

16.3

8.9

31.4

0.82

16.2

34.60

1.25

4.0

9.2

35.5

0.72

17.0

34.34

2.07

4.0

11.2

120.3

0.19

38.7

188.5

2.28

4.0

14.8

71.5

1045.2

50.8

1.67

4.0

7.4

25.6

52.48

1040.5

54.3

1.70

4.0

7.7

1025.8

47.78

1036.6

54.6

1.71

4.0

33.34

1024.8

35.20

1026.4

77.9

1.88

V5

33.89

1025.8

18.75

1012.7

160.8

V6

33.89

1025.8

53.27

1041.1

V7

33.34

1024.8

47.78

V8

33.34

1024.8

V9

33.89

V10

33.34

10.3

18.7

1.30

16.9

10.7

19.4

1.04

1.00

17.8

11.8

20.5

0.83

33.39

0.05

35.3

29.0

46.5

0.04

1.12

15.9

35.42

1.53

16.3

8.7

19.0

1.28

30.1

0.94

16.7

35.00

1.11

17.4

9.8

20.0

0.93

7.6

34.7

0.81

17.7

34.67

0.78

18.5

10.9

21.3

0.65

4.0

9.0

102.0

0.25

34.5

33.40

0.05

32.5

24.0

41.4

0.04

2.21

4.0

13.5

48.9

54.3

1.70

4.0

7.7

29.5

0.96

16.6

35.06

1.17

17.2

9.7

19.9

0.98

1036.5

58.3

1.74

4.0

7.9

34.2

0.81

17.4

34.17

0.83

18.2

10.9

20.9

0.69

40.52

1030.6

66.5

1.80

4.0

8.4

50.6

0.53

21.3

33.68

0.34

22.1

14.7

25.5

0.28

1025.8

35.01

1026.1

77.8

1.88

4.0

9.0

260.5

0.10

77.1

33.90

0.01

55.4

42.1

92.5

0.01

1024.8

20.67

1014.7

143.3

2.16

4.0

12.6

52.6

18

Finally, note that the computed salinities occur only along the seabed.
Salinities decrease with height and will only be above ambient within the spreading
layer on the bottom. For most of the water column, incremental salinities will be
much less than the values in Table 7.
4.3 Other Considerations
The increase in dilution beyond the impact point, or ZID, above is the increase
in dilution up to the end of near field, defined as (Abessi and Roberts, 2014) the
point where the turbulence induced by the discharge collapses under the influence
of its self-induced density stratification. Again, there are no direct experiments to
estimate this distance for this horizontal flow case, but Abessi and Roberts (2014)
estimate the ratio of the near field length to the impact distance to be about 3:1.
The impact distances in Table 7 range from about 9 to 42 ft, so, assuming the ratio
of 3:1 to apply here, the end of the near field will always be within the BMZ distance
of 100 m (328 ft). The assumption that dilution stops at the end of the near field is
a conservative one as further dilution will occur due wave effects and entrainment
as the gravity current flows down the bottom slope.
The dilution calculations assume the discharges to be from round nozzles
whose area is the same as the effective opening of the check valves. There are no
models to predict the dilution from elliptically-shaped check valves but
experiments (Lee and Tang, 1999) show that the centerline dilutions from elliptical
nozzles are greater than from equivalent round nozzles due to the larger surface
area available for entrainment and that the dilutions asymptotically approach
those of equivalent round nozzles at about 12 equivalent jet diameters from the
nozzle.

Figure 12. Cross sections of a jet from a check valve illustrating


the transition from elliptical to round shapes. From Lee and
Tang (1999).

Mixing of horizontal dense jets can also be affected by proximity to the local
boundary which may cause a Coanda attachment. Some experiments on this
phenomenon have been reported by Shao and Law (2011); a figure from their paper
is shown in Figure 12. They find that the flow transitions to a wall-dense-jet with
momentum continuing to play a role in mixing. They investigated Coanda
attachment of the jet to the lower boundary and found that none occurred for a

19

parameter which they defined as: zo lM 0.12 . This parameter is essentially the
same as zo dF shown in Table 7. Only case V9 is close to this value and the dilutions
for this cases are very high. It is therefore concluded that Coanda attachment will
not have any effect on the dynamics or mixing of the brine jets. And furthermore,
because of the strong mixing and entrainment in the wall jet region, it is expected
that the additional dilution beyond the impingement point will be actually much
greater than the 20% assumed above.

Figure 13. Dense jet impacting a local


boundary. From Shao and Law (2011).

20

5. BUOYANT DISCHARGE DILUTION


5.1 Introduction
Positively buoyant (or just buoyant) discharges, i.e. that have densities less
than the receiving seawater, require different procedures than for negatively
buoyant ones. Inspection of Table 6 shows there are only four positively buoyant
scenarios; P1, the baseline with pure secondary effluent, P6, high volumes of brine
and secondary effluent, and V5 and V10, Project Variants with moderate brine
volumes and high secondary effluent and GWR volumes. Positively buoyant
effluents rise in the water column and are either trapped by the ambient density
stratification if it is strong enough, or reach the water surface if it is weak. A
laboratory photograph of a buoyant discharge from a multiport diffuser into a
stationary stratified environment is shown in Figure 13.

Figure 14. Trapped buoyant plume from multiport diffuser


in stratified environment, from Roberts et al. (1989).

The plume dynamics are simulated with two models in Visual Plumes: UM3
and NRFIELD. UM3 is an entrainment model that was previously described.
NRFIELD is based on the experiments on multiport diffusers discharging from two
sides described in Roberts et al. (1989) and subsequently updated with the new
experimental data of Tian et al. (2004) and others. NRFIELD is specifically
designed for conditions typical of very buoyant discharges of domestic effluent
from multiport diffusers into stratified oceanic waters so is judged most
appropriate here. It also includes the lateral spreading after the terminal rise
height and subsequent turbulent collapse at the end of the near field. The primary
outputs from NRFIELD are the minimum (centerline) dilution, the plume rise
height, and wastefield thickness at the end of the near field.
The following procedure was used for the dilution simulations. The internal
hydraulics program, Section 3, was first run for each of the three scenarios. The
average port diameter and flows were then obtained. UM3 and NRFIELD were
then run for the chosen flow and ambient combination scenarios summarized in
Table 6: P1 with Upwelling, Davidson, and Oceanic conditions; P6 with Davidson,
and V5 with Upwelling. The seasonal average density stratifications that were

21

discussed in Section 2.1 and plotted in Figure 3 were used and zero current speed
was assumed. UM3 assumes the discharges are from one side so the usual
assumption was used that the diffuser consists of 129 ports spaced 8 ft apart.
NRFIELD assumes the correct configuration of ports on either side spaced 16 ft
apart; the correction is made internally in Visual Plumes.
5.2 Results
The results are summarized in Table 8 and some graphical jet trajectories from
UM3 are shown in Figure 14. For UM3 the average dilutions at the terminal rise
height are given along with the centerline rise heights, for NRFIELD the near field
(minimum) dilution is given along with the height of the near field (centerline)
dilution and the height to the top of the spreading wastefield layer.
Table 8. Summary of Dilution Simulations for Buoyant Effluent Scenarios
UM3 simulations
No.

Flow
rate
(mgd)

Effluent
density
(kg/m3)

Port
diam.
(in)

Ocean
condition

P1
P1

19.78
19.78

998.8
998.8

2.00
2.00

Upwelling
Davidson

191
327

P1
P6
V5
V10

19.78
33.76
28.77
25.85

998.8
1017.6
1012.7
1014.7

2.00
2.25
2.18
2.13

Oceanic
Davidson
Upwelling
Davidson

240
154
122
195

a) P1 Davidson

Average
dilution

Rise
height
(centerline)
(ft)
58
100
(surface)
82
86
47
100
(Surface)

b) P6 Davidson

NRFIELD simulations

Minimum
dilution

Rise
height
(center
line)
(ft)

Rise
height
(top)
(ft)

186
351

59
100

42
100

239
163
105
221

50
86
41
100

72
89
43
100

c) V5 Upwelling

Figure 15. Graphics outputs from UM3 simulations.

It can be seen that the average dilution predicted by UM3 is very close to
minimum (centerline) dilution predicted by NRFIELD. Similar observations were

22

made by Isaacson et al. (1983) in connection with physical model studies on the
San Francisco outfall. The reason is apparently that the increase in mixing and
dilution in the transition from vertical to horizontal flow and merging of the
plumes from both sides, neither of which are incorporated into UM3, are
accounted for in the ratio of average to minimum dilutions. Therefore, we use the
average dilution predicted by UM3 but interpret it as the minimum centerline
dilution. Similar observations are reported in model comparisons by Frick and
Roberts (2016). The near field dilution is synonymous with the initial dilution in
the ZID as defined in the California Ocean Plan.
Dilutions are generally high: The lowest is 105 for scenario V5 which was run
with strong (Upwelling) stratification. The highest dilution was 351 for scenario P1
(pure secondary effluent) with weak (Davidson) stratification which resulted in a
surfacing plume. Generally speaking, strong stratification results in lower dilutions
and reduced rise height, and weak stratification result in higher dilutions and
increased rise height. All of the scenarios resulted in submerged plumes except for
case P1 with Davidson conditions.
Note that all the simulations were run for zero current, as specified in the
Ocean Plan. More realistic simulations with currents would predict higher
dilutions and deeper submergences.
The lower density difference and therefore relatively greater influence of
source momentum flux results in flatter jet trajectories, as seen in Figure 14ab,
cases P6 and V5.

23

6. SHEAR AND TURBULENCE EFFECTS


6.1 Introduction
The 2015 California Ocean Plan contains the following requirement for
mitigation of marine life or habitat lost due to a desalination facility:
For operational mortality related to discharges, the report shall estimate
the area in which salinity exceeds 2.0 parts per thousand above natural
background salinity or a facility-specific alternative receiving water
limitation (see chapter III.M.3). The area in excess of the receiving water
limitation for salinity shall be determined by modeling and confirmed with
monitoring. The report shall use any acceptable approach approved by the
regional water board for evaluating mortality that occurs due to shearing
stress resulting from the facilitys discharge, including any incremental
increase in mortality resulting from a commingled discharge.
The purpose of this section is to evaluate mortality due to the discharge. In
particular, it has been suggested that planktonic organisms entrained into the high
velocity turbulent jets could be subject to injury, possibly mortality, due to the
effects of turbulence and shear. This is difficult to estimate, so only approximate
orders of magnitude can be made. Somewhat similar concerns arise due to
entrainment into water intakes, for example Tenera (2014), although the
considerations for jets are different and somewhat more complex.
Experimental evidence suggests that the main turbulence effect is caused by
small-scale eddies, known as the Kolmogorov scales, and that most damage may
occur when they are comparable to the size of the organisms. These small eddies
subject the organism to high strain rates and viscous shear stress that may cause
injury or death whereas larger eddies mainly translate the organisms without
causing significant shear. The effects vary by organism, and a number of studies
on the effects of flow and turbulence on marine and freshwater organisms have
been reported. They are summarized in Appendix C.
Most relevant here are the studies of Rehmann et al. (2003) and Jessop
(2007). Rehmann et al. performed laboratory experiments in which zebra mussel
veligers were subject to controlled turbulence in beakers. The turbulence intensity
was such that the Kolmogorov scale, Lk 0.1 mm. They found that mortality
increased sharply to about 65% when the size of the larvae was about 90% of the
Kolmogorov scale. Jessop (2007) measured survival rates in a highly turbulent
tidal channel with 0.06 < Lk < 0.25 mm. Survival rates varied with species; thinshelled veligers showed significant mortality of 45% to 64%, but some taxa showed
no mortality.

24

These and other results are difficult to translate to jet turbulence for a number
of reasons. In the laboratory experiments, the organisms were subject to fairly
homogeneous turbulence for long periods: 24 hours. In the field experiment the
turbulence was variable during the organisms transit through the channel. The
duration of exposure to high turbulence is unknown but was probably a few
minutes and the variation of conditions during transit are also unknown.
In contrast, the turbulence in jets is not homogeneous: it varies along the
centerline and also laterally across the jet. Kolmogorov scales are smallest near the
nozzle and increase along the trajectory; they are shortest on the centerline and
increase towards the jet edges. Also, transit times of entrained organisms within
the jets are short, of the order of seconds, and vary according to where along the
trajectory they are entrained and how they wander within the jet.
In the following we take several approaches to this problem. In Sections 6.3
and 6.4 we discuss turbulence characteristics of jets and estimate turbulence
length scales for the various brine discharge scenarios. We estimate the total
volumes where effects may be expected and express it as a fraction of the total
volume of the BMZ. Then we estimate the fraction of the ambient flow that passes
over the diffuser that is entrained, and therefore the fraction of larvae entrained.
Finally, in Section 6.5, we estimate the total numbers of organisms entrained by
the diffuser and the number that may be subject to mortality.
6.2 Plankton Field Data
In order to estimate planktonic levels, seawater samples were taken on May
14, 2016 along the three towed transects shown in Figure 16. The results are
summarized by taxonomic group and size ranges in Table 9.

Figure 16. Transect lines for plankton samples 5/14/16.

25

Table 9. Summary of Plankton Tows Monterey May 14, 2016


Taxonomic Group
Copepods

Size (mm)

Copepod_unid

0.3 - 5.0

33.73

Calanoid

1.0 - 5.0

3052.72

Oithona_sp

0.5 - 2.0

369.85

Corycaeus_sp

0.3 - 1.5

64.31

Copepod_nauplii

0.1 - 0.2

77.69

Copepod total
Other

Count (#/m3)

3598.29

Euphausiid_nauplii

0.35 - 0.5

13.99

Euphausiid_Calyptopis

0.8 - 2.2

613.94

Euphausiid_furcilia

1.0 - 5.6

79.68

Cirripedia_nauplii

0.35 - 0.5

13.83

Pleurobrachia_sp

2.0 - 10.0

3.93

Cladocera_podon

0.2 - 3.0

2.83

Salp

1.0 - 10.0

79.46

Appendicularia_unid

1.0 - 1.5

58.04

Oikopleura_unid

1.0 - 1.5

13.83

Chaetognath_unid

4.0 - 10.0

29.69

Isopod_unid

0.4 - 1.0

1.97

Polychaete_unid

0.5 - 5.0

4.71

Polychaete_trochophore

0.2 - 0.8

2.67

Decapod_zoea

2.0 - 5.0

4.40

Gastropod_larvae

0.8 - 3.0

3.30

Bivalve_veliger

0.75 - 1.0

4.08

Siphonophore

1.0 - 5.0

7.07

Hydromedusa

0.5 - 10

1.41

Other total

938.82

Overall total

4537.11

6.3 Jet Turbulence and Entrainment


The turbulence generated by the diffuser is discussed below, in particular the
spatial variations of turbulence intensity and length scales (eddy sizes) of the
turbulence. The diffuser discharges are initially horizontal and have relatively flat
trajectories (Figures 8, 9, and 11) so it reasonable to analyze them as pure jets (i.e.
flows driven by momentum only).
The properties of jets are well known, and summarized for example in Fischer
et al. (1979). An LIF image of a jet and a depiction of its main features are shown
in Figure 17. Closer to the nozzle the jet is more fine-grained but the turbulent
scales increase along its trajectory. External flow is entrained into the jet (and
dilutes it) and the jet width increases linearly with distance from the nozzle.

26

Figure 17. LIF image and main properties of a jet

Beyond the zone of flow establishment, which is about 6d long, the centerline
velocity um decreases rapidly with distance x according to:
um 6.2u

d
x

(4)

where u is the jet velocity and d the diameter. The half-width of the jet w, defined
as two standard deviations of a Gaussian velocity distribution, increases linearly
with distance according to:
w 0.15 x

(5)

Combining Eqs. 4 and 5, we see that the average mean shear in the jet du dr where
u is the local velocity and r the radial distance is:
du um
ud

41 2
dr
w
x

(6)

So it decreases even more rapidly than velocity with distance from the nozzle. Note
that the mean shear on the jet centerline is zero.
The turbulence properties in the jet can be estimated from the experimental
data of Webster et al. (2001). They show that the relative turbulence intensity on
the centerline, u um 0.3 where u is the rms value of the turbulent velocity
fluctuations. The intensity decreases with radial distance to zero at the edge of the
jet, defined approximately by Eq. 5.
The size of the small-scale (Kolmogorov) eddies can be estimated from:

27

1/4

(7)

where is the kinematic viscosity of seawater and the energy dissipation rate,
that can be approximated as:

u3
lL

(8)

where lL is a measure of the largest (energy containing) eddies in the jet. According
to Wygnanski and Fiedler (1969) these length scales also increase linearly with
distance from the nozzle and vary radially across the jet. On the centerline,
lL 0.016x , i.e. about 1/12 of the jet width.
Finally, combining the above equations we find:

c
x

0.24 Re 3/4

(9)

where Re ud is the jet Reynolds number and c the size of the Kolmogorov
eddies on the jet centerline. The Kolmogorov scale therefore increases linearly
along the jet trajectory.
The radial variation of turbulence intensity and turbulent length scales across
the jet is now considered. Near the jet edge, lL 0.03x according to Wygnanski and
Fiedler, i.e. about 1/25 of the jet width, and the turbulence intensity is about
u um 0.04 according to Webster et al. (2001). Combining Eqs. 7 and 8 we can
estimate the ratio of the Kolmogorov scale on the centerline to that at the jet edge
as:
1/4

c c e

e uc ue 3

0.2

(10)

where the subscripts c and e refer to the jet centerline and edge, respectively. Eq.
10 indicates that the Kolmogorov scales at the jet edge are about five times larger
than on the centerline.
Travel times of entrained larvae along the jet trajectory will vary, depending
on where along the trajectory they enter the jet and whether they mainly travel on
the centerline, on the edge, or in between. On the centerline, the velocity decreases
according to Eq. 4 so the travel time along the trajectory to the impact point is
given approximately by:
dx
x
L2
t

dx
u
6.2ud
12.4ud
0 m
0
L

(11)

where L is the length of the trajectory from the nozzle to the seabed impact point.

28

As previously discussed, the jet properties were predicted by UM3 (Table 7).
In addition, the diameters of the jets at impact dj were obtained and the volumes
of the 129 jets computed, assuming them to be conical up to impact:
V j 129

d 2j L

(12)

12

This volume was computed as a fraction of the water volume in the BMZ, VBMZ,
computed from:

w2
VBMZ L wBMZ H BMZ
4

8
3
H 10 ft

(13)

where L = 1024 ft is the diffuser length, wBMZ = 656 ft (200 m) is the width of the
brine mixing zone, and H = 104 ft is the average water depth at the diffuser.
In desalination projects, the word entrainment arises in two contexts. It refers
to flow drawn into intakes, and, in the jets and plumes that arise in brine diffusers,
it refers to the flow induced by velocity shear at the edge of the jet (see Figure 17).
This flow, commonly referred to as entrained flow, mixes with and dilutes the
effluent stream. Below we consider the magnitude and spatial variation of the
entrained velocity and the magnitude of the entrained flow expected to be
subjected to significant shear and turbulence effects.
The velocity at which flow is entrained into the jet is directly proportional to
the local centerline velocity and is given by:
uo u m

(14)

where uo is the entrainment velocity at a radial distance r = bw from the jet


centerline and bw is defined from the usually assumed radial velocity variation:

r2
ur
exp 2
um
bw

(15)

where ur is the entrainment velocity at radial distance r. The length scale bw grows
linearly with x according to (Fischer et al. 1979):
bw 0.107 x

(16)

The variation of the entrained velocity ue with radial distance r beyond the edge of
the jet can be determined by continuity:

uo 2 bw ue 2 r
or

ue uo

29

bw
r

(17)

i.e. the entrained velocity decreases rapidly with distance from the jets in inverse
proportion to the distance r.
Combining Eqs. 4, 13, 15, and 16, we find:
ue 6.2 0.107

ud
r

Assuming = 0.0535 (Fischer et al., 1979), this becomes:


ue 0.035

ud
r

(18)

In other words, the entrainment velocity is constant with x, the distance along the
jet, but decreases rapidly away from the jet in the radial direction. The
entrainment velocity at any location depends only on the source momentum flux
of the jet, which is proportional to ud.
Now we apply this result to case P2. From Table 7, u = 8.9 ft/s, and d = 1.87
in, yielding:
ue

0.049
ft/s
r

(19)

So, at a distance of 3 ft from the jet centerline, the velocity has fallen to about 0.02
ft/s (0.5 cm/s), already much smaller than typical oceanic velocities.
The total volume entrained into the jets is directly related to dilution. It is given
by (Fischer et al. 1979):

QE Q Sa

(20)

where Q is the source discharge rate and Sa the average dilution. The average
dilution Sa = 1.4Sm where Sm is the minimum centerline dilution. So a centerline
dilution of 16:1 requires entraining about 22 times the source flow rate.
The total flux of water passing over the diffuser and BMZ can be estimated
from:
QBMZ U L 2wBMZ H

(21)

where U is the mean oceanic drift speed. The ADCP measurements of Tenera
(2014) at a depth of 30 m near the mouth of the Monterey Canyon imply a mean
drift speed of about 5 cm/s.
6.4 Results and Discussion
The main flow properties for the various dense discharge scenarios of Tables 6
and 7 were computed according to Eqs. 9 through 21. The results are summarized
in Table 10 where the kinematic viscosity was assumed to be 1.2 105 ft 2 /s and
the mean oceanic drift speed U 5 cm/s . In addition, estimates of scales, dilution

30

and entrainment for the baseline domestic wastewater discharge (Case P1, 19.78
mgd) are also shown.
For case P2 (pure brine), the Kolmogorov scale on the centerline ranges from
about 0.012 mm near the nozzle to 0.14 mm at the impact point. At the jet edge it
therefore ranges from about 0.06 mm near the nozzle to about 0.7 mm. The mean
shear rates range from about 57 sec-1 near the nozzle to 0.4 sec-1 at the impact point.
The maximum centerline travel time is about 8 seconds. The mean velocity
profiles of Webster et al. (2001) show that the jet velocity is greater than about 20%
of the maximum over about 80% of the jet width. Therefore, closer to the jet edges,
travel times will be around 40 seconds. Organisms entrained and traveling near
the jet edges will undergo lower intensities (larger eddies) but for longer times.
Clearly, the Kolmogorov scales in the jet will be smaller to or comparable than
the smallest organisms of interest (Table 9). They range from 0.012 to 2.5 mm.
These are mostly somewhat smaller than the Kolmogorov scale due to natural
turbulence in the ocean which in Monterey is about 1 mm (Walter et al. 2014).
Therefore, the Kolmogorov scale of the natural turbulence is also comparable to
larvae size and may cause natural mortality. The incremental mortality due to the
jets are estimated below.
In turbulence, there is a continuous spectrum of eddy sizes and turbulent
kinetic energy from the smallest (Kolmogorov) to the largest (energy-containing)
eddies. For case P2, they range from about 0.01 mm to 0.24 m, so there will be
some eddies of size comparable to the organism sizes that may affect them. It
should be noted, however, that the strain rates (and shear stresses) are maximum
at the Kolmogorov scale and decrease as the eddy size increases.
The volume of water in the jets where turbulent intensities are greater than
background is almost infinitesimally small compared to the volume of the BMZ. It
ranges from 0.006% for case P2 to 0.4% for case V9.
For the brine discharges, only a small fraction of the water passing over the
diffuser is entrained. It ranges from 1.7% for case P2 to 6.4% for case V9. This
estimate depends on the assumed value of the oceanic drift speed, conservatively
assumed to be 5 cm/s. For higher speeds it would be less.
The area of high shear impacted by the diffusers is relatively small and transit
times through this region relatively short. Thus, it seems reasonable to expect that,
while the larvae that experience the highest shear may experience lethal damage,
the overall increase in mortality integrated over the larger area will be low.
The volumes entrained into the brine discharges are much less than into the
baseline (P1) case. This is mainly because the dilutions for the baseline case is
much higher. For the brine discharges the entrainment rates range from 7 to 22%
of those for the baseline case. Therefore, organism mortality for the brine
discharges would also be expected to be about 7 to 22% of the baseline case.

31

Table 10. Summary of Turbulence and Entrainment Calculations


Effluent
Case
No.

Port conditions

Velocity Diam.

Reynolds
number
(x10-5)

Flow

Density

(mgd)

(kg/m3)

(ft/s)

(in)

P1

19.78

998.8

10.0

1.96

1.36

P2

13.98

1045.2

8.9

1.87

P3

14.98

1041.2

8.9

P4

15.98

1038.5

P5

22.98

P6

UM3 predictions

Dilution

Impact Diam- Trajdistance eter ectory

Travel Total
time volume
center- as % of
Volume
line
BMZ

(ft)

(in)

(ft)

(ft3)

(sec)

191

1.16

16.3

10.3

49

12.0

52.4

1.86

1.14

16.9

10.7

51

12.5

9.2

1.89

1.21

17.8

11.8

56

1026.4

11.2

2.07

1.62

35.3

29.0

33.76

1017.6

14.8

2.28

2.35

V1

8.99

1045.2

7.4

1.67

0.86

16.3

V2

9.99

1040.5

7.7

1.70

0.91

V3

10.99

1036.6

7.6

1.71

V4

14.79

1026.4

9.0

V5

28.77

1012.7

V6

9.93

V7

Kolmogorov
scales
At
1 ft

Entrained flows

At
Volume
impact

As % of
BMZ
flux

(mm)

(mm)

(mgd)

0.01

5290

28.5

8.4 0.0064 0.012

0.140

319

1.7

59.1

9.1 0.0073 0.012

0.146

354

1.9

13.6

78.3

10.2 0.0096 0.011

0.153

398

2.1

140

31.9

1137.0

42.3 0.1397 0.009

0.290

1136

6.1

8.7

41

10.4

31.7

8.5 0.0039 0.015

0.152

205

1.1

17.4

9.8

46

11.5

43.6

9.9 0.0054 0.014

0.161

243

1.3

0.91

18.5

10.9

50

12.7

58.4

11.9 0.0072 0.014

0.177

285

1.5

1.88

1.18

32.5

24.0

116

26.5

644.3

40.2 0.0792 0.012

0.305

673

3.6

13.5

2.21

2.07

1041.1

7.7

1.70

0.91

17.2

9.7

46

11.4

44.0

9.7 0.0054 0.014

0.160

239

1.3

10.93

1036.5

7.9

1.74

0.95

18.2

10.9

52

12.7

61.7

11.3 0.0076 0.014

0.171

278

1.5

V8

12.93

1030.6

8.4

1.80

1.05

22.1

14.7

70

16.6

147.1

17.7 0.0181 0.013

0.208

400

2.2

V9

15.23

1026.1

9.0

1.88

1.17

55.4

42.1

204

46.1

3473.9

121.5 0.4268 0.012

0.531

1181

6.4

V10

25.85

1014.7

12.6

2.16

32

6.5 Plankton Entrainment and Mortality


Estimated rates of organism entrainment into the jets were computed as a
product of the entrained volumes from Table 10 and organism concentrations in
in Table 9. The results are shown in Table 11, sorted by organism size from smallest
to largest. Although the absolute numbers of entrained organisms are high, they
represent only a small fraction of those passing over the diffuser, which is similar
to the fraction of water entrained: about 2 to 6% according to Table 10.
Because the natural Kolmogorov scale near the diffuser is about 1 mm, it is
argued that incremental mortality due to the jets will only occur for regions where
the Kolmogorov scale is shorter than this and by organisms smaller than 1 mm. We
assume no incremental mortality for organisms larger than 1 mm. Organisms
smaller than 1 mm comprise only 27% of the total, and the fraction of them that
actually die is uncertain. According to the literature it could be anywhere from zero
to about 50%; we assume the conservative upper limit of 50%. The results are
summarized in Table 11.
We emphasize that 50% is most probably a very conservative upper limit to the
fractional mortality. As discussed, organisms in a jet are subject to its turbulence
for only brief periods of seconds and the turbulence intensity decreases rapidly as
they travel through the jet.
It is useful to combine these estimates to obtain an upper bound for the
fraction of entrained organisms passing over the diffuser that may be subject to
mortality. For case P2, we have, from Tables 10 and 11.
Fraction of

BMZ flux
entrained

Fraction of

Fraction

organisms

mortality 0.017 0.266 0.50 0.0023 0.23%

< 1 mm

Note that similar calculations are made for intakes. For example, Tenera
(2014) estimated larvae entrainment into a proposed intake near the head of the
Monterey Canyon. Because intakes are essentially point sinks, the concept of water
flux passing over them is meaningless so the methods used here do not apply. They
use the ETM (Empirical Transport Model) approach whereby the proportional
mortality of larvae in the source water population is estimated. They estimate the
highest estimated proportional mortality to be of order 0.1% for a 63 mgd intake.
For the diffuser, the volumes entrained for dilution are about 5 to 20 times this
amount so if the same approach were used here approximately 0.5 to 2.0% of the
source flow would be subject to mortality, similar to that estimated in Table 10.
The difference of course is that 100% mortality of entrained organisms is assumed
for intakes whereas a much smaller fraction, if any, larvae die in passing through
the jets.

33

Table 11. Estimates of entrainment and mortality. Organisms sorted by size, small to large.
Case P2
Taxonomic Group
Copepods
Other
Other
Copepods
Copepods
Other
Other
Other
Copepods
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Copepods
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other

Copepod_nauplii
Cladocera_podon
Polychaete_trochophore
Copepod_unid
Corycaeus_sp
Euphausiid_nauplii
Cirripedia_nauplii
Isopod_unid
Oithona_sp
Polychaete_unid
Hydromedusa
Bivalve_veliger
Euphausiid_Calyptopis
Gastropod_larvae
Calanoid
Euphausiid_furcilia
Salp
Appendicularia_unid
Oikopleura_unid
Siphonophore
Pleurobrachia_sp
Decapod_zoea
Chaetognath_unid

Size
(mm)

Count
(#/m3)

0.1 - 0.2
0.2 - 3.0
0.2 - 0.8
0.3 - 5.0
0.3 - 1.5
0.35 - 0.5
0.35 - 0.5
0.4 - 1.0
0.5 - 2.0
0.5 - 5.0
0.5 - 10
0.75 - 1.0
0.8 - 2.2
0.8 - 3.0
1.0 - 5.0
1.0 - 5.6
1.0 - 10
1.0 - 1.5
1.0 - 1.5
1.0 - 5.0
2.0 - 10
2.0 - 5.0
4.0 - 10

77.69
2.83
2.67
33.73
64.31
13.99
13.83
1.97
369.85
4.71
1.41
4.08
613.94
3.30
3052.72
79.68
79.46
58.04
13.83
7.07
3.93
4.40
29.69

Totals

4537.11

34

% of
total
1.71
0.06
0.06
0.74
1.42
0.31
0.30
0.04
8.15
0.10
0.03
0.09
13.53
0.07
67.28
1.76
1.75
1.28
0.30
0.16
0.09
0.10
0.65

Cumulative
%

Entrainment
(#/day)

Incremental
mortality
(#/day)

1.71
1.77
1.83
2.58
3.99
4.30
4.61
4.65
12.80
12.91
12.94
13.03
26.56
26.63
93.91
95.67
97.42
98.70
99.01
99.16
99.25
99.35
100.00

114,680,910
4,172,099
3,940,942
49,790,726
94,933,608
20,649,175
20,409,510
2,902,172
545,978,077
6,953,004
2,086,050
6,026,992
906,316,100
4,868,389
4,506,487,870
117,622,706
117,305,750
85,679,028
20,418,019
10,430,248
5,804,344
6,492,125
43,832,517

57,340,455
2,086,050
1,970,471
24,895,363
47,466,804
10,324,588
10,204,755
1,451,086
272,989,039
3,476,502
1,043,025
3,013,496
453,158,050
2,434,194
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

6,697,780,360

891,853,877

7. DILUTION MITIGATION
7.1 Introduction
This section explores methods to increase dilution for dense discharges (brine,
and brine comingled with secondary and GWR effluents). In particular, it has been
suggested that some combinations of effluents may not achieve sufficient dilution
to meet the water quality requirements of the Ocean Plan. Particularly troublesome
may be ammonia levels when low to moderate volumes of secondary effluent are
added to brine. Trussell (2016) identifies some cases, reproduced in Table 12,
where the dilutions predicted from Tables 7 and 8 are insufficient to achieve the
target goals of 80% of the compliance limit. Note that the dilution Dm used in Table
9 is Dm Sm 1 where Sm is the dilution in Tables 7 and 8 to agree with the
definition of dilution used in the Ocean Plan. It can be seen that cases V6, V7, and
V8 may not achieve sufficient dilution.
Table 12. Minimum Dms required for Variant Project with GWR concentrate flow
(Trussell, 2016)
Minimum required Dm for compliance

Modeled Dm

Case
No.

WW
flow
(mgd)

50% of
Dm
required

80% of
Dm
required

100% of
Dm
required

Cederwall

UM3

NRFIELD

V6
V7
V8
V9
V10

0.0
1.0
3.0
5.3
15.9

69
65
73
80
96

37
41
46
50
60

30
32
37
40
48

15.6
16.4
21.6
76.6
-

16.2
17.2
22.2
55.0
194

220

Several possible mitigation strategies have been suggested to increase dilution:


1. Augment the discharges by adding treated RO water to the brine from the
GWR or desalination facility. This would increase the jet velocities and
decrease the density difference between the effluent and receiving water,
both of which will increase dilution.
2. Increase the flow per port by either temporarily storing on site in a storage
basin and pumping briefly at higher flow rates, or by closing off some ports.
Both would increase the jet velocity and increase dilution.
3. Discharge through upwardly inclined nozzles either by retrofitting the
existing horizontal nozzles or by constructing a new dedicated brine
diffuser.
These options are analyzed in this section, focusing on cases V6, V7, and V8.
In addition, the effect of retrofitting upward nozzles on the MRWPCA diffuser on

35

the dilution of positively buoyant discharges is discussed along with some


engineering issues.
7.2 Flow Augmentation
In this scenario, flows with densities close to freshwater are added to the brine
and secondary effluent mixtures to increase jet velocity and decrease the density
difference between the combined effluent and the receiving water.
The following procedure was followed to analyze this scenario. A quantity of
water was added to the base flow and the new flow rate and effluent density were
computed. The internal hydraulics program was then run and the variations in
effective port diameter and flow per port along the diffuser were obtained. The
calculations account for the variation of port opening with flow as explained in
Appendix A. Dilution calculations were then performed for the ports with highest
and lowest flows and the lowest value of dilution chosen. The dilution calculations
were performed using the Cederwall equation (Eq. 3), and UM3 was also run for
some cases to determine jet trajectories.
The results are plotted as functions of flow added in Figure 18 and are
summarized in Table 13. The effect of added flow on the jet trajectories predicted
by UM3 is shown in Figure 19 for two typical cases: V6.10 and V6.14.

Figure 18. Effect on dilution of added freshwater flows to cases


V6, V7, and V8.

36

Table 13. Effect of added flow on dilution for selected scenarios


Case
No.
V6.10
V6.11
V6.12
V6.13
V6.14
V6.15
V6.16
V6.17
V7.10
V7.11
V7.12
V7.13
V7.14
V7.15
V7.16
V7.17
V8.10
V8.11
V8.12
V8.13
V8.14
V8.15

Combined flow

Port conditions

Background
density

Makeup
Flow

Flow

Density

(kg/m3)

(mgd)

(mgd)

(kg/m3)

(gpm)

(cfs)

1025.8
1025.8
1025.8
1025.8
1025.8
1025.8
1025.8
1025.8
1024.8
1024.8
1024.8
1024.8
1024.8
1024.8
1024.8
1024.8
1024.8
1024.8
1024.8
1024.8
1024.8
1024.8

0.0
0.5
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
5.3
0.0
0.5
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.2
4.6
4.75
0.0
0.5
1.0
2.0
2.5
2.8

9.9
10.4
10.9
11.9
12.9
13.9
14.9
15.2
10.9
11.4
11.9
12.9
13.9
15.1
15.5
15.7
12.9
13.4
13.9
14.9
15.4
15.7

1041.1
1039.0
1037.2
1033.9
1031.1
1028.7
1026.7
1026.1
1036.5
1034.8
1033.2
1030.5
1028.2
1025.8
1025.1
1024.8
1030.6
1029.4
1028.3
1026.3
1025.3
1024.8

54.3
56.3
58.8
58.6
63.9
72.4
76.3
77.8
58.3
57.2
60.2
66.5
67.3
77.3
78.8
78.8
66.5
69.3
72.6
76.3
78.3
78.3

0.121
0.126
0.131
0.131
0.142
0.161
0.170
0.173
0.130
0.128
0.134
0.148
0.150
0.172
0.176
0.176
0.148
0.155
0.162
0.170
0.175
0.175

Flow

Diam.

37

Height

Velocity

(in)

(ft)

(ft/s)

1.70
1.72
1.74
1.74
1.78
1.84
1.87
1.88
1.74
1.73
1.75
1.80
1.81
1.87
1.88
1.88
1.80
1.82
1.84
1.87
1.88
1.88

4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0

7.7
7.8
7.9
7.9
8.2
8.7
8.9
9.0
7.9
7.8
8.0
8.4
8.4
9.0
9.1
9.1
8.4
8.6
8.8
8.9
9.1
9.1

Froude
no.

y/dF

Dilution by
Cederwall
formula

29.5
32.0
34.9
41.3
52.6
74.3
136.2
243.6
34.2
36.7
41.0
51.2
66.3
129.8
241.4
1283.9
50.6
57.8
67.5
104.1
182.6
1291.0

0.96
0.87
0.79
0.67
0.51
0.35
0.19
0.10
0.81
0.76
0.67
0.52
0.40
0.20
0.11
0.02
0.53
0.46
0.39
0.25
0.14
0.02

16.6
17.0
17.6
19.2
21.9
27.3
43.7
72.6
17.4
18.1
19.1
21.4
25.3
42.0
72.0
353.5
21.3
23.0
25.5
35.1
56.1
355.4

Figure 19. Jet trajectories predicted by UM3 for flow


cases V6.10 (red) and V6.14 (blue).

The higher jet velocity and smaller density differences leads to a flatter and
longer trajectory and therefore higher dilution. Of these, the main effect is due to
the decreased density difference because the ports open as the flow increases,
offsetting the increased jet velocity that would occur for a fixed office.
For low added volumes the effect on dilution is small. As the flow increases to
where the density of the combined effluent approaches that of the background, i.e.
the flow becomes neutrally buoyant, the dilution increases exponentially. It
becomes theoretically infinite as for this case the jet trajectory is then horizontal
and the jet centerline does not impact the seabed. For the three cases considered,
the additional volumes required to satisfy the dilution requirements of Table 12
and the volumes for neutral buoyancy are summarized in Table 14.
Table 14. Effect of added freshwater volumes
For 80% compliance
Case
No.

Base
flow

Dilution
needed

(mgd)
V6
V7
V8

9.9
10.9
12.9

38
42
47

Additional
flow

Additional
flow for
neutral
buoyancy

(mgd)

(mgd)

4.8
4.2
2.3

5.5
4.8
2.8

Note that the actual volumes required to achieve the water quality
requirements would be slightly less than those given in Table 14 due to in-pipe
dilution by the added flow that will reduce the source concentrations.

38

7.3 Varied Port Flow


This mitigation technique varies the flow per port. This can be accomplished
either by holding the effluent temporarily in a storage basin and then pumping
intermittently at higher flow rates or by closing some of the open ports or opening
some of the closed ports. More port flow increases the jet exit velocity which
increases entrainment and increases the jet trajectory length thereby increasing
dilution. Because these strategies are essentially identical in terms of their effect
on dilution, only the former case is analyzed here. The results can also be used to
estimate the effects of opening or closing ports. There are presently 129 open ports
and 42 closed ports. So opening all ports would result in a reduction in the flow per
port by 25%. This case is included below.
The procedure is similar to that of the previous section. A pumping rate was
assumed and the internal hydraulics program was run. The highest and lowest port
flows and their diameters were obtained and dilution calculations run for both. The
lowest was chosen. For each pumping rate, the composition of the effluent, i.e. its
density, was assumed constant and equal to that of the base cases.
The resulting dilutions are plotted as a function of pumping rate in Figure 20
and summarized in Table 15. The effect of increased flow on jet trajectory predicted
by UM3 is shown for two typical cases in Figure 21.

Figure 20. Effect of pumping rate on dilution for flow cases


V6, V7, and V8.

The increased jet velocity leads to a longer and flatter trajectory leading to
increased dilution at the impact point. However, as the flow increases, the port
opening also increases, offsetting the increased jet velocity.
The dilution increases quite slowly in response to increased flow rate and the
required dilutions cannot be achieved for flows below about 100 mgd, where the
head required would exceed 50 ft. Note that the effect on dilution of closing ports
is the same and can be readily estimated. For example, a doubling of the pumping
rate is equivalent to closing half the ports.

39

Table 15. Effect of added flow on dilution for selected scenarios


Effluent
Case
No.

V6.20
V6.21
V6.22
V6.23
V6.24
V6.25
V6.26
V6.27
V7.20
V7.21
V7.22
V7.23
V7.24
V7.25
V7.26
V7.27
V8.20
V8.21
V8.22
V8.23
V8.24
V8.25
V8.26

Background
density

Flow

Density

(kg/m3)

(mgd)

(kg/m3)

1025.8
1025.8
1025.8
1025.8
1025.8
1025.8
1025.8
1025.8
1024.8
1024.8
1024.8
1024.8
1024.8
1024.8
1024.8
1024.8
1024.8
1024.8
1024.8
1024.8
1024.8
1024.8
1024.8

9.9
12.0
15.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
60.0
100.0
10.9
12.0
15.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
60.0
100.0
12.9
15.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
60.0
100.0

1041.1
1041.1
1041.1
1041.1
1041.1
1041.1
1041.1
1041.1
1036.5
1036.5
1036.5
1036.5
1036.5
1036.5
1036.5
1036.5
1030.6
1030.6
1030.6
1030.6
1030.6
1030.6
1030.6

Port conditions
Flow
(gpm)
54.3
64.8
75.1
103.3
160.5
207.8
308.3
505.3
58.3
59.4
76.0
105.3
161.4
206.8
307.3
609.7
66.5
77.8
105.9
154.8
205.3
305.8
500.8

(cfs)
0.121
0.145
0.167
0.230
0.358
0.463
0.688
1.127
0.130
0.132
0.169
0.235
0.360
0.461
0.685
1.360
0.148
0.173
0.236
0.345
0.458
0.682
1.117

40

Diam.

Height

Velocity

(in)

(ft)

(ft/s)

1.70
1.79
1.86
2.01
2.21
2.32
2.52
2.87
1.74
1.75
1.86
2.02
2.21
2.32
2.52
3.08
1.80
1.88
2.02
2.19
2.32
2.52
2.86

4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0

7.7
8.3
8.9
10.5
13.4
15.8
19.8
25.1
7.9
7.9
9.0
10.6
13.5
15.7
19.8
26.3
8.4
9.0
10.6
13.2
15.6
19.7
25.0

Froude
no.

y/dF

Dilution by
Cederwall
formula

29.5
30.9
32.6
36.9
45.2
51.8
62.5
74.1
34.2
34.3
37.7
42.5
52.0
59.1
71.4
85.7
50.6
53.1
60.4
72.1
82.8
100.3
119.7

0.96
0.87
0.79
0.65
0.48
0.40
0.30
0.23
0.81
0.80
0.68
0.56
0.42
0.35
0.27
0.18
0.53
0.48
0.39
0.30
0.25
0.19
0.14

16.6
16.4
16.5
16.9
18.3
19.8
22.1
24.5
17.4
17.4
17.7
18.3
20.1
21.7
24.5
27.3
21.3
21.6
22.9
25.5
28.0
32.2
36.8

Figure 21. Jet trajectories predicted by UM3 for flow


cases V7.10 (red) and V7.14 (blue).

The reason for this seemingly paradoxical result is that the dilution for these
cases is primarily a result of jet-induced entrainment. For a pure jet (i.e. a flow with
neutral buoyancy) from a fixed orifice the flow, jet velocity, and entrained flow all
increase in direct proportion to each other. The dilution at any distance from the
nozzle, which is the ratio of the entrained flow to the source flow, therefore remains
constant and is dependent only on the nozzle diameter (Fischer et al. 1979). In
other words, increasing the flow for a pure jet does not increase dilution at a fixed
point.
Dilution at the seabed does increase for the present cases as the flow increases,
however, due to the longer jet trajectory before impacting the seabed as shown in
Figure 21. The effect is again mitigated, however, by the variable opening of the
nozzles: as the flow increases, the increase in jet velocity is much less than for a
fixed orifice. Similarly, reducing the flow per port by opening closed ports does
not result in a significant change in dilution. A fixed orifice would result in longer
trajectories and higher dilutions than found above, but the head required would
probably be prohibitive. It is clear that varying the flow per port either by pumping
at a higher rate or opening or closing ports is not an effective strategy for increasing
dilution.
7.4 Effect of Inclined Nozzles
7.4.1 Introduction
Diffusers for discharging dense effluents normally consists of nozzles that are
inclined upwards. The optimum angle to the horizontal is 60 (Roberts and Abessi,
2014) as this maximizes the jet path length and dilution at the impact point. Such
jets have been extensively studied and a typical flow image is shown in Figure 22.
As shown in the definition diagram, the jet reaches a terminal rise height yt and

41

then falls back to the seabed. The impact dilution, Si, interpreted here as the ZID
dilution, is where the jet centerline intersects the seabed.

yt

Si

Sn

yL

x
xi
xn

LIF image

Figure 1. Definition Sketch


for Inclined
Definition
diagram Dense Jet.

Figure 22. Laser Induced Fluorescence (LIF) image of a 60 jet and definition
diagram.

Inclined jets can be achieved either by retrofitting the existing check valves
with upwardly inclined nozzles or by building a dedicated brine outfall and
diffuser. The analyses are similar and both are considered below. Also discussed is
the effect on dilution of positively buoyant effluents of retrofitting with inclined
jets.
7.4.2 Diffuser Retrofit
The nozzle designs with check valves are shown in Figure A-3 in Appendix A.
For the present analysis it was assumed that valves with similar hydraulic
characteristics (Figure A-2) were installed but inclined upwards at 60.
The dilution Si of a single 60 jet and the terminal rise height yt can be
estimated from (Roberts et al. 1997):

Si
1.6
Fj

(22)

yt
2.2
dFj

(23)

and

where Fj is the jet densimetric Froude number (Eq. 2) and d the effective nozzle
diameter. These equations have been widely used for brine diffuser designs.
The dilutions and jet rise heights for all the base cases with dense discharges
were computed and the results are summarized in Table 16, which can be
compared to Table 7. The hydraulics was assumed to be the same as for the
horizontal jets.
It is apparent that the inclined jets increase dilution substantially. Dilution for
the base case, P2 pure brine, increases from 16:1 to 46:1. All of the required

42

dilutions for cases V6, V7, and V8 are also met and exceeded. The rise heights of
the jets are all less than 100 ft so the jets will always be submerged.
7.4.3 Dedicated Diffuser
A dedicated diffuser for brine discharges would probably consist of multiple
nozzles inclined upwards at 60 to the horizontal. (Not vertical as implied in the
settlement agreement as vertical jets result in impaired dilution). The nozzles
would be either distributed along the sides of the diffuser or clustered in rosette
risers as shown in Figure 23.

Figure 23. A brine diffuser with multiport rosettes.

The analysis for the diffuser would be similar to that for the inclined jets above,
but it is noted that the outfall and diffuser could be much shorter than the existing
outfall. Assuming that the outfall is only used for brine discharges (with all
secondary effluent through the MRWPCA outfall), the peak flow would be about
14 mgd, requiring an outfall diameter of around 24 inches. The outfall need not be
as long as the MRWPCA outfall as shoreline impact is not a major concern and
deep water is not required for dilution. For example (although further analyses
would be needed to optimize the outfall and diffuser lengths and nozzle details),
the rise height of the jets for the pure brine case in Table 13 is about 10 ft, so the
discharge could be into relatively shallow water. Costs for similar outfalls vary
widely, but Roberts et al. (2012) quote a median price range for installed outfalls
of 24 inch diameter of about $3,700 per meter with a range from $1,000 to $8,000
per meter.

43

Table 16. Effect of discharge through 60 nozzles


Background
conditions
Case
No.

P1
P2
P3
P4
P5
P6
V1
V2
V3
V4
V5
V6
V7
V8
V9
V10

Equations 4 and 5 at ZID

Effluent
conditions

Port conditions
Salinity

Salinity

Density

Salinity

Density

(ppt)

(kg/m3)

(ppt)

(kg/m3)

(gpm)

1025.8
1024.8
1024.8
1024.8
1024.8
1025.8
1025.8
1025.8
1024.8
1025.8
1025.8
1024.8
1024.8
1025.8
1024.8

0.80
58.23
53.62
50.32
35.23
24.24
58.23
52.48
47.78
35.20
18.75
53.27
47.78
40.52
35.01
20.67

998.8
1045.2
1041.2
1038.5
1026.4
1017.6
1045.2
1040.5
1036.6
1026.4
1012.7
1041.1
1036.5
1030.6
1026.1
1014.7

76.3
75.0
80.8
117.8
188.5
50.8
54.3
54.6
77.9
160.8
54.3
58.3
66.5
77.8
143.3

33.89
33.34
33.34
33.34
33.34
33.89
33.89
33.89
33.34
33.89
33.89
33.34
33.34
33.89
33.34

Flow

Diam.

Height

Velocity

(cfs)

(in)

(ft)

(ft/s)

0.170
0.167
0.180
0.263
0.420
0.113
0.121
0.122
0.174
0.359
0.121
0.130
0.148
0.173
0.320

1.87
1.86
1.89
2.07
2.28
1.67
1.70
1.71
1.88
2.21
1.70
1.74
1.80
1.88
2.16

4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0

8.9
8.9
9.2
11.2
14.8
7.4
7.7
7.6
9.0
13.5
7.7
7.9
8.4
9.0
12.6

44

Froude
no.

29.0
31.4
35.5
120.3
71.5
25.6
30.1
34.7
102.0
48.9
29.5
34.2
50.6
260.5
52.6

Dilution
y/dF

0.89
0.82
0.72
0.19
1.12
0.94
0.81
0.25
0.96
0.81
0.53
0.10
-

46.3
50.3
56.8
192.5
40.9
48.1
55.6
163.1
47.2
54.7
80.9
416.7
-

Rise
height

At
impact

Increment

(ppt)

(ppt)

(ft)

34.41
33.75
33.64
33.35
34.48
34.27
34.14
33.35
34.30
33.61
33.43
33.89
-

0.53
0.40
0.30
0.01
0.59
0.39
0.25
0.01
0.41
0.26
0.09
0.00
-

9.9
10.7
12.3
45.7
7.8
9.4
10.9
35.1
9.2
10.9
16.7
89.8
-

7.4.4 Effect of Inclined Nozzles on Buoyant Flows


Diffusers for positively buoyant discharges usually have horizontal nozzles (as
in the MRWPCA diffuser) as this maximizes jet trajectory and dilution and helps
promote submergence. Inclining the nozzles upwards may reduce dilution
somewhat. In order to investigate this effect, dilutions for the buoyant discharge
scenarios (P1, P6, V5, and V10) of Table 8 were recomputed but with 60 inclined
nozzles. The same hydraulic conditions were assumed. Dilution simulations were
done with the model UM3 only as NRFIELD assumes horizontal nozzles. The
results are summarized in Table 17.
Table 17. Summary of UM3 Dilution Simulations for Buoyant Effluent Scenarios with
Horizontal and 60 Nozzles
Horizontal
Case
No.

Flow
rate
(mgd)

Effluent
density
(kg/m3)

Port
diam.
(in)

Ocean
condition

P1
P1
P1
P6
V5
V10

19.78
19.78
19.78
33.76
28.77
25.85

998.8
998.8
998.8
1017.6
1012.7
1014.7

2.00
2.00
2.00
2.25
2.18
2.13

Upwelling
Davidson
Oceanic
Davidson
Upwelling
Davidson

60

Average
dilution

Rise height
(centerline)
(ft)

Average
dilution

Rise height
(center
line)
(ft)

191
327
240
154
122
195

58
100 (surface)
82
86
47
100 (surface)

184
310
247
142
111
185

62
100 (surface)
91
93
53
100 (surface)

For buoyant discharges of essentially freshwater into fairly deep water the
dilution is primarily effected by the buoyancy flux, so the source momentum flux,
and therefore the nozzle orientation, is relatively unimportant. This effect is shown
in the trajectories predicted by UM3 for case P1 in Figure 24. The trajectory lengths
are similar with a slightly higher rise for the inclined jets. The results show small
reductions in dilution of about 5% for this case as the trajectory reduction is offset
by the increased plume rise height. For case P1 with the Oceanic density profile,
the results actually imply a slight increase in dilution with the inclined nozzles due
to the increased rise height. For cases P6, V5, and V10 (buoyant discharges with
the density difference reduced due to blending with brine), the momentum flux is
slightly more important, but even here the dilution reduction is less than 10%

45

Figure 24. UM3 predicted trajectories for


horizontal (red) and 60 inclined (blue) nozzles
for case P1 with upwelling density profile.

46

REFERENCES
Abessi, O., and Roberts, P. J. W. (2014). "Multiport Diffusers for Dense
Discharges." J. Hydraul. Eng., http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HY.19437900.0000882, 140(8).
AMS (2016). Water Column Profiles Assessment at Marina for Monterey
Peninsula Water Supply Project Proposed by Cal-Am. Applied Marine
Sciences, Technical Memorandum, January 18, 2016.
Cederwall, K. (1968). "Hydraulics of Marine Wastewater Disposal." Report No. 42,
Chalmers Institute of Technology, Goteberg, Sweden.
Ding, C. A., Carlson, L., Ellis, C., and Mohseni, O. (2005). "Pressure Loss
Coefficients of 6, 8 and 10-inch Steel Pipe Fittings." Project Report 461, St.
Anthony Falls Laboratory, University of Minnesota, February 2005.
Fischer, H. B., List, E. J., Koh, R. C. Y., Imberger, J., and Brooks, N. H. (1979).
Mixing in Inland and Coastal Waters, Academic Press, New York.
Flow Science (2008) MRWPCA brine discharge diffuser analysis. FSI 08414,
Flow Science, Pasadena California, May 12, 2008.
Flow Science (2014) MRWPCA brine discharge diffuser analysis - Additional
scenarios. FSI 134032, Flow Science, Pasadena California, August 25, 2014.
Frick, W. E., Roberts, P. J. W., Davis, L. R., Keyes, J., Baumgartner, D. J., and
George, K. P. (2003). "Dilution Models for Effluent Discharges, 4th Edition
(Visual Plumes)." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental
Research Division, NERL, Standards and Applied Science Division, Office of
Science and Technology,
Frick, W. E. (2004). "Visual Plumes mixing zone modeling software."
Environmental Modelling & Software, 19, 645-654.
Frick, W. E., and Roberts, P. J. W. (2016). "Visual Plumes 2016: An Updated
Public-Domain Plume Model Suite " Proc., International Symposium on Outfall
Systems, ISOS2016, IWA. 10 - 13 May 2016.
Isaacson, M. S., Koh, R. C. Y., and Brooks, N. H. (1983). "Plume Dilution for
Diffusers with Multiple Risers." J. Hydraul. Eng., 109(2), 199-220.
Kikkert, G. A., Davidson, M. J., and Nokes, R. I. (2007). "Inclined Negatively
Buoyant
Discharges."
J.
Hydraul.
Eng.,
10.1061/(ASCE)07339429(2007)133:5(545), 133(5), 545-554.
Lee, J. H. W., and Tang, H. W. (1999) "Experiments of a Duckbill Valve (DBV) Jet
in Coflow." Proc., IAHR Congress, Graz, Austria, August 1999.
Palomar, P., Lara, J. L., Losada, I. J., Rodrigo, M., and Alvrez, A. (2012a). "Near
field brine discharge modelling part 1: Analysis of commercial tools."
Desalination, 10.1016/j.desal.2011.11.037, 290(0), 14-27.
Palomar, P., Lara, J. L., and Losada, I. J. (2012b). "Near field brine discharge
modeling part 2: Validation of commercial tools." Desalination,

47

10.1016/j.desal.2011.10.021, 290(0), 28-42.


Roberts, P. J. W., and Abessi, O. (2014). "Optimization of Desalination Diffusers
Using Three-Dimensional Laser-Induced Fluorescence:
Final Report.
Prepared for United States Bureau of Reclamation." School of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, January 22,
2014.
Roberts, P. J. W., Snyder, W. H., and Baumgartner, D. J. (1989). "Ocean Outfalls.
I: Submerged Wastefield Formation." J. Hydraul. Eng., 115(1), 1-25.
Roberts, P. J. W., Ferrier, A., and Daviero, G. J. (1997). "Mixing in Inclined Dense
Jets." J. Hydraul. Eng., 123(8), 693-699.
Roberts, P. J. W., Salas, H. J., Reiff, F. M., Libhaber, M., Labbe, A., and Thomson,
J. C. (2010). Marine Wastewater Outfalls and Treatment Systems,
International Water Association, London.
Shao, D., and Law, A. W.-K. (2011). "Boundary impingement and attachment of
horizontal offset dense jets." Journal of Hydro-Environment Research,
10.1016/j.jher.2010.11.003, 5(1), 15-24.
SCCWRP (2012). Management of Brine Discharges to Coastal Waters
Recommendations of a Science Advisory Panel. Southern California Coastal
Water Research Project, Technical Report 694, March 2012.
SWRCB (2015). Water Quality Control Plan Ocean Waters of California. State
Water Resources Control Board, California Environmental Protection Agency,
Sacramento, California, Adopted May 6, 2015, Effective January 28, 2016.
Tian, X., and Roberts, P. J. W. (2003). "A 3D LIF System for Turbulent Buoyant
Jet Flows." Expts. Fluids, 35, 636-647.
Tian, X., Roberts, P. J. W., and Daviero, G. J. (2004). "Marine Wastewater
Discharges from Multiport Diffusers I: Unstratified Stationary Water." J.
Hydraul. Eng., 130(12), 1137-1146.
Tenera (2014). Draft Moss Landing Desalination Plant Intake Impact
Assessment: Larval Entrainment. Prepared for DeepWater Desal by Tenera
Environmental, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401.
Trussell Technologies (2016) Minimum Dilution Requirements. Memorandum
June 9, 2016.
Walter, R. K., Squibb, M. E., Woodson, C. B., Koseff, J. R., and Monismith, S. G.
(2014). "Stratified turbulence in the nearshore coastal ocean: Dynamics and
evolution in the presence of internal bores." Journal of Geophysical Research:
Oceans, 10.1002/2014jc010396, 119(12), 8709-8730.
Webster, D. R., Roberts, P. J. W., and Ra'ad, L. (2001). "Simultaneous DPTV/PLIF
measurements of a turbulent jet." Expts. Fluids, 30, 65-72.
Wygnanski, I. and Fiedler, H.E. (1969). "Some Measurements in the SelfPreserving Jet." Journal of Fluid Mechanics 38(3): 577-612.

48

APPENDIX A. DIFFUSER HYDRAULICS WITH CHECK VALVES


1. Introduction
The calculation procedure to predict the internal hydraulics and flow
distribution for diffusers with ports equipped with check valves is described below.
2. Check Valves
Typical check valves similar to those installed on the MRWPCA outfall are
shown in Figure A-1. As the flow though the valve increases, the opening area
increases, up to some limit. The valves attached to the MRWPCA outfall are fourinch flange TideFlex TF-2, Series 35, Hydraulic Code 61. The characteristics of the
valves were provided by the manufacturer, TideFlex, Inc. and are shown in Figure
A-2. The main characteristics are total head loss, jet velocity, and effective opening
area as functions of flow rate.

Figure A-1. Typical Duckbill Check Valves

The relationship E f (Q j ) between the total head, E and flow Qj of Figure A2


over the flow range 50 to 300 gpm can be closely approximated by the linear
relationship:
E 0.020Q j 0.276

(A1)

where E is the head in feet, and Qj the flow rate in gpm. Similarly, the jet velocity
(in ft/s) can be approximated by:
V j 4.71105 Q 2j 6.49 102 Q j 4.28

The effective nozzle area Aj is then given by:


Aj

Qj
Vj

49

(A2)

and the diameter of an equivalent round nozzle, de by:


de

4 Aj

(A3)

Therefore, only the relationship between head and flow, Eq. A1, and flow and
velocity, Eq. A2, are needed and all other properties can be calculated from them.
Alternatively, the equivalent diameter can be calculated from the flow and head
assuming a discharge coefficient of one.

Figure A-2. Characteristics of 4 wide bill TideFlex check valve Hydraulic Code 61

50

3. Port Head Loss


According to the outfall design drawings (Figure A-3), the check valves are
fastened over existing two-inch diameter ports. The entrances to the ports are
gradually tapered bell mouths.

Figure A-3. Port and check valve arrangement

The head loss in the entrance from the diffuser to the port (entrance loss) can
be approximated by:

hf xen

Vd2
2g

(A4)

where xen is an entrance loss coefficient and Vd the velocity in the diffuser pipe at
the port. The value of xen is not known exactly, but experiments on Tee fittings
reported by Ding et al. (2005) give loss coefficients for 6, 8, and 10 inch pipes with
branching flows. For the larger Tees the loss coefficients ranging from about 0.43
to 0.63 depending on the ratio of flow in the branch to the main pipe. We assume
a constant value of xen = 0.63. Because the port entrances are rounded, and most
of the head loss is in the jet velocity head, however, the results are not sensitive to
the value of xen.
Applying the Bernoulli equation to the flow through the port and valve and
combining Eqs. A1 and A4 yields for the head at the port:
E Entrance loss + Valve loss
xen

Vd2
0.020Q j 0.276
2g

which can be rearranged as:


Qj

E xen Vd2 2 g 0.276


0.02

51

(A5)

4. End Gate Port


The end gate of the diffuser has an opening at the bottom as shown in Figure
A-4. It is approximately 2 inches high in a 48-inch diameter pipe which
corresponds to an area of 25.8 in2, equivalent to a round opening of 5.73 inch
diameter.

Figure A-4. End gate opening.

We approximate the discharge though this opening as being equivalent to a


round sharp-edged orifice:
Q CD A 2 gE

(A6)

where CD is the discharge coefficient assumed equal to 0.62, A is the opening area
and E the total head in the pipe just upstream of the end gate.
5. Diffuser and Pipe Head Loss
The head loss due to friction in the diffuser and outfall pipe can be
approximated by the Darcy-Weisbach equation:

hf f

L Vd2
D 2g

(A7)

where L is the pipe length, D the pipe diameter, and f the pipe friction factor, given
by:
k

f f Re,
D

(A8)

where Re is the Reynolds number, Re Vd D where is the kinematic viscosity


and k the equivalent roughness height. The friction factor can be obtained from
the Moody diagram, but for computational purposes it is more convenient to
estimate it from:

0.25
k D 5.74
log 3.7 Re0.9

52

(A9)

Generally accepted values of k for concrete pipe range from 0.012 to 0.12 inches.
We assume an average value of k = 0.066 inches.
6. Calculation Procedure
The calculation procedure is a problem in manifold hydraulics and is iterative,
similar to that described in described in Fischer et al. (1979) or Roberts et al.
(2010). It follows this procedure:
1. Assume a value of the head just upstream of the end gate, E1 . Then compute
the flow Q1 through the end opening from Eq. A6.
2. Compute the velocity in the diffuser pipe just upstream.
3. Compute the pipe friction factor from Eq. A9.
4. Compute the head in the diffuser pipe at the next upstream port from:

E2 E1 f

s Vd2

z
D 2g

(A10)

where s is the port spacing, a o is the density difference between the


receiving water and the discharge, the receiving water density, and z the
height difference between the ports (positive if the inshore port is higher, i.e.
the diffuser is sloping downwards). Note that for a dense discharge, is a
negative number.
5. Compute the flow from the next upstream port, Q2, from Eq. 1.
6. Add the flows Q1 and Q2 to get the flow in the diffuser just upstream of the
port.
7. Repeat steps 2 through 6 for each port until the innermost port is reached.
Finally, the head loss in the rest of the outfall pipe up to the headworks is computed
from

L Vd2
E En f
+ density head
D 2g
where En is the head at the innermost port, n, and L is the outfall length
(excluding the diffuser).
The total flow and head loss in the outfall are not known ahead of time, so the
assumed head is Step 1 is then adjusted iteratively until the desired flow is
achieved. An Excel spreadsheet was written to accomplish these calculations. A
typical page from the spreadsheet for scenario P2 (pure brine) follows. For this
example, the flow per port increases in the offshore direction due to the negative
density head (dense brine discharge).

53

The total head for this case is essentially zero. This seemingly counterintuitive
result is because the density head essentially offsets the losses due to friction and
jet velocity.

54

Compute port flow distribution and total headloss with check valves

Port Flow Distribution

Tideflex Series TF-2, 35


No. ports per riser, Nr =
1
Port spacing, Sr (ft) =
8
Depth of end port, Hend (ft) =
107
Slope of diffuser, Sl = 0.0110
Entrance loss coeff, xen =
0.63

Head at end:
Target flow:
Computed flow:
Pipe
Pipe Port
segment ID number

Distance
from
end

Depth

(in)

(ft)

(ft)

End port
1

48

n
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

0
8
16
24
32
40
48
56
64
72
80
88
96
104
112
120
128
136

107.0
106.9
106.8
106.7
106.6
106.6
106.5
106.4
106.3
106.2
106.1
106.0
105.9
105.9
105.8
105.7
105.6
105.5

Outfall pipe length, L (ft) =


Roughness height, ks (in) =
Gravity, g (ft2/s) =
Ambient density (kg/m3)
Effluent density (kg/m3)
Density difference, Drho/rho =
Kinematic viscosity, nu (ft2/s) =

Outfall friction headloss: 0.81


Diffuser headloss: 1.11
Density head: -1.81
Total outfall head: 0.11

1.26 ft
14.0 mgd
14.0 mgd
Total
head
(ft)
1.26
1.26
1.26
1.26
1.26
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.24
1.24
1.24
1.24
1.24
1.24
1.23
1.23

Per
port
(gpm)
457
76.3
76.3
76.2
76.1
76.0
75.9
75.8
75.8
75.7
75.6
75.5
75.4
75.3
75.3
75.2
75.1
75.0
74.9

10,274
0.066
32.2
1025.8
1045.2
-0.019
1.2E-05

Flow
Per
Cumulative
riser
(gpm)
457
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
75
75
75
75
75
75
75

(gpm)
457
533
609
686
762
838
914
990
1065
1141
1217
1292
1367
1443
1518
1593
1668
1743
1818

MWRPCA Hydraulics

(ft3/s)
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.5
1.7
1.9
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.5
2.7
2.9
3.0
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.7
3.9
4.1

Velocity
Pipe
(ft/s)
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3

Negative

Jet
(ft/s)
5.7
9.0
9.0
9.0
8.9
8.9
8.9
8.9
8.9
8.9
8.9
8.9
8.9
8.9
8.9
8.9
8.9
8.9
8.9

80
Flow per port (gpm)

Inputted variables

100

ft
ft
ft
ft

60
40
20
0
129

97

65

33

Port no. Offshore

Equivalent
round port
Diam.
(in)
5.73
1.87
1.87
1.87
1.86
1.86
1.86
1.86
1.86
1.86
1.86
1.86
1.86
1.86
1.86
1.86
1.86
1.86
1.86

Froude

Reynolds Friction Friction


loss
no.
factor
(ft)

10.5
29.1
29.1
29.1
29.1
29.1
29.1
29.0
29.0
29.0
29.0
29.0
29.0
29.0
29.0
29.0
28.9
28.9
28.9

3.1E+04
3.6E+04
4.0E+04
4.5E+04
4.9E+04
5.4E+04
5.8E+04
6.2E+04
6.7E+04
7.1E+04
7.6E+04
8.0E+04
8.5E+04
8.9E+04
9.3E+04
9.8E+04
1.0E+05
1.1E+05

0.027
0.026
0.026
0.026
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.024
0.024
0.024
0.024
0.024
0.024
0.024
0.024
0.024
0.023

0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000

APPENDIX B. DENSITY PROFILES


The seasonally averaged density profiles assumed for modeling purposes are
summarized below.

Density (kg/m3)

Depth
(m)

Upwelling

Davidson

Oceanic

1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35

1025.1
1025.1
1025.1
1025.2
1025.2
1025.3
1025.4
1025.4
1025.5
1025.6
1025.6
1025.7
1025.7
1025.8
1025.8
1025.8
1025.9
1025.9

1024.8
1024.8
1024.8
1024.8
1024.8
1024.8
1024.8
1024.8
1024.8
1024.9
1024.9
1024.9
1024.9
1024.9
1024.9
1024.9
1024.9
1024.9

1024.8
1024.8
1024.8
1024.8
1024.8
1024.8
1024.9
1024.9
1024.9
1024.9
1025.0
1025.0
1025.0
1025.1
1025.1
1025.2
1025.2
1025.3

56

APPENDIX C. TURBULENCE EFFECTS ON ORGANISMS


Summary of lab and field data (and some models) regarding the effects of turbulence on organisms (from Foster et al.
2013).
Organism
Sea urchin S.
purpuratus
larvae (3 day;
prism)

Shear
stress or
turbulence
Laminar
shear

Method of
generating
shear/turbulence
1

Couette flow ,
short term (30 min)
Couette flow Long
term (8 days of 12
h on, 12 h off)

Sea urchin L.
Laminar
pictus larvae (3 shear
day, 4 arm
pluteus)

Couette flow ,
short term (30 min)
Couette flow Long
term (8 days of 12
h on, 12 h off)

Sea urchin S.
purpuratus

Shear stress Couette flow (short


term: 2 min)

Zebra mussel
Dreissena
polymorpha
veliger

Turbulence

Bubble plume for


24 hours, then 24
feed before
mortality measured

Magnitude of
critical
shear/turbulence
No deleterious
effect with 1
2 3
cm /s
2 3
< 0.1 cm /s

No deleterious
effect with 1
2 3
cm /s
No deleterious
effect with 1
2 3
cm /s
No deleterious
effect with < 200
2 3
cm /s

Effect
Change in prey
encounter rate

Maldonaldo
and Latz
(2011)

Excessive
mortality

Change in prey
encounter rate

Maldonaldo
and Latz
(2011)

Some mortality,
but not much
Fertilization and Mead and
development to Denny 1995,
blastula
Denny,
Nelson and
Mead 2002

Mortality increases Mortality


when d* > 0.9
(eddy similar in
size to larva (no sig
eff when d*<0.9)

57

Reference

Rehmann et
al. 2003

Additional notes
Neg eff cd be due to erosion of
hydromech signal, or if local
velocity faster than catch speed,
reaction time. Mortality was 19%
2 3
for the 0.1 cm /s , 22% for the
2 3
0.4 cm /s , and 53% for the 1
2 3
cm /s flow treatments compared
to 5% for the still control.

Organism
dinoflagellate
Alexandrium
fundyense

dinoflagellate
Alexandrium
fundyense

Shear
stress or
turbulence
Laminar
shear

Method of
generating
shear/turbulence
Couette flow for 1
24 hours/day

Magnitude of
critical
shear/turbulence
Shear stress =
0.003 N/m2 ; = 10
5 cm 2/s3 ; only 1
level

Laminar
shear and
turbulence

Couette flow 1 h/d


58 d and shaken
flasks

Shear stress =
0.004 N/m2 (not
quantified for
shaken flasks
smallest = 0.04
cm2/s3; all had
effect (very very
high )

dinoflagellate
Shear
Lingulodiniu m (steady and
polyedrum.
unsteady)

Couette flow;
constant or
changing
speeds/direction; 2
h/d (change ev 2
min)

Copepod
Acartia tonsa

Turbulence

model

Copepod
Acartia tonsa
Herring larvae

Turbulence

Oscillating grid

Turbulence

model

Cod larvae

Turbulence

model

Effect
Growth rate
decreased when
exposed to for
more than 2
hours/ day
Growth rate
decreased in
both

Starts dropping at Decrease in


prey capture
= 103 cm2/s3
success
Starts dropping at Decrease in
prey capture
= 105 cm2/s3
success

Additional notes

Juhl et al.
2001

Growth rate = 0 when shear 12


h/d; negative when 1624 h/day

Juhl et al.
2000

Most sensitive last hour of dark


phase, under lower light
conditions

Growth rate
Latz et al.
decreased in all 2009
cases; often
catastrophicall y
(near 100%)

Starts dropping at Decrease in


prey capture
= 103 cm2/s3
success

58

Reference

Kirboe and
Saiz 1995

Saiz &
Kirboe 1995
Kirboe and
Saiz 1995
Kirboe and
Saiz 1995

Unsteady flow had more of an


effect than steady, even when
mean was lower; poss
mechanism: mechanical energy of
the flow alters membrane
biophysical properties, activates
signal transduction pathway
involving GTP, [ca2+]I, poss. Also
involves cyclindep kinases, as in
endothelial cells
Copepods that set up feeding
currents are largely independent of
ambient fluid velocity for prey
encounters, while ambush
preying copepods can benefit
substantially

Method of
generating
shear/turbulence
Oscillating grid;
observations start
after 10 min
shaking
Oscillating grid,
observations start
after a few min
shaking
Oscillating grid;
observations start
after 10 min
shaking

Magnitude of
critical
shear/turbulence
= 7.4 x 104
cm2/s3)

Juvenile
Shear stress
rainbow trout
and steelhead
Oncorhynchus
mykiss,
Chinook
salmon O.
tshawytscha,
American shad
Alosa
sapidissima
Water flea
Turbulence
Daphnia pulex

Forced entry
directly into
submerged jet in
flume having exit
velocities of 0 to
21.3 m/s

No effect at 168/s
341/s; LC10
estimated at 495/s

Vibrating 0.5 cm
grid

= 0.05 cm2/s3 (as


compared to calm)

Copepod
Calanus
gracilis
Copepod
Acartia tonsa

Turbulence

Vibrating 0.5 cm
grid

Turbulence

Oscillating grid

Organism
Cod Gadus
morhua (56
mm)

Shear
stress or
turbulence
Turbulence

Cod Gadus
morhua (8.7
12.3 mm)

Turbulence
more
intermitten t

Herring
Clupea
harengus (89
mm)

Turbulence

Effect
Increase in
attack position
rate at all conc

Reference
MacKenzie
and Kirboe
1995

Additional notes
Cod benefit more from turb
(pausetravel)

= .2, 2 x 104
cm2/s3)

While encounter MacKenzie


rate up, pursuit and Kiorboe
success down
2000

= 7.4 x 104
cm2/s3)

Increase in
attach position
rate only at low
conc; v messy
data
Torn opercula,
missing eyes

MacKenzie
and Kiorboe
1995

Nietzel et al.
2004

LC10 =affects 10% of population


Juvenile fish 83232 mm fork
length

Alvarez et al.
1994

HR reflects increase in metabolic


rate?

= 0.05 cm2/s3 (as


compared to calm)

Heart rate
increased 5
27%
Heart rate
increased 93%

Alvarez et al.
1994

Other species too including crab


larvae (increase HR 9%)

= 0.001 cm2/s3
(as compared to
calm)

Decreases
predator
sensing ability

Gilbert and
Buskey 2005

59

Decrease in pursuit success at


higher ; general downward trend
with increased rel vel; smaller fish
larvae affected more
Herring benefit less (cruise)

Organism

Copepod
Acartia tonsa

Copepod
Acartia tonsa
Various

Shear
stress or
turbulence
Turbulence
(field)

Method of
generating
shear/turbulence
Boat wake (field);
plankton tow
inside/ outside
wake

Mini stirrer w
paddles (lab)
Turbulence
(field)

Rapids (samples
collected above
and below rapids

Magnitude of
critical
shear/turbulence
=310 cm2/s3 at a
distance of 50
propeller diam.
behind 20 mm
diam, scalemodel
boat propeller
running at 3000
rpm
= 0, 0.035, 1.31,
2.24 cm2/s3
= 3742 cm2/s3

Effect
More dead
inside wake (5
25% increase,
over 212%
background)

Effects dep on
species: sign.
mortality in
Littorina littorea,
Mytilus edulis,
and Aporrhais
pespelicant

Reference

Additional notes

Bickel et al.
2011

Stain w neutral red

Bickel et al.
2011

= 0.035 cm2/s3 did not show


negative effect

Jessop 2007

Mytilus membranipora, Electra


pilosa, polychaete trochophores
and Lamellaria perspicua had zero
mortality

= energy dissipation rate (cm2/s3)


Couette flow: two concentric cylinders, outer one rotates shearing volume of fluid between cylinders at known rate

60

Bibliography
Alcarez, M., E. Saiz, & A. Calbet. (1994). Small-scale turbulence and zooplankton
metabolism: Effects of turbulence on heartbeat rates of planktonic crustaceans.
Limnol. Oceanogr., 39(6), 1994, 1465-1470
Bickel, S. L., J. D. M. Hammond, & K. W. Tang (2011). Boat-generated turbulence
as a potential source of mortality among copepods. Journal of Experimental
Marine Biology and Ecology 401: 105109
Bruton, M. N. (1985). The effects of suspensoids on fish. Hydrobiologia 125: 221241.
Chesney, E. J., Jr (1989). Estimating the food requirements of striped bass larvae
Morone saxatilis: effects of light, turbidity and turbulence. Mar. Ecol. Prog.
Ser. Vol. 53: 191-200.
Dauvin, J.-C. and J. J. Dodson (1990) Relationship between feeding incidence and
vertical and longitudinal distribution of rainbow trout larvae (Osmerus
mordax) in a turbid, well-mixed estuary. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. Vol. 60: 1-12.
Einav, R., K. Hamssib, D. Periy (2002). The footprint of the desalination processes
on the environment. Desalination 152 (2002) 141-154
Evans, M. S. (1981). Distribution of zooplankton populations within and adjacent
to a thermal plume. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 38: 441-448.
Huang, S., N. Voutchkov, S. C. Jiang (2013). Investigation of environmental
influences on membrane biofouling in a Southern California desalination pilot
plant. Desalination 319: 19
Jessopp, M. J. (2007) The quick and the dead: larval mortality due to turbulent
tidal transport. J. Mar. Biol. Ass. U.K. 87, 675-680.
Jones, I. S. F. & Y. Toba [EDS.]. (2001) Wind stress over the ocean. Cambridge
Univ. Press.
Juhl, A. R., V. Velasquez, M. I. Latz (2000) Effect of growth conditions on flowinduced inhibition of population growth of a red-tide dinoflagellate. Limnol
Oceanogr 45:905915
Juhl, A. R., V. L. Trainer, M. I. Latz (2001) Effect of fluid shear and irradiance on
population growth and cellular toxin content of the dinoflagellate Alexandrium
fundyense. Limnol Oceanogr 46: 758764
Kirboe, T., E. Saiz (1995) Planktivorous feeding in calm and turbulent
environments, with emphasis on copepods. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 122: 135145.
Latz, M.I., J. Allen, S. Sarkar, J. Rohr (2009) Effect of fully characterized unsteady
flow on population growth of the dinoflagellate Lingulodinium polyedrum.
Limnol Oceanogr 54:12431256.
Lunz, R. G. (1938). Part I. Oyster culture with reference to dredging operations in
South Carolina. Part II. The effects of the flooding of the Santee River in April
1936 on oysters in the Cape Romain area of South Carolina. Report to U. S.

61

Engineer Office, Charleston, South Carolina, 1-33.


MacKenzie, B. R. and T. Kirboe (1995). Encounter rates and swimming behavior
of pause-travel and cruise larval fish predators in calm and turbulent laboratory
environments. Limnol. Oceanogr., 40(T), 1995, 1278-1289.
MacKenzie, B. R. and T. Kirboe (2000). Larval fish feeding and turbulence: A case
for the downside. Limnol. Oceanogr., 45(1), 2000, 110
Maldonado, E. M. and Latz, M.I. (2011) Species-specific effects of fluid shear on
grazing by sea urchin larvae: comparison of experimental results with
encounter-model predictions. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 436:119-130
Mead, K. and Denny, M. (1995). Effects of hydrodynamic shear stress on the
fertilization and early development of the purple sea urchin,
Strongylocentrotus purpuratus. Biol. Bull. 188: 46-56.
Miner J.G., Stein R.A. (1996) Detection of predators and habitat choice by small
bluegills: effects of turbidity and alternative prey. Trans Am Fish Soc
125:97103
Peters F, C. Marras (2000). Effects of turbulence on plankton: an overview of
experimental evidence and some theoretical considerations. Mar. Ecol. Prog.
Ser. 205: 291306,
Rehmann, C. R., J.A. Stoeckel, and D.W. Schneider (2003a). Effect of turbulence
on the mortality of zebra mussel veligers. Can. J. Zool. 81: 10631069
Saiz, E., T. Kirboe (1995). Predatory and suspension feeding of the copepod
Acartia tonsa in turbulent environments. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 122: 147-158
SCCWRP (2012), Management of Brine Discharges to Coastal Waters
Recommendations of a Science Advisory Panel, submitted at the request of the
State Water Resources Control Board by the Southern California Coastal Water
Research Project, Costa Mesa, CA, Technical Report 694, March 2012
Vinyard, G. L. and W. J. OBrien (1976) Effects of Light and Turbidity on the
Reactive Distance of Bluegill (Lepomism acrochirus) J. Fish. Res. Board Can.
13:2845-2849.

62

APPENDIX D2

Brine Discharge Diffuser Analysis

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

D2-1

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

This page intentionally left blank

Flo
ow Science Incorporate
ed
48 S
S. Chester Ave., Suite 200, Pasa
adena, CA 9110
06
(626) 304-1134 FAX
F
(626) 304-9
9427

DR
RAFT TECH
HNICA
AL ME
EMORA
ANDU
UM

DAT
TE:

Au
ugust 29, 20
014

TO:

En
nvironmentaal Science Asssociates (ES
SA)

FRO
OM:

Gaang Zhao, Ph
h.D., P.E., Aaron
A
Mead,, P.E., E. Johhn List, Ph.D
D., P.E.

SUBJ
JECT:

MRWPCA
M
Brine
B
Discha
arge Diffuseer Analysis
FS
SI 134032

1. In
ntroduct
tion
As paart of the EIR
R preparatio
on process fo
or the Monteerey Peninsuula Water Suupply Projecct,
Flow
w Science In
ncorporated (Flow Scieence) was rretained to analyze thhe effect thaat
disch
harging desaalination brin
ne through the
t existing Monterey R
Regional Waater Pollutioon
Contrrol Agency (MRWPCA
A) ocean outffall would hhave on oceaan water quaality adjacennt
to thee outfall.
In Au
ugust 2014, Flow
F
Sciencce performed
d a modelingg analysis off four dischaarge scenarioos
for th
he Monterey
y Peninsula Water
W
Supplly Project, aas summarizzed in Tablee 1. For eacch
scenaario, effluentt dilution waas analyzed for
f zero oceaan current coonditions.
Table 1 Diffuser scenarioos modeled
d
Sccenario No.

Scenario Name
N

Diischarge Ratee (mgd*)

Upwelling (July),
(
Brine Only
O

13.98

Davidson (JJan.), Brine Only


O

13.98

Davidson (JJan.), Brine an


nd Wastewateer

Oceanic (Seept.), Brine Only

333.76 (= 13.98+ 19.78)


13.98

*m
mgd = million gallons
g
per day
y.

M
m (TM) summ
marizes the analyses Floow Science ccompleted foor
This Technical Memorandum

Pasadena, CA Philadelphia, PA Harrisonburg, VA


www.flowscience.com

ESA
August 29, 2014
the four scenarios presented in Table 1 and describes the input data, results, and methods
Flow Science used to analyze the proposed discharges. Analyses for additional discharge
scenarios were also completed by Flow Science,and the TM for these additional
discharge scenarios is attached as Appendix C.
2. Analysis Input Data
Diffuser Configuration
The existing MRWPCA diffuser has 172 ports. Half of the ports discharge horizontally
from one side of the diffuser and half discharge horizontally from the other side of the
diffuser in an alternating pattern. Since Visual Plumes does not have the capability to
model ports on alternating sides of a diffuser, all ports were modeled to be on one side of
the diffuser. This simplification has no effect on the dilution of negatively buoyant
plumes because all modeled negatively buoyant plumes (Scenarios 1,2 and 4) did not
overlap or interact before reaching the ocean floori.e., within the zone of initial dilution
(ZID). For the positively buoyant cases (Scenario 3) the model results are conservative
because the plumes from individual ports overlap more quickly under modeled conditions
than in reality, and so modeled effluent dilutions for the positively buoyant scenarios are
somewhat lower than would be reflected in reality.
According to MRWPCA, the fifty-two (52) ports nearest to the shore (i.e., the shallowest
ports) are currently closed.
In this analysis, Flow Science calculated plume
concentrations for effluent discharged through the 120 open ports. A typical section of
the current diffuser is shown in Figure 1, although the actual cross-sectional profile of
the pipe ballast may have changed over time. The ports are approximately 6 inches
above the rock bedding of the diffuser pipeline, and drawings1 (see Figure 1) indicate
that they are located a minimum of approximately 3.5 feet above the seafloor. The gravel
bedding dimensions are nominal, as shown in Figure 1, and therefore, the port height
above the seafloor is not known with high accuracy. Momentum of the effluent is a key
factor in determining the dilution within the ZID. Toward the end of the ZID, the plume
slows down and mixing is not as strong as at the beginning of the ZID. Therefore, the
dilution results are not likely to change by much if the port height is not precisely known
and, considering the overall uncertainty in the analysis, it is not critical to determine the
diffuser port height with high accuracy. In this analysis, it was assumed that effluent
plumes do not interact with the ballast, which is supported by the plume dimensions
computed. Details of the current diffuser configuration are summarized in Table 2.

Section F, Drawing P-0.03, Contract Documents Volume 1 of 1: Ocean Outfall Contract No. 2.1, January
1982 by Engineering Science for MRWPCA.

ESA
August 29, 2014
Table 2 Current diffuser configuration.
Parameter
Diffuser length
Depth of diffuser ports
Number of open ports
Port spacing
Port diameter
Port exit condition
Port vertical angle
Port elevation above sea floor

Value
1368 feet (417 m*)
95 to 109 feet below MSL
120
8 feet (2.44 m*)
2 inches (0.051 m*)
Tideflex Series 35 4-inch duckbill valves
0 (horizontal)
3.5 feet (1.07 m*)

*m = meters

Figure 1. Typical diffuser section (currently in place).


The 120 ports that are currently open are fitted with Tideflex duckbill check valves, as
shown in Figure 2. The shape of the duckbill valve opening is elliptic and the area of
the opening depends on the discharge flow rate. The valve opening area in this analysis
was determined from an effective open area curve provided by Tideflex Technologies
(included as Appendix A). Although the ports were modeled as round openings with the
same opening area as the duckbill valves, because of the oblateness of the actual port
opening, the actual dilution will be slightly higher than the dilution computed assuming
circular ports. This is because the perimeter of ellipse, which is where the entrainment
of diluting water occurs, is larger than that of a circle.

ESA
August 29, 2014

Figure 2. Typical duckbill valve detail (shown closed, i.e., with no flow).
Discharge Characteristics
Salinity (or total dissolved solids [TDS]) and temperature data for the brine (Scenarios 1
through 4) and the MRWPCA wastewater (Scenario 3) have been provided by ESA.
TDS is a measure of water salinity, and salinity and temperature are used to calculate the
density of the effluent and ambient ocean water, which are important parameters in
dilution analyses.
As summarized in Table 1, ESA selected three seasonal ocean conditions for analysis:
Upwelling (July), Davidson (January), and Oceanic (September). Therefore, discharge
rate, temperature, and salinity/TDS data for these months, presented in Table 3, were
used in the analysis. For the combined brine and wastewater flow scenario (Scenario 3),
the desalination brine was assumed to be fully mixed with the wastewater. Thus, the
temperature and salinity of the combined flow were calculated as the flow-weighted
average temperature and salinity of the brine and wastewater.
The analyses completed as part of this study are summarized in Table 3. All scenarios
were analyzed for zero ocean current velocity conditions, which represent worst-case
conditions since any ocean current only increases dilution. Ocean currents increase the
amount of dilution that occurs because they increase the flow of ambient water past the
diffuser (i.e., increase the amount of ambient water available for mixing with the

ESA
August 29, 2014
discharge). Although ocean currents increase effluent dilution, the California Ocean Plan
(State Water Resources Control Board, SWRCB, 2009) requires that the no-current
condition should be used in initial dilution calculations.

Table 3 Summary of analyses for Scenarios 1 through 4.


Analysis
Scenario
Number

Effluent Effluent
Flow
Salinity
(mgd)
(ppt*)

Effluent
Temp.
(oC)

Seasonal
Condition

Effective
Diffuser
Port
Port
Diameter
Angle
(in)

1.1

13.98

58.23

9.9

Upwelling
(July)

1.86

2.1

13.98

57.40

11.6

Davidson (Jan.)

1.86

3.1

33.76

24.23

16.5

Davidson (Jan.)

2.29

4.1

13.98

57.64

11.1

Oceanic (Sept.)

1.86

* ppt = parts per thousand.

Receiving Water Profiles


ESA provided Flow Science with representative ocean receiving water profile data
(temperature and salinity) for the three months corresponding to the selected discharge
scenarios (July, January, and September). Receiving water profile data were collected by
the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute (MBARI) at station C1 at the head of
Monterey Canyon, approximately five miles northwest of the MRWPCA wastewater
ocean outfall (see Figure 3). This location has been occupied since 1988 by MBARI.
Monthly conductivity, temperature, and depth (CTD) profiles have been collected since
2002. The proximity of the location to the MRWPCA ocean outfall and the long data
record make this the most appropriate and useful data set to characterize the ambient
conditions for the brine discharge analysis. Vertical profiles of temperature and salinity
were analyzed for the upper 50 meters of the water column for the years 2002-2012, and
a single representative profile was selected for each of the three ocean seasons. For the
July model run, temperature and salinity profiles from 2011 were selected. For the
September model run, profiles from 2004 were selected. For the January model runs, a
temperature profile from 2004 and a salinity profile from 2011 were selected. Profile
data are shown in tabular form in Appendix B. Maximum and minimum values for each
profile are shown in Table 4.

ESA
Augu
ust 29, 2014

Ou
utfall

Figu
ure 3. Locattion map, MBARI
M
ocean monitorinng stations and MRWP
PCA outfall.

Ta
able 4 Ma
aximum and minimum
m ocean pro file data.
Parameter

Season

Salinity
S
(ppt)

Tem
mperature (C )

M
Minimum

M
Maximum

Upwellling (July)

33.7

33.9

Davidsson (January))

33.2

33.5

Ocean
nic (Septembeer)

33.5

33.6

Upwellling (July)

10.0

13.0

Davidsson (January))

10.7

12.7

Ocean
nic (Septembeer)

10.6

15.8

Sourcee: ESA (2013); Appendix


A
B.

Receiving waterr flow condittions


gure 1, the existing
e
diffu
fuser ports arre located juust above thee mid-point oof
As deetailed in Fig
the ou
utfall pipe (ii.e., below th
he crown of the outfall ppipe), about 6 inches aboove the top oof
the ballast used to anchor thee diffuser to the seafloorr. Because tthe outfall riises above thhe

ESA
August 29, 2014
seafloor, it will influence the patterns of currents (receiving water flow velocity) at the
ports, and the current velocity at each individual port will be a complex function of the
local geometry. Local field data collection would be required to characterize the actual
current conditions at the diffuser ports, which was beyond the scope and budget of this
analysis. To simplify the analysis, effluent dilution was analyzed for a uniform 0.0 fps
current, which amounts to a worst case, stagnant (no current) receiving water
condition. Stagnant conditions are typically used as the basis for developing NPDES
permits, and the California Ocean Plan (SWRCB, 2009) requires the no-current condition
be used in initial dilution calculations.
3. Negatively Buoyant Plume and ZID
The effluent and ocean profiles data presented in Tables 3 and 4 indicate the effluent is
negatively buoyant for Scenarios 1, 2 and 4. A sketch of the trajectory of a negatively
buoyant jet is shown in Figure 4, where 0 is the port angle, d is the port diameter, s is
distance in the direction of the port centerline, n is distance in the direction perpendicular
to the port centerline, zme is the maximum rise of the plume, M0 is the initial momentum
flux at the point of discharge, and Mb is the buoyancy-generated momentum flux. The
impact point is the location where the plume centerline returns to the port height level,
and x0R is the distance between the port and the impact point.

Figure 4. Definition schematic for negatively buoyant jet (Kikkert, et al., 2007).
The methods described in the next section calculate the size of the plume and dilution of
the discharged effluent within the Zone of Initial Dilution or ZID. The ZID is defined
as the zone immediately adjacent to a discharge where momentum and buoyancy-driven
mixing produces rapid dilution of the discharge. In this analysis, the ZID ends at the
point where the discharge plume impacts the seafloor for a dense (sinking) plume; and for
a positively buoyant (rising) effluent, the ZID ends at the point where the effluent plume
reaches the water surface or attains a depth level where the density of the diluted effluent
plume becomes the same as the density of ambient water (i.e., the trap level).
7

ESA
August 29, 2014
Typically, within the ZID, which is limited in size, constituent concentrations are
permitted to exceed water quality standards. A discharge is generally required to meet
the relevant water quality standards at the edge of the ZID.
Beyond the point where the plumes reach the seafloor, some additional mixing will
occur, and the discharged brine (now diluted) will travel along the seafloor as a density
current. Based on the bathymetry near the diffuser, which steadily slopes out to sea, there
is no bowl in which effluent could accumulate indefinitely. Rather diluted effluent
driven by gravity would flow downslope and gradually disperse. Estimation of the
spreading of the plume on the seafloor would require detailed bathymetry data near the
diffuser and use of additional analysis methods, such as a three-dimensional model or a
physical model of the discharge. Similarly, the analysis of the buoyant (rising) plume
within and beyond the trap level would require additional analysis methods. In the
analysis presented here the spreading of the effluent on the seafloor, or within and
beyond the trapping level and the subsequent additional dilution that would ensue, has
not been analyzed. Flow Science recommends that the computed dilution at the seafloor,
or at the trapping level, (i.e., at the end of the ZID), be used as the basis for any NPDES
permitting activities and to analyze impacts.
4. Plume Analysis Methods
Two analysis methods have been used to evaluate the discharge of desalination brines
(negatively buoyant plumes) from the MRWPCA diffuser: a semi-empirical method
based on the work of Roberts et al. (1997) and Kikkert et al. (2007) and EPAs Visual
Plumes method. The Visual Plumes method was also used to model scenarios where the
effluent density is less than seawater (positively buoyant, or rising, plumes). Both the
semi-empirical method and Visual Plumes were used to characterize negatively buoyant
plumes in order to understand the range of dilution that might be expected for discharge
from the MRWPCA diffuser system. The semi-empirical method also provides some
level of redundancy and confirmation of results because Visual Plumes, although widely
used in diffuser discharge analysis, has only very recently been validated against limited
experimental data for the case of a negatively buoyant plume. The main advantage of the
semi-empirical analysis method is that it is well-grounded in empirical observations, and
thus is well-tested and has been verified by comparison to a relatively large dataset for
this specific discharge condition. The main disadvantage is that the semi-empirical
method requires longer to complete an analysis for a given discharge scenario. The
analysis techniques for these two methods are described below.
4.1 Semi-Empirical Analysis Method
Laboratory studies of negatively buoyant jets and plumes have been conducted by many
researchers (e.g., Kikkert et al., 2007; Roberts et al., 1997). Most of these have been
8

ESA
August 29, 2014
conducted for inclined jets (i.e., jets that discharge upward at an angle), which increases
the initial mixing of the plume. Fewer studies are available to characterize the mixing of
negatively buoyant plumes from horizontally-oriented discharge ports. In the following
sections, the general equations for a negatively buoyant jet from an angled port are
presented first. The equations for a horizontal discharge are then derived from the
general equations.
Discharge of a negatively buoyant jet from an angled port
Plume trajectory
The trajectory of a negatively buoyant discharge under a stagnant flow condition (i.e., no
ambient current) can be computed from the following equations (Kikkert, et al., 2007)
(see Figure 4 for nomenclature).
M B* cos 0
dn*

ds* 1 M B* sin 0

(1)

where:
s* s / d
n* n / d
s and n are the distances in directions along and perpendicular to the discharge port
centerline, respectively; d is the effective diameter of the port (see Figure 4); and M B* is
the dimensionless buoyancy-generated momentum flux, which can be calculated from
Eq. (2).

M B*

s*2
0.154 2
F0

(2)

where F0 is the initial densimetric Froude number:

F0

U0

gd 0 a / a

where
U0 = initial jet velocity
g = gravitational acceleration
0 = initial density of the jet

a = ambient water density


9

ESA
August 29, 2014

Substituting Eq. (2) into Eq. (1) and integrating gives an equation for the discharge
trajectory:
s* sin 1 / 2 0 1 2.6 F0 s* sin 1 / 2 0
2.6 F0

ln
n*
(3)

2.6 F0
2 2.6 F0 s* sin 1 / 2 0
tan 0 sin 1 / 2 0
Results from Eq. (3) agreed well with experimental data (Kikkert, et al., 2007).
Discharge of a negatively buoyant jet from a horizontal port

Plume trajectory
The plume trajectory of a horizontal discharge can be estimated using the equations for
an angled jet. Specifically, for a horizontal discharge (i.e., 0 =0), Eq. (3) simplifies to
the following relationship:
n* 0.051

s*3
F02

(4)

Plume dilution for a horizontal discharge


For the horizontally discharged effluent, the empirical equations from Fischer et al., 1979
(Table 9.2, pp. 328) were used to compute the width and dilution of the effluent. i.e.,
Plume width=2*0.13*distance along plume

(5)

The plume width calculated from Eq. (5) defines the edge of the plume as the location
where the concentration is 37% (= e-1, which is often used to characterize plume width)
of the centerline concentration.
The volume flux and dilution are specified by:
Volume flux 0.25M 1 / 2 *distance along plume

(6)

Dilution = /(discharge flow rate)

(7)

where M=QU0 is the initial momentum flux of the effluent (Q and U0 are the flow rate
and initial velocity of the effluent, respectively).
Note that the semi-empirical analysis uses Kikkert for the trajectory and Fischer for
dilution for 0 discharges.

10

ESA
August 29, 2014

4.2 Visual Plumes Analysis Method


Methodology

The UM3 modelpart of the EPA Visual Plumes diffuser modeling packagewas used
to simulate the discharge of desalination brine and wastewater from the existing
MRWPCA ocean diffuser. Visual Plumes is a mixing zone computer model developed
from a joint effort led by US EPA. Visual Plumes can simulate both single and merging
submerged plumes, and stratified ambient flow can be specified by the user. Visual
Plumes can be used to compute the plume dilution, trajectory, diameter, and other plume
variables (US EPA, 2003).
The UM3 model is based on the projected area entrainment hypothesis, which assumes
ambient fluid is entrained into the plume through areas projected in directions along the
plume centerline and perpendicular to the centerline (US EPA, 1994). In addition, shear
entrainment is included. The plume envelope is assumed to be in steady state, and as a
plume element moves through the envelope, the element radius changes in response to
velocity convergence or divergence, and entrainment of ambient fluid. Conservation
equations of mass, momentum and energy are used to calculate plume mass and
concentrations.
The actual depth of the diffuser ports varies between 95 and 109 feet below mean sea
level (MSL) since the diffuser is quite long and is situated on a sloping portion of the
ocean floor. However, since Visual Plumes cannot model a sloping diffuser, an average
depth of 104 feet below MSL was used (the deepest 120 ports on the diffuser are assumed
to discharge in this case, thereby increasing the average port depth). Modeled ocean
conditions are summarized in Table 5.
As with the semi-empirical method, Visual Plumes assumes circular discharge ports, so
the actual elliptical discharge area was calculated for each port (Appendix A) and then
converted to an effective circular discharge diameter for use in Visual Plumes.
A study by Palomar et al. (2012a, 2012b) showed that the UM3 model of the Visual
Plumes can be applied to simulate negatively buoyant discharges. However, the study
also showed that the UM3 model underpredicted centerline dilution ratios at the impact
point by more than 50% for a negatively buoyant effluent discharged into a stagnant
environment; for a number of scenarios with negatively buoyant effluent discharged into
an ambient current, centerline dilution ratios at the impact point calculated by the UM3
model ranged from 40% lower to 7% higher than experimental data. The UM3 model of
the Visual Plumes was used in this analysis to model negatively buoyant effluent
discharged into a stagnant environment. As noted, the study of Palomar et al. (2012a,
2012b) has shown that the centerline dilution ratios computed using the UM3 model were
11

ESA
August 29, 2014
more than 50% lower than data from experiments with similar discharge conditions. For
this reason, the average dilution ratios calculated using UM3, which are nearly double the
centerline dilution ratios, were used to estimate dilution of negatively buoyant plumes in
this analysis. Since Visual Plumes has been more thoroughly validated for positively
buoyant plumes, it alone was used for scenarios with rising plumes.

Table 5 Visual Plumes modeled seasonal ocean conditions.


Depth (m)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38

Upwelling (July)
Salinity
Temp.
(ppt)
(oC)
12.98
33.78
12.87
33.77
12.64
33.74
11.97
33.71
11.61
33.70
11.34
33.70
11.10
33.73
10.84
33.75
10.51
33.78
10.38
33.79
10.38
33.80
10.38
33.80
10.38
33.82
10.38
33.82
10.38
33.84
10.38
33.84
10.37
33.84
10.31
33.84
10.30
33.84
10.30
33.84

Davidson (January)
Temp.
Salinity
(oC)
(ppt)
12.65
33.20
12.65
33.22
12.65
33.22
12.65
33.23
12.74
33.24
12.57
33.26
12.50
33.28
12.42
33.30
12.33
33.30
12.24
33.30
12.22
33.28
12.07
33.30
12.05
33.30
11.90
33.30
11.81
33.32
11.71
33.34
11.71
33.37
11.63
33.39
11.63
33.42
11.54
33.43

Source: Interpolated from ESA | Water (2013) ocean profile data, Appendix B.

Oceanic (September)
Temp.
Salinity
(oC)
(ppt)
15.75
33.46
15.75
33.46
15.75
33.46
15.53
33.46
14.46
33.46
13.81
33.46
13.17
33.46
12.27
33.46
11.83
33.46
11.52
33.46
11.19
33.46
11.06
33.46
11.22
33.49
11.39
33.50
11.39
33.50
11.31
33.50
11.23
33.50
11.22
33.50
11.05
33.50
10.97
33.50

5. Dilution Results

Several key results for the effluent plumes are reported at the edge of the ZID. As noted
above, the ZID is defined as the zone immediately adjacent to a discharge where
momentum and buoyancy-driven mixing produces rapid dilution of the discharge.
Results for positively buoyant plumes presented in this Technical Memorandum were
taken at the point where the plumes just reached the trap level, which is the depth level
where the density of the diluted plume becomes the same as ambient seawater.
Horizontal spreading of plumes at their trap levels was not included in this analysis.
Results from each scenario generally include the following quantities:

12

ESA
August 29, 2014

the horizontal distance from the diffuser port to the point at which the plume
impacts the seafloor or reaches the trap level
the dilution of the plume at the point at which the plume impacts the seafloor or
reaches the trap level; for the semi-empirical method and the Visual Plumes
analyses of rising plumes, centerline dilution is provided, while for the Visual
Plumes analyses of negatively buoyant discharges, the average dilution within the
plume is provided, in recognition of the conservative nature of Visual Plumes
results for negatively buoyant plumes (see, e.g., Palomar et al., 2012a and 2012b)
an estimate of the size of the plume (diameter) at the point of impact or just below
the trap level (i.e., at the edge of the ZID)
the maximum salinity at the seafloor (edge of ZID for negatively buoyant plumes)
the percentage by which the maximum plume salinity at the seafloor (edge of ZID
for negatively buoyant plumes) exceeds the ambient salinity.

Figure 5 shows a sample schematic graphic of the trajectory of a negatively buoyant


plume from a horizontal discharge drawn approximately to scale. As the effluent travels
away from the discharge port, it entrains ambient seawater, which increases the diameter
of the plume and decreases the plume concentration.

Figure 5. Sample graphic showing plume trajectory for the horizontal discharge
configuration.

Table 6 presents analysis results for the four modeled scenarios. The plume in analysis
3.1 was positively buoyant (i.e., had discharge densities less than ambient seawater).
This is because the plume in this analysis was a mixture of desalination brine and
relatively significant amounts of comparatively non-saline (i.e., fresh) wastewater
effluent. For all other analyses the plumes were negatively buoyant (i.e., water denser
than ambient seawater is discharged) since they consisted only of desalination brine,

13

ESA
August 29, 2014
which is more dense than regular seawater. Results in Table 6 show that the trajectory,
diameter and dilution of the negatively buoyant plumes were nearly the same across all
three modeled seasons, because the trajectories of these negatively buoyant plumes were
short and close to the seafloor, where the differences in salinity and temperature (hence
the difference in density) between the effluent and ambient sea water changed only
slightly over the modeled seasons. Therefore for brine only cases, characteristics of the
resulting plumes were nearly the same for the three modeled scenarios.
Dilution values predicted by the semi-empirical method were lower than the dilution
values predicted by the Visual Plumes method. The predicted maximum plume salinity
at the seafloor was 1.5 ppt above ambient ocean salinity.
Figures 6 and 7 illustrate the trajectory and shape of the negatively buoyant plume
computed from Visual Plumes for Analysis 1.1 (as listed in Table 3 and Table 6).
Figure 8 is an illustration of positively buoyant plumes just reaching the trap level, as
computed from Visual Plumes for Analysis 3.1. Spreading of the plume within and
beyond the trap level is not shown. Plumes computed for other scenarios have similar
trajectories and shape as shown in these figures.

14

ESA
August 29, 2014

Table 6 Analysis results.


Semi-empirical method
Ocean
bkgrd.
Diffuser
Effluent Discharge
Effluent salinity
Max.
port
Analysis discharge Velocity Seasonal
Plume
salinity
at
Plume
Horiz. height
number flow rate
(feet/
Centersalinity
Condition angle
(ppt) diffuser diam.
Distance above
(mgd)
second)
line
at calc.
(o)
depth
(d)
from
port
Dilution
dilution
(ppt) (inch)
port (ft) (zme)
(ppt)
(ft)

1.1

13.98

9.5

2.1

13.98

9.5

3.1

33.76

15.2

4.1

13.98

9.5

Upwelling
(July)
Davidson
(Jan.)
Davidson
(Jan.)
Oceanic
(Sept.)

VP method
Max.
Salinity
Plume Salinity
Horiz. height
increase Plume
salinity increase
Average Distance above
above diam.
at calc. above
Dilution from
port
ambient (inch)
dilution ambient
port (ft) (zme)
(ppt)
(ppt)
(ppt)
(ft)

0o

58.23

33.84

36

16

12

--

35.36

1.5

42

25

8.6

--

34.82

1.0

0o

57.40

33.36

37

16

12

--

34.83

1.5

42

25

8.7

--

34.30

0.9

0o

24.23

33.36

--

--

--

--

--

--

230

68 a

47

32 b

--

--

0o

57.64

33.50

35

16

12

--

35.01

1.5

42

25

8.7

--

34.47

1.0

Source: Flow Science Analysis, 2014.


a

For Analysis 3.1, the dilution value is centerline dilution because the Visual Plumes model has been validated for positively buoyant plumes and no
significant underprediction of dilution has been reported.

These values are trap levels above the diffuser.

15

ESA
August 29, 2014

Figure 6. Analysis 1.1 (13.98 mgd, 58.23 ppt), plume computed from VP.
Minimum dilution at seafloor is 25 (maximum salinity of 34.82 ppt).

Figure 7. Analysis 1.1 (13.98 mgd, 58.23 ppt), plume computed from VP (3D view,
only 4 ports are shown). Minimum dilution at seafloor is 25 (maximum salinity
of 34.82 ppt).

16

ESA
August 29, 2014

Figure 8. An illustration of the positively buoyant effluent plumes of Analysis 3.1.


Note that only four diffuser ports are illustrated.

17

ESA
August 29, 2014

5. References

Fischer, H.B., List, E. J., Koh, R. C. Y., Imberger, J. Brooks, N. H. (1979) Mixing in
Inland and Coastal Waters, Academic Press, 483 pp.
Kikkert, G.A.; Davidson, J.; and Nokes, R.I. (2007). Inclined Negatively Buoyant
Discharges. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 133(5), pp545-554.
Palomar, P., Lara, J.L., Losada, I.J., Rodrigo, M., and Alvrez, A. (2012a). Near Field
Brine Discharge Modelling Part 1: Analysis of Commercial Tools. Desalination
290, pp14-27.
Palomar, P., Lara, J.L., Losada, I.J., Rodrigo, M., and Alvrez, A. (2012b). Near Field
Brine Discharge Modelling Part 2: Validation of Commercial Tools. Desalination
290, pp28-42.
Roberts, P. J.W.; Ferrier, A.; and Daviero, G. (1997). Mixing in Inclined Dense Jets.
Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 123(8), pp693-699.
State Water Resources Control Board (2009). California Ocean Plan, Water Quality
Control Plan for Ocean Waters of California.
US EPA (1994). Dilution Models for Effluent Discharges (3rd edition). EPA/600/R94/086, June, 1994.
US EPA (2003). Dilution Models for Effluent Discharges (4th edition). EPA/600/R03/025, March, 2003.

18

ESA
August 29, 2014

APPENDIX A DUCKBILL VALVE,


EFFECTIVE OPEN AREA

A-1

ESA
Augu
ust 29, 2014

Chart
C
provided
d by Tideflex Technologies.

A--2

ESA
August 29, 2014

APPENDIX B AMBIENT OCEAN PROFILE DATA

B-1

ESA
August 29, 2014
Table B1- Ambient ocean profile data, MBARI station C1
(Source: ESA)
Upwelling(July)
2011Profile
2011Profile
S(ppt)
33.78
33.76
33.78
33.78
33.76
33.74
33.72
33.74
33.72
33.70
33.70
33.70
33.70
33.70
33.72
33.74
33.74
33.74
33.76
33.78
33.78
33.78
33.80
33.80
33.80
33.80
33.80
33.82
33.82
33.82
33.82
33.84
33.84
33.84
33.84
33.84
33.84
33.84
33.84
33.84
33.84
33.84
33.84
33.84
33.84
33.84
33.84
33.84

Z(m)
0.93
1.97
1.98
3.03
4.06
4.05
4.04
5.10
5.09
6.13
7.17
8.22
9.27
10.32
11.37
12.43
13.48
14.52
14.53
15.59
16.64
17.69
18.74
19.79
20.84
21.89
22.93
23.99
25.04
26.08
27.13
28.19
29.24
30.28
31.33
32.38
33.42
34.47
35.52
36.57
37.61
38.66
39.71
40.75
41.80
42.85
43.90
44.94

T( C)
12.98
12.91
12.84
12.77
12.77
12.70
12.63
12.56
12.35
12.28
12.21
12.14
12.07
12.00
11.93
11.86
11.79
11.72
11.65
11.58
11.51
11.44
11.36
11.29
11.29
11.22
11.15
11.08
11.08
11.01
10.94
10.87
10.80
10.73
10.66
10.59
10.52
10.45
10.38
10.38
10.38
10.38
10.38
10.38
10.38
10.38
10.38
10.38

Z(m)
0.59
1.63
2.68
2.68
3.73
3.73
4.78
4.78
4.80
4.80
4.80
4.81
5.85
5.86
5.86
6.91
6.91
6.92
7.97
7.97
9.02
9.02
10.07
10.07
11.11
11.12
11.12
11.13
12.17
13.22
13.22
13.22
14.27
15.32
15.32
15.33
15.33
16.38
17.42
18.46
19.51
20.55
21.59
22.63
23.67
24.71
25.76
26.80

TransitionOceanic(Sept)
2004.2Profile
2004.1Profile
S(ppt)
33.46
33.46
33.46
33.46
33.46
33.46
33.46
33.46
33.46
33.46
33.46
33.46
33.46
33.46
33.46
33.46
33.46
33.46
33.46
33.46
33.46
33.50
33.50
33.50
33.50
33.50
33.50
33.50
33.50
33.50
33.50
33.50
33.50
33.50
33.50
33.50
33.50
33.50
33.50
33.50
33.50
33.54
33.54
33.54
33.54
33.54
33.57
33.57

Z(m)
3.30
4.29
5.28
6.28
7.27
8.27
9.26
10.25
11.25
12.24
13.23
14.23
15.22
16.22
17.21
18.20
19.20
20.19
21.18
22.18
23.17
24.16
25.16
26.15
27.14
28.14
29.13
30.12
31.12
32.11
33.11
34.10
35.09
36.09
37.08
38.07
39.07
40.06
41.06
42.05
43.04
44.03
45.03
46.02
47.01
48.01
49.00
49.99

T( C)
15.83
15.66
15.66
15.75
15.83
15.75
15.66
15.23
15.15
15.06
14.98
14.89
14.81
14.72
14.64
14.55
14.47
14.38
14.30
14.21
14.12
14.04
13.95
13.87
13.78
13.70
13.61
13.53
13.44
13.36
13.27
13.19
13.10
13.02
12.93
12.85
12.76
12.67
12.59
12.50
12.42
12.33
12.25
12.16
12.08
11.99
11.91
11.82

Z(m)
4.22
4.22
5.22
6.21
6.21
6.21
6.21
6.21
6.21
6.21
7.21
7.21
7.21
7.21
7.21
7.21
8.20
8.20
8.20
9.19
9.19
9.19
9.19
10.19
10.19
10.19
10.19
11.18
11.18
12.17
12.17
12.17
12.17
12.17
12.17
12.17
13.17
13.17
13.17
13.17
13.17
14.16
14.16
14.16
14.16
15.16
15.16
15.16

Davidson(Jan)
2011Profile
2004Profile
S(ppt)
33.20
33.22
33.22
33.22
33.22
33.22
33.22
33.22
33.24
33.24
33.26
33.26
33.28
33.28
33.30
33.30
33.30
33.30
33.30
33.30
33.30
33.28
33.28
33.30
33.30
33.30
33.30
33.30
33.32
33.32
33.34
33.34
33.36
33.38
33.38
33.40
33.42
33.42
33.42
33.44
33.44
33.44
33.44
33.46
33.46
33.46
33.46
33.46

Z(m)
0.41
0.40
1.44
2.47
3.51
4.54
5.57
6.61
6.60
7.63
8.65
9.69
10.71
11.74
12.77
13.80
14.83
15.87
16.90
17.93
18.97
20.01
21.05
22.07
23.10
24.14
25.17
26.20
27.23
28.26
29.28
30.32
31.34
32.36
33.40
34.42
35.44
36.48
37.51
38.53
39.57
40.60
41.64
42.66
43.69
44.73
45.76
46.79

T( C)
12.65
12.65
12.65
12.65
12.65
12.65
12.65
12.74
12.74
12.65
12.57
12.57
12.57
12.48
12.48
12.39
12.39
12.31
12.31
12.22
12.22
12.22
12.14
12.05
12.05
12.05
11.97
11.88
11.88
11.80
11.80
11.71
11.71
11.71
11.71
11.63
11.63
11.63
11.63
11.54
11.54
11.46
11.37
11.29
11.20
11.20
11.20
11.12

Z(m)
2.35
2.35
3.34
4.33
5.32
6.31
7.30
7.30
8.29
8.29
9.29
10.28
11.27
12.27
13.26
14.26
15.25
16.24
17.23
18.23
19.22
20.21
21.21
22.20
23.19
24.19
25.18
26.18
27.17
28.16
29.16
29.16
30.15
31.14
32.13
33.13
34.12
35.11
36.10
37.10
38.09
39.09
40.08
41.08
42.07
43.06
44.05
45.05

B-2

ESA
August 29, 2014
Table B1 (continued)
Upwelling(July)
2011Profile
2011Profile
S(ppt)
33.84
33.86
33.86
33.86
33.86
33.86
33.86

Z(m)
45.99
47.05
48.09
49.14
50.19
51.23
52.28

T( C)
10.38
10.38
10.38
10.38
10.37
10.37
10.30
10.30
10.30
10.30
10.30
10.30
10.30
10.30
10.30
10.23
10.23
10.16
10.16
10.16
10.09
10.09
10.09
10.02

Z(m)
27.84
28.88
29.92
30.97
32.01
33.05
34.09
35.14
36.18
37.22
38.26
39.30
40.34
41.39
42.43
43.47
44.52
45.56
46.60
47.65
48.69
49.73
50.78
51.82

TransitionOceanic(Sept)
2004.2Profile
2004.1Profile
S(ppt)

Z(m)

T( C)
11.82
11.74
11.65
11.57
11.48
11.39
11.31
11.22
11.22
11.14
11.14
11.05
11.05
11.14
11.22
11.31
11.39
11.39
11.39
11.39
11.31
11.31
11.22
11.22
11.22
11.14
11.05
11.05
10.97
10.88
10.88
10.88
10.88
10.80
10.79
10.79
10.71
10.71
10.62
10.62
10.62
10.62
10.62
10.62
10.62

Z(m)
16.15
17.14
18.14
18.14
18.14
18.14
18.14
19.13
20.12
20.12
21.12
21.12
22.11
23.11
24.10
25.09
26.09
27.08
28.07
29.07
30.06
31.06
32.05
33.04
34.04
35.03
36.02
37.02
38.01
39.01
40.00
40.99
41.99
42.98
43.98
44.97
45.96
46.96
47.95
48.94
49.94
50.93
51.93
52.92
53.91

Davidson(Jan)
2011Profile
2004Profile
S(ppt)
33.48
33.50
33.50
33.51
33.51
33.53
33.53

Z(m)
47.82
48.84
49.87
50.90
51.93
52.95
53.99

T( C)
11.03
11.03
10.95
10.86
10.86
10.77
10.77
10.77
10.69
10.69

Z(m)
46.05
47.04
48.03
49.03
50.02
51.01
52.01
53.00
53.99
54.98

B-3

ESA
August 29, 2014

APPENDIX C ANALYSES FOR ADDITIONAL


SCENARIOS

C-1

ESA
August 29, 2014

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

DATE:

August 25, 2014

TO:

Environmental Science Associates (ESA)

FROM:

Gang Zhao, Ph.D., P.E., Aaron Mead, P.E., E. John List, Ph.D., P.E.

SUBJECT:

MRWPCA Brine Discharge Diffuser Analysis Additional Scenarios


FSI 134032

1. Introduction

In August 2014, Flow Science performed additional modeling analyses to evaluate the
dilution of the desalination brines that may be generated in the future from two primary
sources (the proposed Monterey desalination facility and the Groundwater Replenishment
Project (GWR Project)). A mixture of brines from these two sources was also evaluated.
Specifically, Flow Science modeled thirteen (13) additional discharge scenarios;
calculated the desalination brine discharge rate that would be required to achieve a mixed
salinity that would be at most 2 ppt above ambient salinity at the seafloor; and calculated
the amount of seawater or treated wastewater that would be required to pre-dilute the
desalination brine such that the mixed effluent would cause an increase of no more than 2
ppt above ambient salinity at the seafloor. Dilution analyses were conducted using both a
semi-empirical method and USEPAs Visual Plumes suite of models, and dilution was
evaluated for three seasonal conditions [Davidson current (January), Upwelling
conditions (July), and Oceanic conditions (September)]. These analyses are part of the
EIR preparation process for the planned Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project, and
the discharge scenarios presented in this Technical Memorandum supplement the
discharge scenarios analyzed by Flow Science and presented in a previous Technical
Memorandum (Flow Science 2014).
This Technical Memorandum (TM) describes the input data and the analysis
methodology used by Flow Science to evaluate the dilution of desalination brines and
summarizes the results of the dilution analyses.

C-2

ESA
August 29, 2014
2. Analysis Input Data
Discharge Scenarios

In August 2014, Flow Science performed additional analyses for the Monterey Peninsula
Water Supply Project. The three tasks that made up these additional modeling analyses
are summarized below.
Task 1. Model 13 additional discharge scenarios as specified in ESAs e-mail of October
10, 2013 and presented in Table C1 below.
Task 2. Calculate the desalination brine discharge rate required to achieve a mixed
salinity that is less than 2 ppt above ambient salinity at the impact point for the three
seasonal conditions summarized in Table C3. No pre-dilution of the desalination brine
was assumed for this task. A series of discharge rates were analyzed to determine the
discharge rate required to keep the effluent salinity less than 2 ppt above ambient salinity.
Task 3. Calculate the amount of pre-dilution required for the desalination brine to achieve
the less than 2 ppt salinity exceedance at the impact point for the mixed effluent. For this
task, it was assumed that ambient seawater or treated wastewater would be used to predilute the desalination brine before discharging to the outfall. A flow rate of 13.98 mgd
was used for the desalination brine. Properties of the seawater and wastewater used to
pre-dilute the brine are summarized in Table C3.
Table C1 Discharge scenarios
Discharge
Condition
Existing

Desal
Project
Only

Desal
Project

Ambient
Condition &
Effluent
Componenta,b
Davidson (Jan)
WW

Scenario
Number

Discharge
(mgd)c

Discharge
Salinity
(ppt)d

Discharge
Temperature
(oC)

0.0

19.78

0.8

20.0

Upwelling (July)
BR

5.1

8.99

58.23

9.9

Davidson (Jan)
BR

6.1

8.99

57.40

11.6

Davidson (Jan)
BR+WW

7.1

28.77

18.48

17.4

Oceanic (Sept)
BR

8.1

8.99

57.64

11.1

Upwelling (July)
BR+GWR

9.1

9.72

54.16

11.0

C-3

ESA
August 29, 2014

Discharge
Condition
with GWR

GWR Only

Ambient
Condition &
Effluent
Componenta,b

Scenario
Number

Discharge
(mgd)c

Discharge
Salinity
(ppt)d

Discharge
Temperature
(oC)

Davidson (Jan)
BR+GWR

10.1

9.72

53.39

12.2

Davidson (Jan) +
BR+GWR+WW

11.1

25.64

20.73

17.1

Oceanic (Sept)
BR+GWR

12.1

9.72

53.61

12.1

Upwelling (July)
GWR

13.1

0.73

24.4

Davidson (Jan)
GWR

14.1

0.73

20.2

Davidson (Jan)
GWR+WW

15.1

16.65

0.93

20.0

Oceanic (Sept)
GWR

16.1

0.73

24.4

BR: desalination brine. WW: wastewater. GWR: Monterey Peninsula Groundwater Replenishment
Project.

Salinity and temperature of the combined discharges were calculated as flow-weighted averages of
BR, WW and GWR salinity and temperature data provided by ESA.
c
mgd: million gallons per day.
d
ppt: part per thousand.

Diffuser Configuration

The existing MRWPCA diffuser has 172 ports. Half of the ports discharge horizontally
from one side of the diffuser and half discharge horizontally from the other side of the
diffuser, in an alternating pattern. The ports are approximately 6 inches above the rock
bedding of the diffuser pipeline, and drawings2 (see Figure C1) indicate that they are
located a minimum of approximately 3.5 feet above the seafloor. The gravel bedding
dimensions are nominal, as shown in Figure C1, and therefore, the port height above the
seafloor cannot be determined with high accuracy. Momentum of the effluent is a key
factor in determining the dilution within the ZID. Toward the end of the ZID, the plume
slows down and mixing is not as strong as at the beginning of the ZID. Therefore, the
dilution results are not likely to change by much if the port height is off slightly.
Considering the overall uncertainty in the analysis, it is not critical to determine the
diffuser port height with high accuracy. According to MRWPCA, the fifty-two (52) ports
nearest to the shore (i.e., the shallowest ports) are currently closed. In this analysis, Flow
2

Section F, Drawing P-0.03, Contract Documents Volume 1 of 1: Ocean Outfall Contract No. 2.1, January
1982 by Engineering Science for MRWPCA

C-4

ESA
August 29, 2014
Science calculated plume concentrations for effluent discharged horizontally through the
120 open ports. A typical section of the current diffuser is shown in Figure C1, although
the actual cross-sectional profile of the pipe type 3 rock may have changed over time. In
this analysis, it was assumed that effluent plumes do not interact with the ballast. Details
of the current diffuser configuration are summarized in Table C2.
Table C2 Current diffuser configuration.
Parameter
Diffuser length
Depth of diffuser ports
Number of open ports
Port spacing
Port diameter
Port exit condition
Port vertical angle
Port elevation above sea floor

Value
1368 feet (417 m*)
95 to 109 feet below MSL
120
8 feet (2.44 m*)
2 inches (0.051 m*)
Tideflex Series 35 4-inch duckbill valves
0 (horizontal)
3.5
feet (1.07 m*)

*m = meters

Figure C1. Typical diffuser section (currently in place).

The 120 ports that are currently open are fitted with Tideflex duckbill check valves, as
shown in Figure C2. The shape of the duckbill valve opening is elliptic, and the area of
the opening depends on the discharge flow rate. The valve opening area in this analysis
was determined from an effective open area curve provided by Tideflex Technologies
(included as Appendix A). Although the ports were modeled as round openings with the
same opening area as the duckbill valves, the actual dilution will be higher than the
dilution computed assuming circular ports because of the oblateness of the actual port
opening.

C-5

ESA
August 29, 2014

Figure C2. Typical duckbill valve detail (shown closed, i.e., with no flow).
Discharge Characteristics

Salinity (or total dissolved solids [TDS]) and temperature data for the brine, GWR
concentrate, ambient seawater and the MRWPCA wastewater were provided by ESA.
TDS is a measure of water salinity, and salinity and temperature are used to calculate the
density of the effluent and ambient ocean water, which are important parameters in
dilution analyses.
As summarized in Table C3 below, ESA selected three seasonal ocean conditions for
analysis: Upwelling (July), Davidson (January), and Oceanic (September). Therefore,
discharge rate, temperature, and salinity/TDS data for these months were used in the
analysis. For each discharge scenario, the desalination brine(s) and water from other
sources were assumed to be fully mixed prior to discharge from the diffuser. Thus, the
temperature and salinity of the combined flow were calculated as the flow-weighted
average temperature and salinity of the brine and wastewater.

C-6

ESA
August 29, 2014
Table C3 Three seasonal conditions of the desalination brine
Effluent
Discharge
Season

Brine
Salinity (ppt)

Temp.
(Co)

July
9.9
58.23
(Upwelling)
January
11.6
57.40
(Davidson)
September
57.64
11.1
(Oceanic)
Source: average values provided by ESA.

Pre-dilution
Seawater
Salinity
Temp.
(ppt)
(Co)

Wastewater
Salinity
(ppt)

Temp.
(Co)

33.8

9.9

0.8

24

33.4

11.6

0.8

20

33.5

11.1

0.9

24

Receiving Water Profiles

ESA provided Flow Science with representative ocean receiving water profile data
(temperature and salinity) for the three months corresponding to the selected discharge
scenarios (July, January, and September). Receiving water profile data were collected by
the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute (MBARI) at Station C1 at the head of
Monterey Canyon, approximately five miles northwest of the MRWPCA wastewater
ocean outfall (see Figure C3). This location has been occupied since 1988 by MBARI.
Monthly conductivity, temperature, and depth (CTD) profiles have been collected since
2002. The proximity of the location to the MRWPCA ocean outfall and the extended data
record make this the most appropriate and useful data set to characterize the ambient
conditions for the brine discharge analysis. Vertical profiles of temperature and salinity
were analyzed for the upper 50 meters of the water column for the years 2002-2012, and
a single representative profile was selected for each of the three ocean seasons. For the
July model runs, temperature and salinity profiles from 2011 were selected. For the
September model runs, profiles from 2004 were selected. For the January model runs, a
temperature profile from 2004 and a salinity profile from 2011 were selected. Profile data
are shown in tabular form in Appendix B. Maximum and minimum values for each
profile are shown in Table C4, and profile values used in this analysis for the three
seasonal conditions are shown in Table C5.

C-7

ESA
Augu
ust 29, 2014

Ou
utfall

Figu
ure C3. Loca
ation map, MBARI
M
ocea
an monitoriing stationss and MRWP
PCA outfall.

Ta
able C4 Maximum
M
an
nd minimum
m ocean pro
ofile data.
Parameter

Season

Salinity
S
(ppt)

Tem
mperature (C )

M
Minimum

M
Maximum

Upwellling (July)

33.7

33.9

Davidsson (January))

33.2

33.5

Ocean
nic (Septembeer)

33.5

33.6

Upwellling (July)

10.0

13.0

Davidsson (January))

10.7

12.7

Ocean
nic (Septembeer)

10.6

15.8

Sourcee: ESA (2013); Appendix


A
B.

Table C5 Modeled seasonal oocean condiitions.


Dep
pth
(m
m)
0
2

Upwelling
U
(Ju
uly)
Temp.
alinity
Sa
(oC)
(ppt)
(
12
2.98
33.78
3
12
2.87
33.77
3

Davidson (JJanuary)
Temp.
Salinity
(oC)
(ppt)
12.65
33.20
12.65
33.22

Oceanic ((September)
Temp.
Salinity
(oC)
(ppt)
15.75
33.46
15.75
33.46

C--8

ESA
August 29, 2014

Depth
(m)
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38

Upwelling (July)
Temp.
Salinity
(oC)
(ppt)
12.64
33.74
11.97
33.71
11.61
33.70
11.34
33.70
11.10
33.73
10.84
33.75
10.51
33.78
10.38
33.79
10.38
33.80
10.38
33.80
10.38
33.82
10.38
33.82
10.38
33.84
10.38
33.84
10.37
33.84
10.31
33.84
10.30
33.84
10.30
33.84

Davidson (January)
Temp.
Salinity
(oC)
(ppt)
12.65
33.22
12.65
33.23
12.74
33.24
12.57
33.26
12.50
33.28
12.42
33.30
12.33
33.30
12.24
33.30
12.22
33.28
12.07
33.30
12.05
33.30
11.90
33.30
11.81
33.32
11.71
33.34
11.71
33.37
11.63
33.39
11.63
33.42
11.54
33.43

Source: Interpolated from ESA | Water (2013) ocean profile data, Appendix B.

Oceanic (September)
Temp.
Salinity
(oC)
(ppt)
15.75
33.46
15.53
33.46
14.46
33.46
13.81
33.46
13.17
33.46
12.27
33.46
11.83
33.46
11.52
33.46
11.19
33.46
11.06
33.46
11.22
33.49
11.39
33.50
11.39
33.50
11.31
33.50
11.23
33.50
11.22
33.50
11.05
33.50
10.97
33.50

Receiving water flow conditions

As detailed in Figure C1, the existing diffuser ports are located just above the mid-point
of the outfall pipe (i.e., below the crown of the outfall pipe), about 6 inches above the top
of the ballast used to anchor the diffuser to the seafloor. Because the outfall rises above
the seafloor, it will influence the patterns of currents (receiving water flow velocity) at
the ports, and the current velocity at each individual port will be a complex function of
the local geometry. Ocean currents increase the amount of dilution that occurs because
they increase the flow of ambient water past the diffuser (i.e., increase the amount of
ambient water available for mixing with the discharge). However, due to the complex
outfall geometry, local field data collection would be required to characterize the actual
current conditions and ambient turbulence levels at the diffuser ports, which was beyond
the scope and budget of this analysis. To simplify the analysis, effluent dilution was
analyzed for a uniform 0.0 fps current, which amounts to a worst case, stagnant (no
current) receiving water condition. Stagnant conditions are typically used as the basis for
developing NPDES permits, and the California Ocean Plan (SWRCB, 2009) requires the
no-current condition be used in initial dilution calculations.

C-9

ESA
August 29, 2014
3. Trajectory and ZID of a Negatively Buoyant Plume

The effluent and ocean profiles data presented in Tables C1 and C5 indicate the effluent
is negatively buoyant for some scenarios. A schematic sketch of the trajectory of a
negatively buoyant jet is shown in Figure C4, where 0 is the port angle, d is the port
diameter, s is distance in the direction of the port centerline, n is distance in the direction
perpendicular to the port centerline, zme is the maximum rise of the plume, M0 is the
initial momentum flux at the point of discharge, and Mb is the buoyancy-generated
momentum flux. x0R is the horizontal distance between the port and the point where the
plume centerline returns to the port height level. In this analysis, the diffuser ports are
about 3.5 ft above seafloor, and the impact point is the location where the plume
centerline reaches seafloor.

Figure C4. Definition schematic for negatively buoyant jet (Kikkert, et al., 2007).

The methods described in Section 4 were used to calculate the size of the plume and
dilution of the discharged effluent within the Zone of Initial Dilution, or ZID. The ZID
is defined as the zone immediately adjacent to a discharge where momentum and
buoyancy-driven mixing produces rapid dilution of the discharge. In this analysis, the
ZID ends at the point where the discharge plume impacts the seafloor for a dense
(sinking) plume; for a positively buoyant (rising) effluent, the ZID ends at the point
where the effluent plume reaches the water surface or attains a depth level where the
density of the diluted effluent plume becomes the same as the density of ambient water
(i.e., the trap level). Typically, within the ZID, which is limited in size, constituent
concentrations are permitted to exceed water quality standards. A discharge is generally
required to meet the relevant water quality standards at the edge of the ZID.
Beyond the point where the plumes reach the seafloor, some additional mixing will
occur, and the discharged brine (now diluted) will travel along the seafloor as a density
current. Based on the bathymetry near the diffuser, which steadily slopes out to sea, there
is no bowl in which effluent could accumulate indefinitely. Rather, diluted effluent
would flow downslope and gradually disperse. In the analysis presented here, the
C-10

ESA
August 29, 2014
spreading of the effluent on the seafloor (or within and beyond the trapping level) and the
subsequent additional dilution that would ensue, have not been analyzed. Flow Science
recommends that the computed dilution at the seafloor, or at the trapping level (i.e., at the
end of the ZID) be used as the basis for any NPDES permitting activities and to analyze
impacts.
4. Plume Analysis Methods

Two analysis methods have been used to evaluate the discharge of desalination brines
(negatively buoyant plumes) from the MRWPCA diffuser: a semi-empirical method
based on the work of Roberts et al. (1997) and Kikkert et al. (2007), and EPAs Visual
Plumes method. The Visual Plumes method was also used to model scenarios where the
effluent density is less than seawater (positively buoyant, or rising, plumes). Both the
semi-empirical method and Visual Plumes were used to characterize negatively buoyant
plumes in order to understand the range of dilution that might be expected for discharge
from the MRWPCA diffuser system. The semi-empirical method also provides some
level of redundancy and confirmation of results because Visual Plumes, although widely
used in diffuser discharge analysis, has only very recently been validated against limited
experimental data for the case of a negatively buoyant plume. The main advantage of the
semi-empirical analysis method is that it is well-grounded in empirical observations, and
thus is well-tested and has been verified by comparison to a relatively large dataset for
this specific discharge condition. The main disadvantage is that the semi-empirical
method requires longer to complete an analysis for a given discharge scenario. The
analysis techniques for these two methods are described below.
Semi-Empirical Analysis Method

Laboratory studies of negatively buoyant jets and plumes have been conducted by many
researchers (e.g., Kikkert et al., 2007; Roberts et al., 1997). Most of these have been
conducted for inclined jets (i.e., jets that discharge upward at an angle), which increase
the initial mixing of the plume. Fewer studies are available to characterize the mixing of
negatively buoyant plumes from horizontally-oriented discharge ports. In the following
sections, the general equations for a negatively buoyant jet from an angled port are
presented first. The equations for a horizontal discharge are then derived from the
general equations.
Discharge of a negatively buoyant jet from an angled port

Plume trajectory

C-11

ESA
August 29, 2014
The trajectory of a negatively buoyant discharge under a stagnant flow condition (i.e., no
ambient current) can be computed from the following equations (Kikkert, et al., 2007)
(see Figure C4 for nomenclature).
M B* cos 0
dn*

ds * 1 M B* sin 0

(1)

where:
s* s / d
n* n / d
s and n are the distances in directions along and perpendicular to the discharge port
centerline, respectively; d is the effective diameter of the port (see Figure C4); and M B*
is the dimensionless buoyancy-generated momentum flux, which can be calculated from
Eq. (2).

M B*

s*2
0.154 2
F0

(2)

where F0 is the initial densimetric Froude number:


F0

U0

gd 0 a / a

where
U0 = initial jet velocity
g = gravitational acceleration
0 = initial density of the jet

a = ambient water density


Substituting Eq. (2) into Eq. (1) and integrating gives an equation for the discharge
trajectory:
s* sin 1 / 2 0 1 2.6 F0 s* sin 1 / 2 0
2.6 F0

n*
(3)
ln

2.6 F0
2 2.6 F0 s* sin 1 / 2 0
tan 0 sin 1 / 2 0

Results from Eq. (3) agreed well with experimental data (Kikkert, et al., 2007).

C-12

ESA
August 29, 2014

Discharge of a negatively buoyant jet from a horizontal port

Plume trajectory
The plume trajectory of a horizontal discharge can be estimated using the equations for
an angled jet. Specifically, for a horizontal discharge (i.e., 0 =0), Eq. (3) simplifies to
the following relationship:
n* 0.051

s*3
F02

(4)

Plume dilution for a horizontal discharge


For the horizontally discharged effluent, the empirical equations from Fischer et al., 1979
(Table 9.2, pp. 328) were used to compute the width and dilution of the effluent. i.e.,
Plume width=2*0.13*distance along plume

(5)

The plume width calculated from Eq. (5) defines the edge of the plume as the location
where the concentration is 37% (= e-1, which is often used to characterize plume width)
of the centerline concentration.
The volume flux and dilution are specified by:
Volume flux 0.25M 1 / 2 *distance along plume

(6)

Dilution = /(discharge flow rate)

(7)

where M=QU0 is the initial momentum flux of the effluent (Q and U0 are the flow rate
and initial velocity of the effluent, respectively).
Note that the semi-empirical analysis for 0 discharges uses Kikkert et al. (2007) for the
trajectory and Fischer et al. (1979) for dilution.

Visual Plumes Analysis Method


Methodology

The UM3 modelpart of the EPA Visual Plumes diffuser modeling packagewas used
to simulate the discharge of desalination brine and wastewater from the existing
MRWPCA ocean diffuser. Visual Plumes is a mixing zone computer model developed
C-13

ESA
August 29, 2014
from a joint effort led by USEPA. Visual Plumes can simulate both single and merging
submerged plumes, and density-stratified ambient flow can be specified by the user.
Visual Plumes can be used to compute the plume dilution, trajectory, diameter, and other
plume variables (USEPA, 2003).
The UM3 model is based on the projected area entrainment hypothesis, which assumes
ambient fluid is entrained into the plume through areas projected in directions along the
plume centerline and perpendicular to the centerline (USEPA, 1994). In addition,
velocity shear entrainment is also included. The plume envelope is assumed to be in
steady state, and as a plume element moves through the envelope, the element radius
changes in response to velocity convergence or divergence, and entrainment of ambient
fluid. Conservation equations of mass, momentum and energy are used to calculate
plume mass and concentrations.
The actual depth of the diffuser ports varies between 95 and 109 feet below mean sea
level (MSL) since the diffuser is quite long and is situated on a sloping portion of the
ocean floor. However, since Visual Plumes cannot model a sloping diffuser, an average
depth of 104 feet below MSL was used (the deepest 120 ports on the diffuser discharge in
this case, thereby increasing the average port depth). Modeled ocean conditions are
summarized in Table C5.
As with the semi-empirical method, Visual Plumes assumes circular discharge ports, so
the actual elliptical discharge area of the Tideflex valves was calculated for each port
(Appendix A) and then converted to an effective circular discharge diameter for use in
Visual Plumes.
A study by Palomar et al. (2012a, 2012b) showed that the UM3 model of the Visual
Plumes can be applied to simulate negatively buoyant discharges. However, the study
also found that the UM3 model underpredicted centerline dilution ratios at the impact
point by more than 50% for a negatively buoyant effluent discharged into a stagnant
environment; for a number of scenarios with negatively buoyant effluent discharged into
an ambient current, centerline dilution ratios at the impact point calculated by the UM3
model ranged from 40% lower to 7% higher than experimental data.
The UM3 model of the Visual Plumes was used in this analysis to model negatively
buoyant effluent discharged into a stagnant environment. Because the study of Palomar
et al. (2012a, 2012b) has shown that the centerline dilution ratios computed using the
UM3 model were more than 50% lower than data from experiments with similar
discharge conditions, the average dilution ratios calculated using UM3, which are nearly
double the centerline dilution ratios, were used to estimate dilution of negatively buoyant
plumes in this analysis. Since Visual Plumes has been more thoroughly validated for
positively buoyant plumes, it alone was used for scenarios with rising plumes.

C-14

ESA
August 29, 2014
5. Dilution Results
Results for thirteen new scenarios (Task 1 Scenarios)
For the scenarios presented in Table C1, several key results for the effluent plumes are
reported at the edge of the ZID. As noted above, the ZID is defined as the zone
immediately adjacent to a discharge where momentum and buoyancy-driven mixing
produces rapid dilution of the discharge. Results for positively buoyant plumes presented
in this Technical Memorandum were taken at the point where the plumes just reach the
trap level, which is the depth level where the density of the diluted plume becomes the
same as ambient seawater. Horizontal spreading of plumes at their trap levels was not
included in this analysis because it is beyond the ZID. Results from each scenario
generally include the following quantities:

the horizontal distance from the diffuser port to the point at which the plume
impacts the seafloor or reaches the trap level.
the dilution of the plume at the point at which the plume impacts the seafloor or
reaches the trap level. For the semi-empirical method of analyzing negatively
buoyant plumes and for the Visual Plumes analyses of rising plumes, centerline
dilution is provided. For the Visual Plumes analyses of negatively buoyant
discharges, the average dilution within the plume is provided, in recognition of
the conservative nature of Visual Plumes results for negatively buoyant plumes
(see, e.g., Palomar et al., 2012a and 2012b).
an estimate of the size of the plume (diameter) at the point of impact or just below
the trap level (i.e., at the edge of the ZID).
the maximum salinity at the seafloor (edge of ZID for negatively buoyant
plumes).
the percentage by which the maximum plume salinity at the seafloor (edge of ZID
for negatively buoyant plumes) exceeds the ambient salinity.

Figure C5 shows a sample schematic graphic of the trajectory of a negatively buoyant


plume from a horizontal discharge drawn approximately to scale. As the effluent travels
away from the discharge port, it entrains ambient seawater, which increases the diameter
of the plume and decreases the plume concentration.

C-15

ESA
August 29, 2014

Figure C5. Sample graphic showing plume trajectory for the horizontal discharge
configuration.

Table C6 presents analysis results for the 13 modeled scenarios of Task 1. The plumes
were positively buoyant (i.e., had densities less than ambient seawater) for scenarios
where the desalination brine was mixed with treated wastewater and for GWR Project
scenarios. This is mainly because the salinity of the plumes in these scenarios was much
lower than ambient seawater. The plumes were negatively buoyant (i.e., were denser
than ambient seawater) for desalination brine only and for desalination brine mixed with
GWR Project brine. Results in Table C6 show that the trajectory, diameter and dilution
of the negatively buoyant plumes were nearly the same across all three modeled seasons,
because the trajectories of these negatively buoyant plumes were short and close to the
seafloor, where the differences in salinity and temperature (hence the difference in
density) between the effluent and ambient sea water changed only slightly over the
modeled seasons. Therefore, for analyses of scenarios involving negatively buoyant, i.e.,
sinking, plumes, characteristics of the resulting plumes were similar for all seasons.

Dilution values predicted by the semi-empirical method were lower than the dilution
values predicted by the Visual Plumes method. The predicted maximum plume salinity
at the seafloor was 1.6 ppt above ambient ocean salinity.

C-16

ESA
August 29, 2014

Table C6 Analysis results.


Semi-empirical method
Ocean
bkgrd.
Effluent
Discharge
Effluent salinity
discharge
Max.
Analysis
Velocity Seasonal
Plume
salinity
at
flow rate
Plume
Horiz. height
number
(feet/ Condition
Centersalinity
(ppt) diffuser diam.
(mgd) &
Distance above
second)
line
at calc.
depth
component
(d)
from
port
Dilution
dilution
(ppt) (inch)
port (ft) (zme)
(ppt)
(ft)

VP method
Max.
Salinity
Plume Salinity
Horiz. height
increase Plume
salinity increase
Average Distance above
above diam.
at calc. above
Dilution from
port
ambient (inch)
dilution ambient
port (ft) (zme)
(ppt)
(ppt)
(ppt)
(ft)

19.78
Davidson
69 b
----27
11.5
0.8
33.36
---246
167 a
WW
(Jan.)
8.99
Upwelling
5.1
-35.47
1.6
-34.82
7.5
58.23 33.84
31
15
10
36
25
8
BR
(July)
8.99
Davidson
6.1
-34.98
1.6
-34.30
7.5
57.40 33.36
31
15
10
36
26
8
BR
(Jan.)
28.77
Davidson
41 b
7.1
----38
13.9
18.48 33.36
---207
84 a
BR+WW
(Jan.)
8.99
Oceanic
8.1
-35.11
1.6
-34.47
7.5
57.64 33.50
31
15
10
36
25
8
BR
(Sept.)
Upwelling
9.72
-35.04
1.2
-34.59
9.1
8
54.16 33.84
34
17
11
39
27
8
(July)
BR+GWR
Davidson
9.72
-34.55
1.2
-34.12
10.1
8
53.39 33.36
34
17
11
40
27
8
(Jan.)
BR+GWR
25.64
Davidson
38 b
11.1 BR+WW 13.1
----38
20.73 33.36
---204
82 a
(Jan.)
+GWR
Oceanic
9.72
-34.68
1.2
-34.24
12.1
8
53.61 33.50
34
17
11
39
27
8
(Sept.)
BR+GWR
Source: Flow Science Analysis, 2014.
BR: desalination brine. WW: wastewater. GWR: groundwater recharge.
a
Dilution values are centerline dilution because the Visual Plumes model has been validated for positively buoyant plumes and no significant underprediction
of dilution has been reported.
b
These values are trap levels above the diffuser.
0.0

C-17

-1.0
0.9
-1.0
0.8
0.8
-0.7

ESA
August 29, 2014
Table C6 Analysis results (continued).
Semi-empirical method
Ocean
bkgrd.
Effluent
Discharge
Effluent salinity
discharge
Max.
Analysis
Velocity Seasonal
Plume
salinity
at
flow rate
Plume
Horiz. height
number
(feet/ Condition
Centersalinity
(ppt) diffuser diam.
(mgd) &
Distance above
second)
line
at calc.
depth
component
(d)
from
port
Dilution
dilution
(ppt) (inch)
port (ft) (zme)
(ppt)
(ft)

VP method
Max.
Salinity
Plume Salinity
Horiz. height
increase Plume
salinity increase
Average Distance above
above diam.
at calc. above
Dilution from
port
ambient (inch)
dilution ambient
port (ft) (zme)
(ppt)
(ppt)
(ppt)
(ft)

0.73
Upwelling
48 b
----6
3.4
4
33.84
---159
777 a
GWR
(July)
0.73
Davidson
24 b
14.1
----5
3.4
4
33.36
---86
270 a
GWR
(Jan.)
16.65
Davidson
68 b
15.1
----24
11
0.9
33.36
---243
180 a
WW+GWR
(Jan.)
0.73
Oceanic
41 b
16.1
----5
3.4
4
33.50
---121
678 a
GWR
(Sept.)
Source: Flow Science Analysis, 2014.
BR: desalination brine. WW: wastewater. GWR: groundwater recharge.
a
Dilution values are centerline dilution because the Visual Plumes model has been validated for positively buoyant plumes and no significant underprediction
of dilution has been reported.
b
These values are trap levels above the diffuser.
13.1

C-18

-----

ESA
August 29, 2014

Impact of Discharge Rate on Effluent Dilution and Salinity

To explore the impact of the brine discharge rate on effluent dilution ratio and to
determine the desalination brine discharge rate that results in salinity at the seafloor that
exceeds ambient salinity levels by no more than 2 ppt , a series of brine discharge rates
were analyzed using both the Visual Plumes model and the semi-empirical method. For
this analysis, the desalination brine was assumed to be the only effluent discharged from
the diffuser. The dilution and salinity levels for these scenarios are summarized in Table
C7. Figure C6 and Figure C7 graphically present the effluent salinity (in ppt above
ambient salinity) calculated using the semi-empirical method and the Visual Plumes
method, respectively, at the impact point as a function of desalination brine discharge
flow rates.
Results of the semi-empirical method showed that salinity values within the plume at the
impact point were predicted to increase (i.e., dilution decreased) for desalination brine
discharge rates up to 8 mgd in January and September and 10 mgd in July; salinity values
then decreased (dilution increased) for higher discharge rates. The highest effluent
salinity at the impact point was 1.6 ppt above ambient salinity.
The highest effluent salinity calculated by the Visual Plumes method was 1.0 ppt above
ambient salinity. Results of the Visual Plumes method also showed that salinity at the
impact point was predicted to increase (i.e., simulated dilution decreased) for desalination
brine discharge rates up to 10 mgd for January and 8 mgd for July and September.
Dilution and impact point salinity values remained nearly constant for higher discharge
rates. It should be noted that although effluent dilution ratio remained almost unchanged,
more ambient seawater was entrained into the plume for scenarios with higher discharge
rates. The increase in entrained seawater was approximately proportional to the increase
in discharge rate, so the dilution ratio remained almost unchanged. The 65 mgd
discharge rate, the highest discharge rate analyzed, translates to a single port flow of
about 0.84 cfs. Assuming it takes 10 seconds for the effluent to reach the impact point,
the volume of the brine is about 8.4 ft3. Port spacing on one side of the diffuser is 16 ft
(ports are 8 ft apart on alternating sides of the diffuser), ports are about 3.5 ft above
seafloor, and the impact point is about 10 ft away from the ports. This gives a seawater
volume of about 560 ft3 around one port, which is about 67 times the brine volume.
Therefore even for the highest analyzed discharge rate, there is enough seawater to dilute
the brine. It should be pointed out that despite remaining nearly unchanged for discharge
rates in the range of 10 to 65 mgd, the dilution ratio may change for discharge rates
higher than 65 mgd. For brine discharge rates much higher than 65 mgd, effluent plumes
from neighboring ports may merge and there might not be enough seawater to dilute the
effluent, and as a result, the effluent dilution ratio will be lower and salinity values will
be higher.

C-19

ESA
August 29, 2014

Table C7 Analysis results for various desalination brine-only discharge rates.


Flow

Semi-empirical method

VP method

mgd

Jan.
July
Sept.
Jan.
July
Sept.
Salinity
Salinity
Salinity
Salinity
Salinity
Salinity
increase
increase
increase
increase
increase
increase
Dilution above Dilution above Dilution above Dilution above Dilution above Dilution above
ambient
ambient
ambient
ambient
ambient
ambient
(ppt)
(ppt)
(ppt)
(ppt)
(ppt)
(ppt)
0.5
19
1.3
19
1.3
19
1.3
48
0.5
49
0.5
48
0.5
1

17

1.4

17

1.5

17

1.4

39

0.6

39

0.6

39

0.6

16

1.5

16

1.6

16

1.5

33

0.7

33

0.7

33

0.7

15

1.6

15

1.6

15

1.6

30

0.8

30

0.8

30

0.8

15

1.6

15

1.6

15

1.6

28

0.8

28

0.9

28

0.9

15

1.6

15

1.6

15

1.6

26

0.9

26

0.9

26

0.9

15

1.6

15

1.6

15

1.6

26

0.9

25

1.0

25

0.9

10

16

1.5

15

1.6

16

1.6

25

0.9

25

1.0

25

1.0

12

16

1.5

16

1.5

16

1.5

25

0.9

25

1.0

25

1.0

14

16

1.5

16

1.5

16

1.5

25

0.9

25

1.0

25

1.0

16

17

1.4

16

1.5

17

1.5

25

1.0

25

1.0

25

1.0

18

17

1.4

17

1.4

17

1.4

25

0.9

25

1.0

25

1.0

20

17

1.4

17

1.4

17

1.4

25

1.0

25

1.0

25

1.0

22

18

1.4

17

1.4

17

1.4

25

1.0

25

1.0

25

1.0

24

18

1.3

18

1.4

18

1.4

25

0.9

25

1.0

25

1.0

26

18

1.3

18

1.4

18

1.3

25

1.0

25

1.0

25

1.0

28

18

1.3

18

1.3

18

1.3

25

0.9

25

1.0

25

1.0

30

18

1.3

18

1.3

18

1.3

25

1.0

25

1.0

25

1.0

32

19

1.3

19

1.3

19

1.3

25

0.9

25

1.0

25

1.0

34

19

1.3

19

1.3

19

1.3

25

1.0

25

1.0

25

1.0

36

19

1.2

19

1.3

19

1.3

25

1.0

25

1.0

25

1.0

38

19

1.2

19

1.3

19

1.3

25

1.0

25

1.0

25

1.0

40

20

1.2

19

1.3

19

1.2

25

1.0

25

1.0

25

1.0

45

20

1.2

20

1.2

20

1.2

25

0.9

25

1.0

25

1.0

50

20

1.2

20

1.2

20

1.2

25

0.9

25

1.0

25

1.0

55

21

1.1

21

1.2

21

1.2

25

0.9

25

1.0

25

1.0

60

21

1.1

21

1.2

21

1.1

25

0.9

25

1.0

25

1.0

65

22

1.1

22

1.1

22

1.1

25

0.9

25

1.0

25

1.0

C-20

SalinityaboveAmbientLevels
(ppt)

ESA
August 29, 2014

1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
Jan.

0.6

July

0.4

Sept.

0.2
0.0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

BrineDischargeRate(mgd)

SalinityaboveAmbientLevels
(ppt)

Figure C6. Simulated seafloor salinity (ppt above ambient salinity) for
desalination brine calculated using the semi-empirical method.
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
Jan.

0.4

July
0.2

Sept.

0.0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

BrineDischargeRate(mgd)
Figure C7. Simulated seafloor salinity (ppt above ambient salinity) for
desalination brine calculated using the Visual Plumes method.

C-21

ESA
August 29, 2014

Impact of Seawater Pre-dilution on Effluent Dilution and Salinity

To reduce effluent salinity, seawater could be used to pre-dilute the desalination brine
before discharging to the outfall pipeline. The impact of seawater pre-dilution on effluent
dilution and salinity was evaluated for a series of discharge scenarios using both the
Visual Plumes method and the semi-empirical method. In these scenarios, the flow rate
of pre-dilution seawater was varied; the discharge rate of desalination brine was fixed at
13.98 mgd. The temperature and salinity of the desalination brine and seawater are
summarized in Table C3, and temperature and salinity of the pre-diluted discharge was
calculated as flow-weighted averages of the desalination brine and seawater. The
effluent dilution and seafloor salinity for the pre-dilution scenarios are presented in Table
C8. Figure C8 and Figure C9 show the salinity exceedence for the pre-dilution
scenarios calculated using the semi-empirical method and the Visual Plumes method,
respectively.
Results from both methods showed that the maximum seafloor salinity was simulated to
decrease as the amount of seawater used to pre-dilute the desalination brine increased.
Results of the semi-empirical method indicated that the highest effluent salinity at
seafloor was 1.4 ppt above ambient salinity. Results from the Visual Plumes method
showed that effluent salinity at seafloor was less than 0.9 ppt above ambient salinity.
Table C8 Analysis results for seawater pre-dilution.
Flow

Semi-empirical method

Mgd

Jan.

July

VP method
Sept.

Jan.

July

Sept.

Salinity
Salinity
Salinity
Salinity
Salinity
Salinity
Seaincrease
increase
increase
increase
increase
increase
Sea- water
Dilution above Dilution above Dilution above Dilution above Dilution above Dilution above
water +
ambient
ambient
ambient
ambient
ambient
ambient
brine
(ppt)
(ppt)
(ppt)
(ppt)
(ppt)
(ppt)
0.5 14.48

17

1.4

17

1.4

17

1.4

25

0.9

26

0.9

25

0.9

14.98

17

1.3

17

1.4

17

1.3

26

0.9

26

0.9

26

0.9

15.98

17

1.2

17

1.2

17

1.2

26

0.8

26

0.8

26

0.8

16.98

18

1.1

18

1.1

18

1.1

26

0.8

26

0.8

26

0.8

17.98

18

1.0

18

1.0

18

1.0

26

0.7

26

0.7

26

0.7

18.98

19

0.9

19

1.0

19

0.9

27

0.7

27

0.7

27

0.7

19.98

19

0.9

19

0.9

19

0.9

27

0.6

26

0.6

26

0.6

21.98

20

0.8

20

0.8

20

0.8

27

0.6

27

0.6

27

0.6

10 23.98

21

0.7

21

0.7

21

0.7

27

0.5

27

0.5

27

0.5

12 25.98

22

0.6

22

0.6

22

0.6

28

0.5

28

0.5

28

0.5

14 27.98

23

0.5

23

0.5

23

0.5

28

0.4

28

0.4

28

0.4

16 29.98

24

0.5

23

0.5

23

0.5

28

0.4

28

0.4

28

0.4

18 31.98

24

0.4

24

0.4

24

0.4

29

0.4

29

0.4

29

0.4

C-22

ESA
August 29, 2014

Flow

Semi-empirical method

Mgd

Jan.

VP method

July

Sept.

Jan.

July

Sept.

Salinity
Salinity
Salinity
Salinity
Salinity
Salinity
Seaincrease
increase
increase
increase
increase
increase
Sea- water
Dilution above Dilution above Dilution above Dilution above Dilution above Dilution above
water +
ambient
ambient
ambient
ambient
ambient
ambient
brine
(ppt)
(ppt)
(ppt)
(ppt)
(ppt)
(ppt)
25

0.4

25

0.4

25

0.4

29

0.3

29

0.4

29

0.3

22 35.98

26

0.4

26

0.4

26

0.4

29

0.3

29

0.3

29

0.3

24 37.98

26

0.3

26

0.3

26

0.3

29

0.3

29

0.3

29

0.3

26 39.98

27

0.3

27

0.3

27

0.3

29

0.3

29

0.3

29

0.3

28 41.98

28

0.3

28

0.3

28

0.3

29

0.3

29

0.3

29

0.3

30 43.98

29

0.3

28

0.3

29

0.3

29

0.3

29

0.3

29

0.3

35 48.98

30

0.2

30

0.2

30

0.2

30

0.2

30

0.2

30

0.2

40 53.98

32

0.2

32

0.2

32

0.2

30

0.2

30

0.2

30

0.2

SalinityaboveAmbientLevels
(ppt)

20 33.98

1.6
Jan.

1.4

July

1.2

Sept.

1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

PredilutionSeawater(mgd)
Figure C8. Simulated seafloor salinity (ppt above ambient salinity) for
desalination brine (13.98 mgd) as a function of the flow rate of pre-dilution
seawater; results calculated using the semi-empirical method.

C-23

SalinityaboveAmbientLevels
(ppt)

ESA
August 29, 2014

1.0
0.9

Jan.

0.8

July

0.7

Sept.

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

PredilutionSeawater(mgd)
Figure C9. Simulated seafloor salinity (ppt above ambient salinity) for
desalination brine (13.84 mgd) as a function of the flow rate of pre-dilution
seawater; results calculated using the Visual Plumes method.

Impact of Treated Wastewater Pre-dilution on Effluent Dilution and Salinity

Instead of seawater, treated wastewater could also be used to pre-dilute the desalination
brine before discharging to the outfall pipeline. The impact of treated wastewater predilution on effluent dilution and salinity was evaluated for a number of discharge
scenarios using both the Visual Plumes method and the semi-empirical method. In these
scenarios, the flow rate of pre-dilution wastewater was varied; the discharge rate of
desalination brine was fixed at 13.98 mgd. The temperature and salinity of the
desalination brine and wastewater are summarized in Table C3, and temperature and
salinity of the pre-diluted discharge was calculated as flow-weighted averages of the
desalination brine and wastewater. The effluent dilution and seafloor salinity for the predilution scenarios are presented in Table C9.
Results from both methods showed that the maximum seafloor salinity was simulated to
decrease as the amount of treated wastewater used to pre-dilute the desalination brine
increased. Results of both the semi-empirical method and the Visual Plumes method
indicated that effluent salinity at seafloor was less than 2 ppt above ambient salinity for
all three seasonal conditions.

C-24

ESA
August 29, 2014

Table C9 Analysis results for treated wastewater pre-dilution.


Flow
mgd
Waste
Waste water
water +
brine
0.25 14.23

Semi-empirical method

VP method

Jan.
July
Sept.
Jan.
July
Sept.
Salinity
Salinity
Salinity
Salinity
Salinity
Salinity
increase
increase
increase
increase
increase
increase
Dilutio
Dilution above Dilution above
above Dilution above Dilution above Dilution above
n
ambient
ambient
ambient
ambient
ambient
ambient
(ppt)
(ppt)
(ppt)
(ppt)
(ppt)
(ppt)
17
1.4
17
1.4
17
1.4
26
0.9
26
0.9
26
0.9

0.5

14.48

17

1.3

17

1.3

17

1.3

26

0.9

26

0.9

26

0.9

14.98

18

1.2

17

1.2

18

1.2

26

0.8

26

0.8

26

0.8

15.98

19

0.9

19

0.9

19

0.9

27

0.6

27

0.6

27

0.6

C-25

ESA
August 29, 2014

5. References

Fischer, H.B., List, E. J., Koh, R. C. Y., Imberger, J. Brooks, N. H. (1979) Mixing in
Inland and Coastal Waters, Academic Press, 483 pp.
Flow Science (2014). Draft Technical Memorandum: MRWPCA brine discharge diffuser
analysis. August 25, 2014.
GeoScience (2008). North Marina Ground Water Model. Evaluation of Potential
Projects, July 25.
Kikkert, G.A.; Davidson, J.; and Nokes, R.I. (2007). Inclined Negatively Buoyant
Discharges. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 133(5), pp545-554.
Palomar, P., Lara, J.L., Losada, I.J., Rodrigo, M., and Alvrez, A. (2012a). Near Field
Brine Discharge Modelling Part 1: Analysis of Commercial Tools. Desalination
290, pp14-27.
Palomar, P., Lara, J.L., Losada, I.J., Rodrigo, M., and Alvrez, A. (2012b). Near Field
Brine Discharge Modelling Part 2: Validation of Commercial Tools. Desalination
290, pp28-42.
Roberts, P. J.W.; Ferrier, A.; and Daviero, G. (1997). Mixing in Inclined Dense Jets.
Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 123(8), pp693-699.
State Water Resources Control Board (2009). California Ocean Plan, Water Quality
Control Plan for Ocean Waters of California.
USEPA (1994). Dilution Models for Effluent Discharges (3rd edition). EPA/600/R94/086, June, 1994.
USEPA (2003). Dilution Models for Effluent Discharges (4th edition). EPA/600/R03/025, March, 2003.

C-26

APPENDIX D3

Ocean Plan Compliance Assessment

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

D3-1

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

This page intentionally left blank

DRAFT Revised Ocean Plan Compliance


Assessment for the Monterey Peninsula Water
Supply Project and Project Variant

Technical Memorandum
July 2016

Prepared for:

1939 Harrison Street, Suite 600


Oakland, CA 94612

DRAFT Revised Ocean Plan Compliance Assessment for the


Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and Project Variant








Technical Memorandum

July 2016

Prepared By:

Trussell Technologies, Inc.
Brie Webber
John Kenny, P.E.
Eileen Idica, Ph.D., P.E.
Celine Trussell, P.E., BCEE

DRAFT MPWSP Ocean Plan Compliance

July 2016

Table of Contents
1

1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5

Introduction .................................................................................................................... 2
Treatment through the Proposed CalAm Desalination Facility ............................................................. 3
Treatment through the RTP and Proposed AWT Facilities ..................................................................... 3
California Ocean Plan ............................................................................................................................................... 4
Future Ocean Discharges ........................................................................................................................................ 5
Objective of Technical Memorandum ............................................................................................................... 8

Methodology for Ocean Plan Compliance Assessment .................................................... 8

3.1
3.2
3.3

Ocean Plan Compliance Results ..................................................................................... 17


Water Quality of Combined Discharge .......................................................................................................... 17
Ocean Modeling Results ....................................................................................................................................... 20
Ocean Plan Compliance Results ........................................................................................................................ 22

Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 28

References ..................................................................................................................... 29

2.1
Methodology for Determination of Discharge Water Quality ................................................................ 8
2.1.1 Secondary Effluent .................................................................................................................................................. 10
2.1.2 Desalination Brine ................................................................................................................................................... 10
2.1.3 Combined Ocean Discharge Concentrations ................................................................................................ 11
2.2
Ocean Modeling Methodology ........................................................................................................................... 12
2.2.1 Ocean Modeling Scenarios ................................................................................................................................... 13
2.2.2 Ocean Modeling Assumptions ............................................................................................................................. 17

Appendix A ............................................................................................................................ 30
Appendix B ............................................................................................................................ 39

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

DRAFT MPWSP Ocean Plan Compliance

July 2016

1 Introduction

In response to State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Water Rights Orders WR 95-10
and WR 2009-0060, two proposed projects are in development on the Monterey Peninsula to
provide potable water to offset pending reductions of Carmel River water diversions: (1) a
seawater desalination project known as the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project
(MPWSP), and (2) a groundwater replenishment project known as the Pure Water Monterey
Groundwater Replenishment Project (GWR Project). The capacity of the MPWSP is
dependent on whether the GWR Project is constructed.
If the GWR Project is not constructed, the MPWSP would entail California American Water
(CalAm) building a seawater desalination facility capable of producing 9.6 million gallons per
day (mgd) of drinking water. In a variation of that project where the GWR Project is
constructed, known as the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Variant (Variant),
CalAm would build a smaller desalination facility capable of producing 6.4 mgd of drinking
water, and a partnership between the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District
(MPWMD) and the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency (MRWPCA) would
build an advanced water treatment facility (AWT Facility) capable of producing up to 3,700
acre-feet per year (AFY) (3.3 mgd)1 of highly purified recycled water to enable CalAm to extract
3,500 AFY (3.1 mgd) from the Seaside Groundwater Basin for delivery to their customers (the
AWT Facility is part of the GWR Project).
The AWT Facility would purify secondary-treated wastewater (i.e., secondary effluent) from
MRWPCAs Regional Treatment Plant (RTP), and this highly purified recycled water would be
injected into the Seaside Groundwater Basin and later extracted for municipal water supplies.
Both the proposed desalination facility and the proposed AWT Facility would employ reverse
osmosis (RO) membranes to purify the waters, and as a result, both projects would produce RO
concentrate waste streams that would be disposed through the existing MRWPCA ocean outfall:
the brine concentrate from the desalination facility (Desal Brine), and the RO concentrate from
the AWT Facility (GWR Concentrate).
The goal of this technical memorandum is to analyze whether the discharges from the proposed
projects through the existing ocean outfall would impact marine water quality, and thus, human
health, marine biological resources, or beneficial uses of the receiving waters. A similar
assessment of the GWR Project on its own was previously performed (Trussell Technologies,
2015, see Appendix B), and so this document provides complementary information focused on
the MPWSP and the Variant projects.
The original version of this document (Trussell Technologies, 2015b) and an addendum report to
that document (Trussell Technologies, 2015c) were included in both the GWR Project
Consolidated Final Environmental Impact Report (CFEIR) and the MPWSP draft Environmental
Impact Report (EIR). This version has been updated to include new water quality data and flow

One million gallons per day is equal to 1,121 acre-feet per year. The AWT Facility would be capable of producing
up to 4 mgd of highly purified recycled water on a daily basis, but production would fluctuate throughout the year,
such that the average annual production would be 3.3 mgd (3,700 AFY) in a non-drought year.

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

DRAFT MPWSP Ocean Plan Compliance

July 2016

scenarios for the MPWSP and Variant to address data gaps noted in the original analyses (2015b
and 2015c).

1.1 Treatment through the Proposed CalAm Desalination Facility

This section describes the proposed treatment train for the MPWSP and Variant desalination
facility. Seawater from the Monterey Bay would be extracted through subsurface slant wells
beneath the ocean floor and piped to a new CalAm-owned desalination facility. This facility
would consist of granular media pressure filters, cartridge filters, a two-pass RO membrane
system, RO product-water stabilization (for corrosion control), and disinfection (Figure 1). The
RO process is expected to recover 42 percent of the influent seawater flow as product water,
while the remainder of the concentrated influent water becomes the Desal Brine. The MPWSP
and Variant product water (desalinated water) would be used for municipal drinking water, while
the Desal Brine would be blended with (1) available RTP secondary effluent, (2) brine that is
trucked and stored at the RTP, and (3) GWR Concentrate (for the Variant only), and discharged
to the ocean through the existing MRWPCA ocean outfall. The volume of Desal Brine is
dependent on the project size: 13.98 and 8.99 mgd for the MPWSP and Variant, respectively.

Desal Brine

Figure 1 Schematic of CalAm desalination facilities

1.2 Treatment through the RTP and Proposed AWT Facilities

The existing MRWPCA RTP treatment process includes screening, primary sedimentation,
secondary biological treatment through trickling filters followed by a solids contactor (i.e., bioflocculation), and clarification (Figure 2). Much of the secondary effluent undergoes tertiary
treatment (granular media filtration and disinfection) to produce recycled water used for
agricultural irrigation. The unused secondary effluent is discharged to the Monterey Bay through
the MRWPCA outfall. MRWPCA also accepts trucked brine waste for ocean disposal (hauled
brine), which is stored in a pond and mixed with secondary effluent for disposal.
The proposed AWT Facility would include several advanced treatment technologies for
purifying the secondary effluent: ozone (O3), biologically active filtration (BAF) (this is an
optional unit process), membrane filtration (MF), RO, and an advanced oxidation process (AOP)
using ultraviolet light (UV) and hydrogen peroxide. MRWPCA and the MPWMD conducted a
pilot-scale study of the ozone, MF, and RO components of the AWT Facility from December
2013 through July 2014, successfully demonstrating the ability of the various treatment
processes to produce highly purified recycled water that complies with the California
Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

DRAFT MPWSP Ocean Plan Compliance

July 2016

Groundwater Replenishment Water Recycling Criteria (Groundwater Replenishment


Regulations),2 the SWRCBs Anti-degradation and Recycled Water Policies,3 and the Water
Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin (Basin Plan)4 standards, objectives and
guidelines for groundwater. Water quality monitoring of the concentrate from the RO was also
conducted during the pilot-scale study.

GWR Concentrate

Figure 2 Schematic of existing MRWPCA RTP and proposed AWT Facility treatment

1.3 California Ocean Plan

The SWRCB 2012 Ocean Plan (Ocean Plan) sets forth water quality objectives for the ocean
with the intent of preserving the quality of the ocean water for beneficial uses, including the
protection of both human and aquatic ecosystem health (SWRCB, 2012). Regional Water
Quality Control Boards utilize these objectives to develop water quality-based effluent
limitations for ocean dischargers that have a reasonable potential to exceed the water quality
objectives.
When municipal wastewater flows are released from an outfall, the wastewater and ocean water
undergo rapid mixing due to the momentum (from specially designed diffusers) and buoyancy of

2
3
4

SWRCB (2014) Water Recycling Criteria. Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 3, California Code of Regulations.
See http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/plans_policies/
See http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/publications_forms/publications/basin_plan/docs/basin_plan_2011.pdf

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

DRAFT MPWSP Ocean Plan Compliance

July 2016

the discharge.5 The mixing occurring in the rising plume is affected by the buoyancy and
momentum of the discharge, a process referred to as initial dilution (NRC, 1993). For rising
plumes, the Ocean Plan defines the initial dilution as complete when the diluting wastewater
ceases to rise in the water column and first begins to spread horizontally, (i.e., when the
momentum from the discharge has dissipated). For more saline discharges, a sinking plume can
form when the discharge is denser than the ambient water (also known as a negatively buoyant
plume). In the case of negatively buoyant plumes, the Ocean Plan defines the initial dilution as
complete when the momentum induced velocity of the discharge ceases to produce significant
mixing of the waste, or the diluting plume reaches a fixed distance from the discharge to be
specified by the Regional Board, whichever results in the lower estimate for initial dilution.
The Ocean Plan objectives are to be met after the initial dilution of the discharge. The initial
dilution occurs in an area known as the zone of initial dilution (ZID). The extent of dilution in
the ZID is quantified and referred to as the minimum probable initial dilution (Dm). The water
quality objectives established in the Ocean Plan are adjusted by the Dm to derive the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit limits for a wastewater discharge prior
to ocean dilution.
The current MRWPCA wastewater discharge is governed by NPDES permit R3-2014-0013
issued by the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Because the
existing NPDES permit for the MRWPCA ocean outfall must be amended to discharge Desal
Brine, comparing future discharge concentrations to the current NPDES permit limits (that will
likely change when the permit is amended) would not be an appropriate metric or threshold for
determining whether the proposed projects would have a significant impact on marine water
quality. Instead, compliance with the Ocean Plan objectives was selected as an appropriate
threshold for determining whether or not the proposed projects would result in a significant
impact requiring mitigation.
Dr. Philip Roberts, a Professor in the School of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the
Georgia Institute of Technology, conducted modeling of the ocean discharge and estimated Dm
values for scenarios involving different flows of the proposed projects and different ambient
ocean conditions. These ocean modeling results were combined with projected discharge water
quality to assess compliance with the Ocean Plan.

1.4 Future Ocean Discharges

A summary schematic of the MPWSP and Variant is presented in Figure 3. For the MPWSP,
23.58 mgd of ocean water (design capacity) would be treated in the desalination facility; an RO
recovery of 42% would lead to an MPWSP Desal Brine flow of 13.98 mgd that would be
discharged through the outfall. Secondary effluent from the RTP would also be discharged
through the outfall, although the flow would be variable depending on both the raw wastewater
flow and the proportion being processed through the tertiary treatment system at the Salinas
Valley Reclamation Plant (SVRP) to produce recycled water for agricultural irrigation. The third
5

Municipal wastewater effluent, being effectively fresh water in terms of salinity, is less dense than seawater and
thus rises (due to buoyancy) while it mixes with ocean water. GWR Concentrate, whether by itself or mixed with
municipal wastewater effluent, is less dense than seawater and also rises (due to buoyancy) while it mixes with
ocean water.

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

DRAFT MPWSP Ocean Plan Compliance

July 2016

and final discharge component is hauled brine that is trucked to the RTP and blended with
secondary effluent prior to discharge. The maximum anticipated flow of this stream is 0.1 mgd
(blend of brine and secondary effluent). These three discharge components (Desal Brine,
secondary effluent, and hauled brine) would be mixed at the proposed Brine Mixing Facility
prior to ocean discharge.
For the Variant, 15.93 mgd of ocean water (design capacity) would be pumped to the
desalination facility, and an RO recovery of 42% would result in a Variant Desal Brine flow of
8.99 mgd. The Variant would include the GWR Project, which involves the addition of new
source waters to the RTP that would alter the water quality of the secondary effluent produced by
the RTP. The secondary effluent in the Variant is referred to as Variant secondary effluent,
and would be different in quality from the MPWSP secondary effluent. Under the GWR Project,
a portion of the secondary effluent would be fed to the AWT Facility, and the resultant GWR
Concentrate (maximum 0.94 mgd) would be discharged through the outfall. The hauled brine
received at the RTP would continue to be blended with secondary effluent prior to discharge, the
quality of the blended brine and secondary effluent will change as a result of the change in
secondary effluent quality; the hauled brine for the Variant is referred to as Variant hauled
brine. The discharge components for the MPWSP and Variant are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1 Discharge waters Included in each analysis

Project

Desal
Brine

Secondary
Effluent

Variant
Secondary
Effluent

Hauled
Brine

GWR
Concentrate

MPWSP

(13.98 mgd)

(flow varies)

Variant

(8.99 mgd)

(flow varies)

(0.1 mgd)

(0.94 mgd)

Variant
Hauled
Brine a

(0.1 mgd)

This is placed in a separate category because it contains Variant secondary effluent.

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

DRAFT MPWSP Ocean Plan Compliance

July 2016

MPWSP
Seawater from slant wells
23.58 mgd

Municipal Wastewater

Desalination
Facility

Regional Treatment
Plant
Secondary Effluent

To tertiary
treatment

Hauled
Brine
0.1 mgd

Desal Brine
13.98 mgd

Brine
Mixing
Station

Drinking Water
9.6 mgd to distribution

Ocean
Outfall

MPWSP Variant (Variant)


Seawater from slant wells
15.39 mgd

Municipal Wastewater

Desalination
Facility

Regional Treatment
Plant

New GWR source


waters

Variant Secondary
Effluent
Desal Brine
8.99 mgd

Drinking water
6.4 mgd to distribution

Hauled
Brine
0.1 mgd
Brine
Mixing
Station

To tertiary
treatment

Backwash
Return

AWT
Facility

Highly-purified
recycled water
up to 4 mgd to injection

GWR Concentrate
0.94 mgd

Ocean
Outfall

Figure 3 Flow schematics for the MPWSP and Variant projects (specified flow rates are at design
capacity)

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

DRAFT MPWSP Ocean Plan Compliance

July 2016

1.5 Objective of Technical Memorandum

Trussell Technologies, Inc. (Trussell Tech) estimated worst-case in-pipe water quality for the
various ocean discharge scenarios (i.e., prior to dilution through ocean mixing) for the proposed
projects. Dr. Roberts ocean discharge modeling and the results of the water quality analysis
were then used to provide an assessment of whether the proposed projects would consistently
meet Ocean Plan water quality objectives. The objective of this technical memorandum is to
summarize the assumptions, methodology, results and conclusions of the Ocean Plan compliance
assessment for the MPWSP and Variant.

2 Methodology for Ocean Plan Compliance Assessment

Water quality data from various sources for the different treatment process influent and waste
streams were compiled. Trussell Tech combined these data for different flow scenarios and used
ocean modeling results (i.e., Dm values) to assess compliance of different discharge scenarios
with the Ocean Plan objectives. This section documents the data sources and provides further
detail on the methodology used to perform this analysis. A summary of the methodology is
presented in Figure 4.

2.1 Methodology for Determination of Discharge Water Quality

The amounts and combinations of various wastewaters that would be disposed through the
MRWPCA outfall will vary depending on the capacity, seasonal and daily flow characteristics,
and extent and timing of implementation of the proposed projects.
Detailed discussions about the methods used to determine the discharge water qualities related to
the GWR Project were previously discussed and can be found in Appendix B. This previous
analysis included water quality estimates of the secondary effluent, Variant secondary effluent,
hauled brine, Variant hauled brine, and the GWR Concentrate (i.e., all of the discharges except
for the Desal Brine). In the previous analysis, Trussell Tech assumed that the highest observed
values for the various Ocean Plan constituents within each type of water flowing to and treated at
the RTP, including the AWT Facility as applicable, to be the worst-case water quality.6 These
same data and assumptions were used in the analysis described in this memorandum. Use of
these worst-case water quality concentrations ensures that the analysis in this memorandum is
conservative related to the Ocean Plan compliance assessment (and thus, the impact analysis for
the MPWSP environmental review processes).
To determine the impact of the MPWSP and Variant, the worst-case water quality of the Desal
Brine was estimated using available data from CalAms temporary test subsurface slant well on
the CEMEX mine property in Marina, California. Long-term pumping and water quality

The exception to this statement is cyanide. In mid-2011, Monterey Bay Analytical Service (MBAS) began
performing the cyanide analysis on the RTP secondary effluent, at which time the reported values increased by an
order of magnitude. Because no operational or source water composition changes took place at this time that would
result in such an increase, it is reasonable to conclude the increase is an artifact of the change in analysis method and
therefore the results were questionable. Therefore, although the cyanide concentrations reported by MBAS are
presented, they are not used in the analysis for evaluating compliance with the Ocean Plan objectives.

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

DRAFT MPWSP Ocean Plan Compliance

July 2016

sampling from this well began in April 2015.7 As in the previous Ocean Plan compliance
assessments, the highest observed concentrations in the slant well were used for this Ocean Plan
compliance assessment.
The methodology for determining the water quality of the Desal Brine and secondary effluent is
further described in this section (the methodology for all other discharge waters can be found in
Appendix B). A summary of which discharge waters are considered for both the MPWSP and
Variant, and which data sources were used in the determination of the water quality for each
discharge stream is shown in Figure 4.
Step 1: Estimate in-pipe concentration of ocean discharge
Step 1a: Estimate worst-case water quality for each discharge stream
Variant Only

Desal Brine
Slant Well Monitoring
Low-detection split
analysis
Watershed Sanitary
Survey monitoring
Quarterly Ocean Plan
Objectives monitoring
PCBs

Secondary Effluent

GWR source water


monitoring
CCLEAN
EPA Priority Pollutant
monitoring
NPDES monitoring

MPWSP Discharge Components

Variant Secondary
Effluent

Add projected
influence from new
source waters

GWR Concentrate

Calculation based
on secondary
effluent
GWR pilot testing

Variant Discharge Components

Step 1b: Calculate combined in-pipe concentration based on discharge scenarios

Step 2: Apply ocean dilution modeling results to calculate


concentration at edge of ZID for various discharge scenarios

Step 3: Compare concentration at edge of ZID


with Ocean Plan water quality objective

Figure 4 Logic flow chart for determination of MPWSP and Variant compliance with Ocean Plan
objectives.

The well was shut down on June 5, 2015 to assess regional trends in aquifer water levels and resumed pumping
October 27, 2015. The well was shut down again between March 4, 2016 and May 2, 2016 for discharge line repairs.
No water quality data were collected during shutdown periods.

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

DRAFT MPWSP Ocean Plan Compliance

July 2016

2.1.1 Secondary Effluent

For the MPWSP, the discharged secondary effluent would not be impacted by additional source
waters that would be brought in for the Variant; therefore, the historical secondary effluent
quality was used in the analysis. The following sources of data were considered for selecting a
secondary effluent concentration for each constituent in the analysis:
Secondary effluent water quality monitoring conducted for the GWR Project from July
2013 through June 2014.
Historical NPDES compliance water quality data collected semi-annually by MRWPCA
(2005-2014).
Historical Priority Pollutant data collected annually by MRWPCA (2004-2014).
Water quality data collected by the Central Coast Long-Term Environmental Assessment
Network (CCLEAN) (2008-2015).
The secondary effluent concentration for each constituent selected for the analysis was the
maximum reported value from the above sources. In some cases, constituents were not detected
(ND) in any of the source waters; in these cases, the values are reported as ND(<MRL). In cases
where the analysis of a constituent that was detected but not quantified, the result is reported as
less than the Method Reporting Limit ND(<MRL).8 Because the actual concentration could be
any value equal to or less than the MRL, the conservative approach is to use the value of the
MRL. For some ND constituents, the MRL exceeds the Ocean Plan objective, and thus no
compliance determination can be made.9 A detailed discussion of the cases where a constituent
was reported as less than the MRL is included in the GWR Project technical memorandum in
Appendix B (Trussell Technologies, 2015a).

2.1.2 Desalination Brine

Trussell Tech used the following four sources of data for the Desal Brine water quality
assessment:
A one-time 7-day composite sample from the test slant well with separate analysis of
particulate and dissolved phase fractions of constituents using low-detection CCLEAN
analysis techniques (February 18-25, 2016). The maximum total concentration was used
in this analysis (i.e. the sum of the concentration in the particulate and dissolved phase

The lowest amount of an analyte in a sample that can be quantitatively determined with stated, acceptable precision
and accuracy under stated analytical conditions (i.e., the lower limit of quantitation). Therefore, acceptable quality
control and quality assurance procedures are calibrated to the MRL, or lower. To take into account day-to-day
fluctuations in instrument sensitivity, analyst performance, and other factors, the MRL is established at three times
the Method Detection Limit (or greater). The Method Detection Limit is the minimum concentration of a substance
that can be measured and reported with 99% confidence that the analyte concentration is greater than zero. (40 Code
of Federal Regulations Section136 Appendix B).
9
This phenomenon is common in the implementation of the Ocean Plan where for some constituents, suitable
analytical methods are not capable of measuring low enough to quantify the minimum toxicologically relevant
concentrations. For these constituents, a discharge is considered compliant if the monitoring results are less than the
MRL.

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

10

DRAFT MPWSP Ocean Plan Compliance

July 2016

fractions).10 Of the constituents analyzed with this split phase method,11 all were detected
100% in the dissolved phase, except PCBs, which were detected 99% in the dissolved
phase.
CalAm Watershed Sanitary Survey monitoring program monthly test slant well sampling
water quality results (May 2015 February 2016).12
Quarterly sampling of the test slant well for constituents specified in the Ocean Plan
(November 2015 and February 2016).
Test slant well sampling by Geoscience Support Services, Inc. (Geoscience) every
other month for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) (May 2015 February 2016).11

The maximum value observed in any of the data sources was assumed to be the worst-case
water quality for the raw seawater feeding the desalination facility. If a constituent was ND in all
samples, and multiple analysis methods were used with varying MRL values, the highest MRL
was assumed for compliance analysis; the exception to this statement is when data was available
from the low detection limit 7-day composite sample. As for the secondary effluent water
quality, if the sample results of a constituent reported the concentration as less than the MRL, the
MRL was assumed for compliance analysis and the concentration is reported as ND(<MRL) in
this TM. Equation 1 was used to calculate a conservative estimate of the Desal Brine
concentration (CBrine) for each constituent by using a concentration factor of 1.73, which was
calculated assuming complete rejection of the constituent in the feed water (CFeed) and a 42
percent recovery (%R) through the seawater RO membranes.

CBrine =

CFeed
1%R

(1)

The original Technical Memorandum (TM) (Trussell Technologies, 2015b) noted that no data
were available for several Ocean Plan constituents. For constituents that lacked Desal Brine
data, a concentration of zero was assumed for the previous analysis, such that the partial
influence of the other discharge streams could still be assessed. Thus, a complete worst-case
assessment for these constituents was not previously possible. The updated analysis discussed in
this TM includes data for all of the constituents where no data were previously available, except
for toxicity, which will be discussed in Section 2.2.

2.1.3 Combined Ocean Discharge Concentrations

Having estimated the worst-case concentrations for each of the discharge components, the
combined concentration prior to discharge was determined as a flow-weighted average of the
contributions of each of the discharge components appropriate for the MPWSP and Variant.
10

Only method detection limits were provided for these results. When a constituent was ND in this dataset, the
method detection limit was used for analysis.
11
Hexachlorobutadiene, hexachlorobenzene, HCH, heptachlor, Aldrin, chlordane, DDT, heptachlor epoxide,
dieldrin, Endrin, endosulfans, toxaphene, PCBs
12
The well was shut down on June 5, 2015 to assess regional trends in aquifer water levels and resumed pumping
October 27, 2015. The well was shut down again between March 4, 2016 and May 2, 2016 for discharge line repairs.
No water quality data were collected during shutdown periods.

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

11

DRAFT MPWSP Ocean Plan Compliance

July 2016

2.2 Ocean Modeling Methodology

In order to determine Ocean Plan compliance, Trussell Tech used the following information: (1)
the in-pipe (i.e., pre-ocean dilution) concentration of a constituent (Cin-pipe) that was developed as
discussed in the previous section, (2) the minimum probable dilution for the ocean mixing (Dm)
for the discharge flow scenarios that were modeled by Dr. Roberts13 (Roberts, P. J. W, 2016),
and (3) the background concentration of the constituent in the ocean (CBackground) that is specified
in Table 3 of the Ocean Plan (SWRCB, 2012). With this information, the concentration at the
edge of the zone of initial dilution (CZID) was calculated using the following equation:
C"#$ =

'()*+,+- . $/ '12345678)9
:. $/

(2)

The CZID was then compared to the Ocean Plan water quality objectives14 in Table 1 of the
Ocean Plan (SWRCB, 2012). In this table, there are three categories of objectives: (1)
Objectives for Protection of Marine Aquatic Life, (2) Objectives for Protection of Human Health
Non-Carcinogens, and (3) Objectives for Protection of Human Health Carcinogens. There
are three objectives for each constituent included in the first category (for marine aquatic life):
six-month median, daily maximum and instantaneous maximum concentration. For the other
two categories, there is one objective: 30-day average concentration. When a constituent had
three objectives, the lowest objective, the six-month median, was used to estimate compliance.
This approach was taken because the discharge scenarios, discussed in further detail below,
could be experienced for six months, and therefore the 6-month median objective would need to
be met. For the ammonia objectives (specifically, the total ammonia concentration calculated as
the sum of unionized ammonia (NH3) and ionized ammonia (NH4), expressed in g/L as N) the
daily maximum and 6-month median objectives were evaluated.
For each discharge scenario, if the CZID was below the Ocean Plan objective, then it was assumed
that the discharge would comply with the Ocean Plan. However, if the CZID exceeds the Ocean
Plan objective, then it was concluded that the discharge scenario could violate the Ocean Plan
objective. Note that this approach could not be applied for some constituents, viz., acute toxicity,
chronic toxicity, and radioactivity. Calculating flow-weighted averages for toxicity (acute and
chronic) and radioactivity (gross beta and gross alpha) is not appropriate based on the nature of
the constituents. These constituents were measured individually for the secondary effluent and
GWR Concentrate, and these individual concentrations would comply with the Ocean Plan
13

The Ocean Plan defines Dm differently than Dr. Roberts. A value of 1 must be subtracted from the dilution
estimates provided by Dr. Roberts prior to using Equation 1.
14
Note that the Ocean Plan also defines effluent limitations for oil and grease, suspended solids, settleable solids,
turbidity, and pH (see Ocean Plan Table 2). These parameters were not evaluated in this assessment. It is assumed
that, if necessary, the pH of the water would be adjusted to be within acceptable limits prior to discharge. Oil and
grease, suspended solids, settable solids, and turbidity in the GWR Concentrate and Desal Brine would be
significantly lower than the secondary effluent. Prior to the AWT Facility RO treatment process, the process flow
would be treated by MF, which will reduce these parameters, and the waste stream from the MF will be returned to
RTP headworks. Prior to the Desalination Facility RO treatment process, the process flow would be treated by
granular media filters and cartridge filters, which reduce these parameters. The waste stream from the granular
media filter would be further treated in gravity thickening basins prior to any discharge of the decant through the
ocean outfall. The cartridge filters will be disposed off-site and the solids will not be returned to the process.

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

12

DRAFT MPWSP Ocean Plan Compliance

July 2016

objectives. Toxicity testing on the seawater was not included in the analysis for this TM; it will
be evaluated by another method not discussed in this TM.
Dr. Roberts performed modeling of 16 discharge scenarios for the MPWSP and Variant that
include combinations of Desal Brine, secondary effluent, GWR Concentrate, and hauled brine
(Roberts, P. J. W, 2016). All scenarios assume the maximum flow rates for the GWR
Concentrate, Desal Brine and hauled brine, which is a conservative assumption in terms of
constituent loading and minimum dilution.

2.2.1 Ocean Modeling Scenarios

The modeled scenarios are summarized in Tables 2 and 3 for the MPWSP and the Variant,
respectively. The baseline MPWSP discharge scenario in Table 2 that has no Desal Brine (i.e.
Scenario 1) is shown for completeness, but will not be analyzed in this TM as this flow scenario
would fall under MRWPCAs existing NPDES permit, for which a Dm value is already
established. The Variant discharge scenarios that have no Desal Brine (i.e. Scenarios 11 through
15) have already been analyzed and found to comply with the Ocean Plan (Trussell Tech 2015,
see Appendix B); these scenarios are shown in Table 3 for completeness, but for simplicity, the
analysis of these scenarios is not repeated in Section 3.
Table 2 - Modeled flow scenarios for the MPWSP
No.

Discharge Scenario

Discharge Flows (mgd)


Secondary
Effluent

Desal Brine

Hauled
Brine a

19.78

0.1

Baseline - high secondary effluent b

Desal Brine with no secondary effluent

13.98

0.1

Desal Brine with low secondary effluent

13.98

0.1

Desal Brine with low secondary effluent

13.98

0.1

Desal Brine with moderate secondary effluent

13.98

0.1

Desal Brine with high secondary effluent b

19.78

13.98

0.1

Hauled brine was not included in the modeling of MPWSP flow scenarios; however, the change in both flow and
TDS from the addition of hauled brine is less then 1% and thus is expected to have a negligible impact on the
modeled Dm.
b
Note that RTP wastewater flows have been declining in recent years as a result of water conservation; while 19.78
mgd is higher than current RTP wastewater flows, this is expected to be a conservative scenario with respect to
ocean modeling, compared to using the current wastewater flows of 16 to 18 mgd.

MPWSP Flow Scenarios:


(1) Baseline high secondary effluent: The baseline flow scenario with no Desal Brine.
This scenario represents times when the desalination facility is offline, the demand
for recycled water is lowest (e.g., during winter months), and the SVRP is not
operational.
(2) Desal Brine with no secondary effluent: The maximum influence of the Desal Brine
on the overall discharge (i.e., no secondary effluent discharged). This scenario would
be representative of conditions when demand for recycled water is highest (e.g.,
Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

13

DRAFT MPWSP Ocean Plan Compliance

July 2016

during summer months), and all of the RTP secondary effluent is recycled through the
SVRP for agricultural irrigation.
(3-4) Desal Brine with low secondary effluent: Desal Brine discharged with a relatively
low amount of secondary effluent, resulting in a negatively buoyant plume. This
scenario represents times when demand for recycled water is high, but there is excess
secondary effluent that is discharged to the ocean.
(5) Desal Brine with moderate secondary effluent: Desal Brine discharged with a
relatively moderate secondary effluent flow that results in a plume with slightly
negative buoyancy. This scenario would be representative of conditions when
demand for recycled water is low, and there is excess secondary effluent that is
discharged to the ocean.
(6) Desal Brine with high secondary effluent: Desal Brine discharged with a relatively
high amount of secondary effluent, resulting in a positively buoyant plume. This
scenario would be representative of conditions when demand for recycled water is
lowest (e.g., during winter months), and the SVRP is not operational.

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

14

DRAFT MPWSP Ocean Plan Compliance

July 2016

Table 3 Modeled flow scenarios for the Variant


No.

Discharge Scenario

Discharge Flows (mgd)


Secondary Effluent

Desal Brine

GWR
Concentrate

Hauled
Brine a

Desal Brine only

8.99

0.1

Desal Brine with low secondary effluent

8.99

0.1

Desal Brine with low secondary effluent

8.99

0.1

Desal Brine with moderate secondary


effluent

5.8

8.99

0.1

Desal Brine with high secondary effluent b

19.78

8.99

0.1

Desal Brine with GWR Concentrate and no


0
8.99
0.94
0.1
secondary effluent
Desal Brine with GWR Concentrate and
7
1
8.99
0.94
0.1
low secondary effluent
Desal Brine with GWR Concentrate and
8
3
8.99
0.94
0.1
low secondary effluent
Desal Brine with GWR Concentrate and
9
5.3
8.99
0.94
0.1
moderate secondary effluent
Desal Brine with GWR Concentrate and
10
15.92
8.99
0.94
0.1
high secondary effluent
RTP design capacity with GWR
11
24.7
0
0.94
0.1
Concentrate c
RTP capacity with GWR Concentrate with
12
23.7
0
0.94
0.1
current port configuration c
Minimum secondary effluent flow with
13
0
0
0.94
0.1
GWR Concentrate c
Minimum secondary effluent flow with
14 GWR Concentrate during Davidson
0.4
0
0.94
0.1
oceanic conditions c
Moderate secondary effluent flow with
15
3
0
0.94
0.1
GWR concentrate c
a
Hauled brine was not included in the modeling of Variant scenarios involving discharge of desalination brine.
However, the change in both flow and TDS from the addition of hauled brine is less than 1% and thus is expected to
have a negligible impact on the modeled Dm.
b
Note that RTP wastewater flows have been declining in recent years as a result of conservation; while 19.68 mgd is
higher than current RTP wastewater flows, this is expected to be a conservative scenario with respect to ocean
modeling, compared to using the current wastewater flows of 16 to 18 mgd.
c
Scenarios 11 through 15 were analyzed as part of a previous analysis (see Appendix B), and based on the
documented assumptions, the GWR Concentrate would comply with the Ocean Plan objectives; therefore, these
scenarios are not discussed further in this memorandum.
6

Variant Flow Scenarios:


(1) Desal Brine only: Desal Brine discharged without secondary effluent or GWR
Concentrate. This scenario would be representative of conditions when the smaller
(6.4 mgd) desalination facility is in operation, but the AWT Facility is not operating

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

15

DRAFT MPWSP Ocean Plan Compliance

July 2016

(e.g., offline for maintenance), and all of the secondary effluent is recycled through
the SVRP (e.g., during high irrigation water demand summer months).
(2-3) Desal Brine with low secondary effluent: Desal Brine discharged with low
secondary effluent flow, but no GWR Concentrate, which results in a negatively
buoyant plume. This scenario would be representative of times when the smaller
desalination facility is in operation, but the AWT Facility is not operating (e.g. offline
for maintenance), and most of the secondary effluent is recycled through the SVRP
(e.g., during high irrigation water demand summer months).
(4) Desal Brine with moderate secondary effluent: Desal Brine discharged with a
relatively moderate flow of secondary effluent, but no GWR concentrate, which
results in a plume with slightly negative buoyancy. This scenario represents times
when demand for recycled water is low (e.g., during winter months), and the AWT
Facility is not operating.
(5) Desal Brine with high secondary effluent: Desal Brine discharged with a relatively
high flow of secondary effluent, but no GWR concentrate, resulting in a positively
buoyant plume. This scenario would be representative of conditions when demand
for recycled water is lowest (e.g., during winter months), and neither the SVRP nor
the AWT Facility are operational.
(6) Desal Brine with GWR Concentrate and no secondary effluent: Desal Brine
discharged with GWR Concentrate and no secondary effluent. This scenario would
be representative of the condition where both the desalination facility and the AWT
Facility are in operation, and there is the highest demand for recycled water through
the SVRP (e.g., during summer months).
(7-8) Desal Brine with GWR Concentrate and low secondary effluent: Desal Brine
discharged with low secondary effluent flow and GWR Concentrate, which results in
a negatively buoyant plume. This scenario would be representative of times when
both the desalination facility and the AWT Facility are in operation, and most of the
secondary effluent is recycled through the SVRP (e.g., during high irrigation water
demand summer months).
(9) Desal Brine with GWR Concentrate and moderate secondary effluent: Desal
Brine discharged with GWR Concentrate and a relatively moderate secondary
effluent flow that results in a plume with slightly negative buoyancy. This scenario
represents times when both the desalination facility and the AWT Facility are
operating, but demand for recycled water is low and there is excess secondary
effluent discharged to the ocean.
(10) Desal Brine with GWR Concentrate and high secondary effluent: Desal Brine
discharged with GWR Concentrate and a relatively high flow of secondary effluent.
The reduction of secondary effluent flow between Scenario 5 and this scenario is a
result of the AWT Facility operation. This would be a typical discharge scenario
when there is no demand for tertiary recycled water (e.g., during winter months).
(11-15) Variant conditions with no Desal Brine contribution: These scenarios represent a
range of conditions that would exist when the CalAm desalination facilities were
offline for any reason. These conditions were previously evaluated (Trussell Tech,
2015) and thus are not discussed further in this technical memorandum.

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

16

DRAFT MPWSP Ocean Plan Compliance

July 2016

2.2.2 Ocean Modeling Assumptions

Dr. Roberts documented the modeling assumptions and results in a technical memorandum
(Roberts, P. J. W., 2016). The modeling assumptions were specific to ambient oceanic
conditions: Davidson (November to March), Upwelling (April to August), and Oceanic
(September to October).15 In order to conservatively demonstrate Ocean Plan compliance, the
lowest Dm from the applicable ocean conditions was used for each flow scenario. For all
scenarios, the ocean modeling was performed assuming all 129 operational diffuser ports were
open.
Three methods were used when modeling the ocean mixing: (1) the Cederwall formula (for
neutral and negatively buoyant plumes only), (2) the mathematical model UM3 in the United
States Environmental Protection Agencys (EPAs) Visual Plume suite, and (3) the NRFIELD
model (for positively buoyant plumes only), also from the EPAs Visual Plume suite (Roberts, P.
J. W., 2016). When results were provided from multiple methods, the minimum predicted Dm
value was used in this analysis as a conservative approach.

3 Ocean Plan Compliance Results


3.1 Water Quality of Combined Discharge

As described above, the first step in the Ocean Plan compliance analysis was to estimate the
worst-case water quality for the future wastewater discharge components (viz., Desal Brine,
secondary effluent, hauled brine and GWR Concentrate). The estimated water quality for each
type of discharge is provided in Table 4. The Desal Brine water quality previously assumed in
Trussell Technologies, 2015b is also included in Table 4 for reference (Previous Desal Brine);
only the updated Desal Brine water quality was used in this analysis (Updated Desal Brine).
Specific assumptions and data sources for each constituent are documented in the Table 4
footnotes.
Table 4 Estimated worst-case water quality for the various discharge waters
Updated
Secondary Effluent
Hauled Brine
Previous
Desal
Desal Brine MPWSP
Variant
MPWSP
Variant
Brine
Objectives for protection of marine aquatic life 6-month median limit
Arsenic
g/L
17.2
37.9
45
45
45
45
Cadmium
g/L
5.0
7.9
1
1.2
1
1.2
Chromium (Hexavalent)
g/L ND(<0.03)

ND(<2)
2.7
130
130
Copper
g/L
0.5
3.07
10
10.5
39
39
Lead
g/L ND(<0.5)
6.4
ND(<0.5)
0.82
0.76
0.82
Mercury
g/L
0.414
ND(<0.3)
0.019
0.089
0.044
0.089
Nickel
g/L
11.0
ND(<8.6)
5.2
13.1
5.2
13.1
Selenium
g/L ND(<0.09)
55.2
3
6.5
75
75
Silver
g/L
0.50
0.064
ND(<0.19) ND(<1.59) ND(<0.19) ND(<1.59)
Zinc
g/L
9.5
ND(<35)
20
48.4
20
48.4
Cyanide (MBAS data)
g/L
--81
89.5
81
89.5
Cyanide
g/L ND(<8.6) ND(<8.6)
7.2
7.2
46
46
Total Chlorine Residual
g/L
-ND(<200) ND(<200) ND(<200) ND(<200) ND(<200)
Ammonia (as N) 6-mo
g/L
143.1
ND(<86.2)
36,400
36,400
36,400
36,400
median
Constituent

Units

GWR
Concentrate

Footnotes

12
6.4
14
55
4.3
0.510
69
34
ND(<0.19)
255
143
38
ND(<200)

2,6,16,21
1,7,15,21
3,7,15,21
1,7,15,21,28
1,3,7,15,21
1,10,16,21
1,7,15,21
2,7,15,21
3,9,18,21
1,7,15,21
1,7,16,20
1,11,15,20,21
5

191,579

1,6,15,21,27

15

Note that these ranges assign the transitional months to the ocean condition that is typically more restrictive at
relevant discharge flows.

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

17

DRAFT MPWSP Ocean Plan Compliance

Constituent
Ammonia (as N) daily max
Acute Toxicity
Chronic Toxicity
Phenolic Compounds
(non-chlorinated)

July 2016

g/L
TUa
TUc

Updated
Secondary Effluent
Previous
Desal
Desal Brine MPWSP
Variant
Brine
143.1
ND(<86.2)
49,000
49,000
-
2.3
2.3
-
40
40

g/L

ND(<86.2)

Units

69

69

Hauled Brine
Variant

Concentrate

49,000
2.3
80

49,000
2.3
40

257,895
0.77
100

69

69

363

ND(<34.5)

Chlorinated Phenolics
g/L

ND(<20)
ND(<20)
ND(<20)
ND(<20)
g/L ND(<3.4E-6)
Endosulfan
6.7E-05
0.015
0.048
0.015
0.048
Endrin
g/L ND(<1.6E-6)
2.8E-05
0.000079 0.000079 0.000079 0.000079
HCH (Hexachlorocyclohexane)
g/L 0.000043
0.00068
0.034
0.060
0.034
0.060
Radioactivity (Gross Beta)
pCi/L ND(<5.17)

32
32
307
307
Radioactivity (Gross Alpha)
pCi/L
22.4

18
18
457
457
Objectives for protection of human health non carcinogens 30-day average limit
Acrolein
g/L ND(<3.4)

ND(<5)
9.0
ND(<5)
9.0
Antimony
g/L
0.19
16.6
0.65
0.79
0.65
0.79
Bis (2-chloroethoxy) methane g/L ND(<16.7)

ND(<0.5) ND(<4.2)
ND(<0.5) ND(<4.2)
Bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether
g/L ND(<16.7)

ND(<0.5) ND(<4.2)
ND(<0.5) ND(<4.2)
Chlorobenzene
g/L ND(<0.9)

ND(<0.5) ND(<0.5)
ND(<0.5) ND(<0.5)
Chromium (III)
g/L
17
106.9
3.0
7.3
87
87
Di-n-butyl phthalate
g/L ND(<16.7)

ND(<5)
ND(<7)
ND(<5)
ND(<7)
Dichlorobenzenes
g/L ND(<0.9)

1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
Diethyl phthalate
g/L ND(<0.9)

ND(<5)
ND(<5)
ND(<5)
ND(<5)
Dimethyl phthalate
g/L ND(<0.9)

ND(<2)
ND(<2)
ND(<2)
ND(<2)
4,6-dinitro-2-methylphenol
g/L ND(<84.5)

ND(<0.5) ND(<20)
ND(<0.5)
ND(<20)
2,4-dinitrophenol
g/L ND(<86.2)

ND(<0.5) ND(<13)
ND(<0.5)
ND(<13)
Ethylbenzene
g/L ND(<0.9)

ND(<0.5) ND(<0.5)
ND(<0.5) ND(<0.5)
Fluoranthene
g/L ND(<0.2)
0.0019
0.00654
0.00654
0.00654
0.00654
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
g/L ND(<0.09)

ND(<0.5) ND(<0.5)
ND(<0.5) ND(<0.5)
Nitrobenzene
g/L ND(<41.4)

ND(<0.5) ND(<2.3)
ND(<0.5) ND(<2.3)
Thallium
g/L ND(<0.1) ND(<1.7) ND(<0.5)
0.69
ND(<0.5)
0.69
Toluene
g/L ND(<0.9) ND(<0.9) ND(<0.5) ND(<0.5)
ND(<0.5) ND(<0.5)
Tributyltin
g/L ND(<0.08)

ND(<0.05) ND(<0.05) ND(<0.05) ND(<0.05)


1,1,1-trichloroethane
g/L ND(<0.9) ND(<0.9) ND(<0.5) ND(<0.5)
ND(<0.5) ND(<0.5)
Objectives for protection of human health carcinogens 30-day average limit
Acrylonitrile
g/L ND(<3.4)

ND(<2)
2.5
ND(<2)
2.5
ND(<0.005) ND(<0.007) ND(<0.005) ND(<0.007)
Aldrin
g/L ND(<6.7E-5)

Benzene
g/L ND(<0.9) ND(<0.9) ND(<0.5) ND(<0.5)
ND(<0.5) ND(<0.5)
Benzidine
g/L ND(<86.2)

ND(<0.5) ND(<19.8) ND(<0.5) ND(<19.8)


Beryllium
g/L ND(<0.9) ND(<1.7) ND(<0.5) ND(<0.69)
0.0052
0.0052
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
g/L ND(<41.4)

ND(<0.5) ND(<4.2)
ND(<0.5) ND(<4.2)
Bis(2-ethyl-hexyl)phthalate
g/L ND(<1.0) ND(<1.0)
78
78
78
78
Carbon tetrachloride
g/L ND(<0.9) ND(<0.5) ND(<0.5)
0.50
ND(<0.5)
0.50
Chlordane
g/L
1.45E-5
0.0002
0.00068
0.00068
0.00068
0.00068
Chlorodibromomethane
g/L ND(<0.9)

ND(<0.5)
2.4
ND(<0.5)
2.4
Chloroform
g/L ND(<0.9)

2
39
2
39
DDT
g/L
1.7E-6
0.00055
0.0001
0.0001
0.0012
0.0012
1,4-dichlorobenzene
g/L ND(<0.9) ND(<0.9)
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
ND(<0.025) ND(<19)
ND(<0.025)
3,3-dichlorobenzidine
g/L ND(<86.2)

ND(<19)
1,2-dichloroethane
g/L ND(<0.9) ND(<0.9) ND(<0.5) ND(<0.5)
ND(<0.5) ND(<0.5)
1,1-dichloroethylene
g/L ND(<0.9) ND(<0.9) ND(<0.5) ND(<0.5)
0.5
0.5
Dichlorobromomethane
g/L ND(<0.9)

ND(<0.5)
2.6
ND(<0.5)
2.6
Dichloromethane
g/L ND(<0.9) ND(<0.9)
0.55
0.64
0.55
0.64
1,3-dichloropropene
g/L ND(<0.9) ND(<0.9) ND(<0.5)
0.56
ND(<0.5)
0.56
Dieldrin
g/L
4.7E-5
8.8E-05
0.0001
0.0001
0.0006
0.0006
2,4-dinitrotoluene
g/L ND(<0.2)

ND(<2)
ND(<2)
ND(<2)
ND(<2)
1,2-diphenylhydrazine
g/L ND(<16.7)

ND(<0.5) ND(<4.2)
ND(<0.5) ND(<4.2)
Halomethanes
g/L ND(<0.9)

0.54
1.4
0.73
1.4
Heptachlor
g/L ND(<6.9E-7)
8.6E-06 ND(<0.01) ND(<0.01) ND(<0.01) ND(<0.01)
Heptachlor epoxide
g/L ND(<1.6E-6) ND(<0.02) 0.000079 0.000079 0.000079 0.000079
Hexachlorobenzene

g/L

Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachloroethane
Isophorone
N-Nitrosodimethylamine

g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L

ND
(<6.5E-5)
ND(<3.4E-7)

GWR

MPWSP

ND(<20)
0.25
0.00042
0.314
34.8
14.4
47
4.1
ND(<1)
ND(<1)
ND(<0.5)
38
ND(<1)
8
ND(<1)
ND(<0.5)
ND(<5)
ND(<5)
ND(<0.5)
0.03442
ND(<0.05)
ND(<1)
3.7
ND(<0.5)
ND(<0.02)
ND(<0.5)

Footnotes
1,6,15,21,27
1,12,16,17,24
1,12,16,17,24
1,6,14,15,23,25
26
3,9,18,23,25,26
1,10,14,15,22,25

4,8,15,22
1,15,22,25
1,6,12,16,17,23
1,6,12,16,17,23
3,7,15,23
1,6,15,21
3,9,18,23
3,9,18,23
3,9,18,21
2,6,15,21
3,9,18,23
1,6,15,21
3,9,18,23
3,9,18,23
3,9,18,23
3,9,18,23
3,9,18,21
4,9,18,23
3,9,18,23
3,9,18,23
3,7,15,21
3,9,18,21
3,13,18,23
3,9,18,21

13
3,7,15,23
ND(<0.01)
3,9,18,23
ND(<0.5)
3,9,18,21
ND(<0.05)
3,9,18,23
ND(<0.5)
3,9,17,18,21
ND(<1)
3,9,18,23
411
2,6,15,23
2.66
3,7,15,21
0.0036
4,8,14,15,22,25
13
3,7,15,21
204
2,7,15,21
4,7,14,19,22,25
0.006
8.4
1,6,15,21
ND(<2)
3,9,18,23
ND(<0.5)
3,9,18,21
ND(<0.5)
3,9,18,21
14
3,7,15,21
3.4
1,7,15,21
3.0
3,7,15,21
0.0033
4,7,19,22
ND(<0.1)
3,9,18,23
ND(<1)
3,9,18,23
7.5
2,7,14,15,21
ND(<0.01)
3,9,18,22
0.000416
4,8,15,22

ND(<0.09)

0.000078

0.000078

0.000078

0.000078

0.000411

4,8,15,22,23

ND(<0.9)

ND(<0.003)

ND(<0.003)

0.000009
ND(<0.5)
ND(<0.5)
0.017

0.000009
ND(<2.3)
ND(<0.5)
0.096

0.000009
ND(<0.5)
ND(<0.5)
0.017

0.000009
ND(<2.3)
ND(<0.5)
0.096

0.000047
ND(<0.5)
ND(<0.5)
0.150

4,8,15,22
3,9,18,23
3,9,18,23
2,7,16,17,23

ND(<16.7)

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

18

DRAFT MPWSP Ocean Plan Compliance

Constituent

Units

N-Nitrosodi-N-Propylamine
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
PAHs
PCBs

g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L

TCDD Equivalents

g/L

1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Toxaphene
Trichloroethylene
1,1,2-trichloroethane
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
Vinyl chloride

g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L

Updated
Secondary Effluent
Previous
Desal
Desal Brine MPWSP
Variant
Brine
ND(<0.003) ND(<0.003)
0.076
0.076
ND(<16.7)

ND(<0.5) ND(<2.3)
2.2E-3
0.012
0.03
0.03
0.00013
0.002
0.00068
0.00068
ND

1.37E-7
1.42E-7
(<2.5E-5)
ND(<0.9) ND(<0.9) ND(<0.5) ND(<0.5)
ND(<0.9) ND(<0.9) ND(<0.5) ND(<0.5)
3.97E-5 ND(<0.0013)
0.0071
0.0071
ND(<0.9) ND(<0.9) ND(<0.5) ND(<0.5)
ND(<0.9) ND(<0.9) ND(<0.5) ND(<0.5)
ND(<16.7)

ND(<0.5) ND(<2.3)
ND(<0.5) ND(<0.5) ND(<0.5) ND(<0.5)

July 2016
Hauled Brine

GWR

Footnotes

MPWSP

Variant

Concentrate

0.076
ND(<0.5)
0.03
0.00068

0.076
ND(<2.3)
0.03
0.00068

0.019
ND(<1)
0.19
0.00357

2,6,16,17,23
3,9,18,23
4,8,14,15,22,25
4,8,14,15,22,25

1.37E-7

1.42E-7

7.46E-7

4,13,14,15,23,25

ND(<0.5)
ND(<0.5)
0.0071
ND(<0.5)
ND(<0.5)
ND(<0.5)
ND(<0.5)

ND(<0.5)
ND(<0.5)
0.0071
ND(<0.5)
ND(<0.5)
ND(<2.3)
ND(<0.5)

ND(<0.5)
ND(<0.5)
0.0373
ND(<0.5)
ND(<0.5)
ND(<1)
ND(<0.5)

3,9,18,21
3,9,18,21
4,8,15,22
3,9,18,21
3,9,18,21
3,9,18,23
3,9,18,21

Table 4 Footnotes:
MPWSP Secondary Effluent and Hauled Brine
1
The value reported is based on MRWPCA historical data.
2
The value reported is based on secondary effluent data collected during the GWR Project source water monitoring
programs (not impacted by the proposed new source waters), and are representative of future water quality under the
MPWSP scenario.
3
The MRL provided represents the limit from NPDES monitoring data for secondary effluent and hauled waste. In
cases where constituents had varying MRLs, in general, the lowest MRL is reported.
4
RTP effluent value presented based on CCLEAN data.
Total Chlorine Residual
5
For all waters, it is assumed that dechlorination will be provided such that the total chlorine residual will be below
detection.
Variant Secondary Effluent and Hauled Brine
6
Existing RTP effluent exceeds concentrations observed in other proposed source waters; the value reported is the
existing secondary effluent value.
7
The proposed new source waters may increase the secondary effluent concentration; the value reported is based on
predicted source water blends.
8
RTP effluent value is based on CCLEAN data; no other source waters were considered due to MRL differences.
9
MRL provided represents the maximum flow-weighted MRL based on the blend of source waters.
10
The only water with a detected concentration was the RTP effluent, however the flow-weighted concentration
increases due to higher MRLs for the proposed new source waters.
11
Additional source water data are not available; the reported value is for RTP effluent.
12
Calculation of the flow-weighted concentration was not feasible due to constituent. The maximum observed value
is reported.
13
Agricultural Wash Water data are based on an aerated sample, instead of a raw water sample.
14
This value in the Ocean Plan is an aggregate of several congeners or compounds. Per the approach described in
the Ocean Plan, for cases where the individual congeners/compounds were less than the MRL, a value of 0 is
assumed in calculating the aggregate value.
GWR Concentrate Data
15
The value presented represents a calculated value assuming no removal prior to RO, complete rejection through
RO membrane, and an 81% RO recovery.
16
The value represents the maximum value observed during the pilot testing study.
17
The calculated value for the AWT Facility data (described in note 15) was not used in the analysis because it was
not considered representative. It is expected that the value would increase as a result of treatment through the AWT
Facility (e.g. formation of N-Nitrosodimethylamine as a disinfection by-product), or that it will not concentrate
linearly through the RO (e.g. toxicity and radioactivity).
18
The MRL provided represents the limit from the source water and pilot testing monitoring programs.

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

19

DRAFT MPWSP Ocean Plan Compliance

July 2016

19

The value presented represents a calculated value assuming 93% and 84% removal through primary and
secondary treatment for DDT and dieldrin, respectively, and 36% and 44% removal through ozone for DDT and
dieldrin, respectively, complete rejection through the RO membrane, and an 81% RO recovery. The assumed
removals are based on results from ozone bench-scale testing of Blanco Drain water blended with secondary effluent
and low detection sampling through the RTP.
Cyanide Data
20
In mid-2011, MBAS began performing the cyanide analysis on the RTP effluent, at which time the reported
values increased by an order of magnitude. Because no operational or source water composition changes took place
at this time that would result in such an increase, it is reasonable to conclude the increase is an artifact of the change
in analysis method and therefore questionable. Therefore, the cyanide values as measured by MBAS are listed
separately from other cyanide values, and the MBAS data were not be used in the analysis for evaluating compliance
with the Ocean Plan objectives.
Desal Brine Data
21
The value reported is based on test slant well data collected through the Watershed Sanitary Survey.
22
The value reported is based on data from the one-time 7-day composite sample from the test slant well. If ND, the
method detection limit was used for the analysis instead of the MRL. MRLs were not available for this data set.
23
The value reported is based on data from the test slant well collected through the quarterly Ocean Plan
constituents monitoring.
24
Acute and chronic toxicity have not been measured or estimated
25
This value in the Ocean Plan is an aggregate of several congeners or compounds. Per the approach described in
the Ocean Plan, for cases where the individual congeners/compounds were less than the MRL, a value of 0 is
assumed in calculating the aggregate value.
26
Chlorinated phenolic compounds is the sum of the following: 4-chloro-3-methylphenol, 2-chlorophenol,
pentachlorophenol, 2,4,5-trichlorophenol, and 2,4,6-trichlorophenol. Non-chlorinated phenolic compounds is the
sum of the following: 2,4-dimethylphenol, 4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol, 2,4-dinitrophenol, 2-methylphenol, 4methylphenol, 2-nitrophenol, 4-nitrophenol, and phenol.
General
27
Ammonia (as N) represents the total ammonia concentration, i.e. the sum of unionized ammonia (NH3) and
ionized ammonia (NH4).
28
The value reported for the Variant secondary effluent was calculated using the median of the data collected for the
new source waters and is an estimate of the potential increase in concentration of the secondary effluent based on
predicted source water blends. The value reported for the Desal Brine was calculated with the median of the data
collected from the test slant well and assuming a 42% recovery through the RO. The median values were used
because the maximum values detected in both sources appear to be outliers, and because the Ocean Plan objective is
a 6-month median concentration, it is reasonable to use the median value detected from these source waters.

3.2 Ocean Modeling Results

The estimated minimum probable dilution (Dm) for each discharge scenario is presented in
Tables 5 and 6 (Roberts, P. J. W., 2016). For discharge scenarios that were modeled with more
than one modeling method, the lowest Dm (i.e., most conservative) is reported in the tables
below. For the MPWSP, the flow scenarios in which little or no secondary effluent was
discharged (Scenarios 2, 3 and 4) resulted in the lowest Dm values as a result of the discharge
plume being negatively buoyant. At higher secondary effluent flows, the discharge plume would
be positively buoyant, resulting in an increased Dm, as evidenced in Scenario 6. The same trend
was observed for Variant scenarios.

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

20

DRAFT MPWSP Ocean Plan Compliance

July 2016

Table 5 Flow scenarios and modeled Dm values used for Ocean Plan compliance analysis for MPWSP
No.
2

Discharge Scenario
(Ocean Condition)
Desal Brine with no secondary effluent

Discharge flows (mgd)


Secondary
effluent

Desal Brine

Hauled
brine a

13.98

0.1

Dm b
14.6

Desal Brine with low secondary


1
13.98
0.1
15.2
effluent
Desal Brine with low secondary
4
2
13.98
0.1
16.0
effluent
Desal Brine with moderate secondary
5
9
13.98
0.1
34.3
effluent
Desal Brine with high secondary
6
19.78
13.98
0.1
153
effluent c
a
Hauled brine was not included in the modeling of MPWSP flow scenarios; however, the change in both flow and
TDS from the addition of hauled brine is less than 1% and thus is expected to have a negligible impact on the
modeled Dm.
b
Several models were used to predict the minimal probable dilution value (UM3, Cederwall for neutral and
negatively buoyant plumes, and NRFIELD for buoyant plumes). Values included here are the model results (Dm
values) that resulted in the lowest Dm. A value of 1 has also been subtracted from Dr. Roberts values to take into
account the different definition of dilution/Dm provided by Dr. Roberts versus the Ocean Plan.
c
Note that RTP wastewater flows have been declining in recent years as a result of conservation; while 19.68 mgd is
higher than current RTP wastewater flows, this is expected to be a conservative scenario with respect to ocean
modeling, compared to using the current wastewater flows of 16 to 18 mgd.
3

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

21

DRAFT MPWSP Ocean Plan Compliance

July 2016


Table 6 Flow scenarios and modeled Dm values used for Ocean Plan compliance analysis for Variant
No.

Discharge Scenario

Discharge Flows (mgd)


Secondary
Effluent

Desal
Brine

GWR
Concentrate

Hauled
Brine a

Dm b

Desal Brine only

8.99

0.1

14.9

Desal Brine with low


secondary effluent

8.99

0.1

15.7

Desal Brine with low


2
8.99
0
0.1
16.7
secondary effluent
Desal Brine with moderate
4
5.8
8.99
0
0.1
31.5
secondary effluent
Desal Brine with high
5
19.78
8.99
0
0.1
104
secondary effluent b
Desal Brine with GWR
6
Concentrate and no
0
8.99
0.94
0.1
15.6
secondary effluent
Desal Brine with GWR
Concentrate and low
7
1
8.99
0.94
0.1
16.4
secondary effluent
Desal Brine with GWR
8
Concentrate and low
3
8.99
0.94
0.1
20.3
secondary effluent
Desal Brine with GWR
9
5.3
8.99
0.94
0.1
54.4
Concentrate and moderate
secondary effluent
Desal Brine with GWR
10
15.92
8.99
0.94
0.1
194
Concentrate and high
secondary effluent
a
Hauled brine was not included in the modeling of Variant scenarios involving discharge of desalination brine.
However, the change in both flow and TDS from the addition of hauled brine is less than 1% and thus is expected to
have a negligible impact on the modeled Dm.
b
Several models were used to predict the minimal probable dilution value (UM3, Cederwall for neutral and
negatively buoyant plumes, and NRFIELD for buoyant plumes). Values included here are the model results (Dm
values) that resulted in the lowest Dm. A value of 1 has also been subtracted from Dr. Roberts values to take into
account the different definition of dilution/Dm provided by Dr. Roberts versus the Ocean Plan.
3

3.3 Ocean Plan Compliance Results

The flow-weighted in-pipe concentration for each constituent was calculated for each modeled
discharge scenario using the water quality presented in Table 4 and the discharge flows presented
in Tables 2 and 3. The in-pipe concentration was then used to calculate the concentration at the
edge of the ZID using the Dm values presented in Tables 5 and 6. The resulting concentrations
for each constituent in each scenario were compared to the Ocean Plan objectives to assess
compliance. The estimated concentrations for the 15 flow scenarios (5 for the MPWSP and 10
for the Variant) for all constituents are presented as concentrations at the edge of the ZID
(Appendix A, Table A1 and A3) and as a percentage of the Ocean Plan objective (Appendix A,
Table A2 and A4).

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

22

DRAFT MPWSP Ocean Plan Compliance

July 2016

It was identified that some constituents are estimated to exceed the Ocean Plan objective for
some discharge scenarios. Seventeen16 constituents were highlighted to potentially exceed the
Ocean Plan water quality objectives; however, ten17 of these constituents were never detected
above the MRL in any of the source waters, and the MRLs are higher than the Ocean Plan
objective.18 Due to this insufficient analytical sensitivity, no compliance conclusion can be
drawn for these constituents. This is a typical occurrence for ocean discharges since the MRL of
the approved compliance analysis method is higher than the Ocean Plan objective for certain
constituents.
Of the constituents detected in the source waters, seven were identified as having potential to
exceed the Ocean Plan objective in the Variant. Within this subset, acrylonitrile, beryllium and
TCDD equivalents were detected in some of the source waters, but not in the others. For these
analyses, the MRLs themselves were above the Ocean Plan objective. To assess the blended
concentrations for these constituents, a value of zero was assumed for any sources when the
concentration was below the MRL.19 This approach is a best-case scenario because it assumes
the lowest possible concentrationnamely, a value of zerofor any constituent below the
reporting limit. This approach is still useful, however, to bracket the analysis and assess the
potential for Ocean Plan compliance issues under best-case conditions. Through this method,
TCDD equivalents shows potential to exceed the Ocean Plan objective for the Variant. The
predicted concentration of acrylonitrile20 and beryllium at the edge of the ZID is less than the
Ocean Plan objective and therefore did not show exceedances through this best-case analysis.
A list of the constituents that may exceed the Ocean Plan are shown at their estimated
concentration at the edge of the ZID in Table 7 for the MPWSP and Table 8 for the Variant, and
as the concentration at the edge of the ZID as a percentage of the Ocean Plan objective in Table
9 and 10 for the MPWSP and Variant, respectively. The best-case scenario compliance
assessment results for TCDD equivalents is also included in these tables.

16

Ammonia, chlorinated phenolics, 2,4-dinitrophenol, tributyltin, acrylonitrile, aldrin, benzidine, beryllium, bis(2chloroethyl)ether, chlordane, 3,3-dichlorobenzidine, 1,2-diphenylhydrazine, heptachlor, PCBs, TCDD equivalents,
toxaphene, 2,4,6-trichlorophenol
17
Chlorinated phenolics, 2,4-dinitrophenol, tributyltin, aldrin, benzidine, bis(2-chloroethyl)ether, 3,3dichlorobenzidine, 1,2-diphenylhydrazine, heptachlor, 2,4,6-trichlorophenol
18
The exceptions to this statement are: 2,4-dinitrophenol was ND in the MPWSP Secondary Effluent, and this MRL
is lower than the Ocean Plan objective (i.e., MRL = 0.5 ug/L versus 4 ug/L = objective); heptachlor was not detected
above the MRL in the slant well, and this MRL is lower than the Ocean Plan objective (i.e., MRL = 0.00000069
ug/L versus 0.00005 ug/L).
19
Additionally, the Ocean Plan states that for constituents that are made up of an aggregate of constituents, a
concentration of 0 can be assumed for the individual constituents that are not detected above the MRL, such as
TCDD equivalents.
20
Acrylonitrile was only detected in one potential source water for the Variant. It was not detected in any potential
source waters for the MPWSP Project; therefore, a compliance determination cannot be made for the MPWSP
Project and only partial determination can be made for the Variant.

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

23

DRAFT MPWSP Ocean Plan Compliance

July 2016

Table 7 Predicted concentrations at the edge of the ZID for Ocean Plan constituents of concern in the
MPWSP a
Constituent

Units

Ocean Plan
Objective

Estimated Concentration at Edge of ZID by Scenario


2

Objectives for protection of marine aquatic life - 6-month median limit


Ammonia (as N)
g/L
600
25.7
172.1
6-mo median b
Objectives for protection of human health - carcinogens - 30-day average limit c d

MPWSP
4

287

409.0

139.2

Chlordane

g/L

2.3E-05

1.23E-06

3.91E-06

6.00E-06

7.89E-06

2.65E-06

PCBs

g/L

1.9E-05

8.76E-06

1.07E-05

1.20E-05

9.86E-06

2.94E-06

g/L

3.9E-09

6.23E-11

6.17E-10

1.05E-09

1.53E-09

5.22E-10

g/L

2.1E-04

5.75E-06

3.42E-05

5.65E-05

7.99E-05

2.71E-05

TCDD Equivalents
Toxaphene

Shading indicates constituent is expected to be greater than 80 percent (orange shading) or exceed (red shading) the
ocean plan objective for that discharge scenario.
b
Ammonia (as N) represents the total ammonia concentration, i.e. the sum of unionized ammonia (NH3) and ionized
ammonia (NH4).
c
Acrylonitrile was only detected in one potential source water for the Variant Project. It was not detected in any
potential source waters for the MPWSP Project; therefore, a compliance determination cannot be made for the
MPWSP Project and only partial determination can be made for the Variant Project.
d
Acrylonitrile, beryllium and TCDD equivalents represent a special case; they were detected in some source waters,
but were also not detected above the MRL in others, and the MRL values are above the Ocean Plan objectives. For
these constituents, a value of 0 was assumed when it was not detected in a source water and the MRL was above the
Ocean Plan objective. This assumption was made to show there is potential for the constituent to exceed the Ocean
Plan objective in some flow scenarios, but there is not enough information to provide a complete compliance
determination at this time. When only the detected values were considered, acrylonitrile and beryllium did not
exceed the Ocean Plan objective by 80% or more and therefore were not included in Tables 7 through 10.
e
Toxaphene was only detected using the low-detection techniques of the CCLEAN program. It was detected once
(09/2011) out of 12 samples collected from the secondary effluent from 2010 through 2015, and during the 7-day
composite sample from the test slant well.

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

24

DRAFT MPWSP Ocean Plan Compliance

July 2016

Table 8 Predicted concentrations at the edge of the ZID for Ocean Plan constituents of concern in the
Variant a
Constituent

Units

Ocean
Plan
Objective

Estimated Concentration at Edge of ZID by Scenario


Variant
1

Objectives for protection of marine aquatic life - 6-month median limit


Ammonia (as
N)
g/L
600
34
245
396
446
239
6-mo median b
Objectives for protection of human health - carcinogens - 30-day average limit c

10

1111

1154

1060

445

151

Chlordane

g/L

2.3E-05

1.37E-6

5.24E-6

7.98E-6

8.61E-6

4.53E-6

2.15E-5

2.22E-5

2.03E-5

8.49E-6

2.86E-6

PCBs
TCDD
Equivalents c
Toxaphene d

g/L

1.9E-05

8.72E-6

1.15E-5

1.33E-5

1.07E-5

4.85E-6

2.77E-5

2.76E-5

2.40E-5

9.68E-6

3.05E-6

g/L

3.9E-09

9.81E-11 9.26E-10

1.52E-9

1.73E-9

9.30E-10

4.30E-9

4.47E-9

4.11E-9

1.73E-9

5.87E-10

g/L

2.1E-04

7.37E-6

7.77E-5

8.72E-5

4.66E-5

2.17E-4

2.25E-4

2.07E-4

8.68E-5

2.94E-5

4.84E-5

Shading indicates constituent is expected to be greater than 80 percent (orange shading) or exceed (red shading) the
ocean plan objective for that discharge scenario.
b
Ammonia (as N) represents the total ammonia concentration, i.e. the sum of unionized ammonia (NH3) and ionized
ammonia (NH4).
c
Acrylonitrile, beryllium and TCDD equivalents represent a special case; they were detected in some source waters,
but were also not detected above the MRL in others, and the MRL values are above the Ocean Plan objectives. For
these constituents, a value of 0 was assumed when it was not detected in a source water and the MRL was above the
Ocean Plan objective. This assumption was made to show there is potential for the constituent to exceed the Ocean
Plan objective in some flow scenarios, but there is not enough information to provide a complete compliance
determination at this time. When only the detected values were considered, acrylonitrile and beryllium did not
exceed the Ocean Plan objective by 80% or more and therefore were not included in Tables 7 through 10.
d
Toxaphene was only detected using the low-detection techniques of the CCLEAN program. It was detected once
(09/2011) out of 12 samples collected from the secondary effluent from 2010 through 2015, and during the 7-day
composite sample from the test slant well.

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

25

DRAFT MPWSP Ocean Plan Compliance

July 2016

Table 9 Predicted concentrations at the edge of the ZID expressed as percentage of Ocean Plan
Objective for constituents of in the MPWSP a
Constituent

Units

Ocean Plan
Objective

Est. Percentage of Ocean Plan objective at Edge of ZID by Scenario


2

Objectives for protection of marine aquatic life - 6-month median limit


Ammonia (as N)
g/L
600
4%
29%
6-mo median b
Objectives for protection of human health carcinogens 30-day average limit c d

MPWSP
4

48%

68%

23%

Chlordane

g/L

2.3E-05

5%

17%

26%

34%

12%

PCBs

g/L

1.9E-05

46%

56%

63%

52%

15%

TCDD Equivalents d

g/L

3.9E-09

2%

16%

27%

39%

13%

Toxaphene e

g/L

2.1E-04

3%

16%

27%

38%

13%

Shading indicates constituent is expected to be greater than 80 percent (orange shading) or exceed (red shading) the
ocean plan objective for that discharge scenario.
b
Ammonia (as N) represents the total ammonia concentration, i.e. the sum of unionized ammonia (NH3) and ionized
ammonia (NH4).
c
Acrylonitrile was only detected in one potential source water for the Variant Project. It was not detected in any
potential source waters for the MPWSP Project; therefore, a compliance determination cannot be made for the
MPWSP Project and only partial determination can be made for the Variant Project.
d
Acrylonitrile, beryllium and TCDD equivalents represent a special case; they were detected in some source waters,
but were also not detected above the MRL in others, and the MRL values are above the Ocean Plan objectives. For
these constituents, a value of 0 was assumed when it was not detected in a source water and the MRL was above the
Ocean Plan objective. This assumption was made to show there is potential for the constituent to exceed the Ocean
Plan objective in some flow scenarios, but there is not enough information to provide a complete compliance
determination at this time. When only the detected values were considered, acrylonitrile and beryllium did not
exceed the Ocean Plan objective by 80% or more and therefore were not included in Tables 7 through 10.
e
Toxaphene was only detected using the low-detection techniques of the CCLEAN program. It was detected once
(09/2011) out of 12 samples collected from the secondary effluent from 2010 through 2015, and during the 7-day
composite sample from the test slant well.

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

26

DRAFT MPWSP Ocean Plan Compliance

July 2016

Table 10 Predicted concentrations at the edge of the ZID expressed as percentage of Ocean Plan
Objective for constituents of in the Variant a
Constituent

Units

Ocean
Plan
Objective

Est. Percentage of Ocean Plan objective at Edge of ZID by Scenario


Variant
1

Objectives for protection of marine aquatic life - 6-month median limit


Ammonia (as
N)
g/L
600
5.7%
41%
66%
74%
40%
6-mo median b
Objectives for protection of human health - carcinogens - 30-day average limit c

10

185%

192%

177%

74%

25%

Chlordane

g/L

2.3E-05

6%

23%

35%

37%

20%

94%

97%

88%

37%

12%

PCBs
TCDD
Equivalents c
Toxaphene d

g/L

1.9E-05

46%

61%

70%

57%

26%

146%

145%

126%

51%

16%

g/L

3.9E-09

3%

24%

39%

44%

24%

110%

115%

105%

44%

15%

g/L

2.1E-04

4%

23%

37%

42%

22%

103%

107%

99%

41%

14%

Shading indicates constituent is expected to be greater than 80 percent (orange shading) or exceed (red shading) the
ocean plan objective for that discharge scenario.
b
Ammonia (as N) represents the total ammonia concentration, i.e. the sum of unionized ammonia (NH3) and ionized
ammonia (NH4).
c
Acrylonitrile, beryllium and TCDD equivalents represent a special case; they were detected in some source waters,
but were also not detected above the MRL in others, and the MRL values are above the Ocean Plan objectives. For
these constituents, a value of 0 was assumed when it was not detected in a source water and the MRL was above the
Ocean Plan objective. This assumption was made to show there is potential for the constituent to exceed the Ocean
Plan objective in some flow scenarios, but there is not enough information to provide a complete compliance
determination at this time. When only the detected values were considered, acrylonitrile and beryllium did not
exceed the Ocean Plan objective by 80% or more and therefore were not included in Tables 7 through 10.
d
Toxaphene was only detected using the low-detection techniques of the CCLEAN program. It was detected once
(09/2011) out of 12 samples collected from the secondary effluent from 2010 through 2015, and during the 7-day
composite sample from the test slant well.

Potential issues were identified to occur when there is no, or relatively low, secondary effluent
flow mixed with hauled brine, GWR Concentrate and Desal Brine, as in Variant Scenarios 6, 7
and 8. The constituents of interest related to these scenarios are ammonia, chlordane, PCBs,
TCDD equivalents, and toxaphene. Ammonia is expected to be the constituent with the highest
exceedance, being 1.92 times the Ocean Plan objective in Scenario 7 (1 mgd secondary effluent
with hauled brine, GWR Concentrate and Desal Brine). This scenario is problematic because
constituents that have relatively high loadings in the secondary effluent are concentrated in the
GWR Concentrate. This scenario assumes the GWR Concentrate flow is much smaller than the
Desal Brine flow, such that the resulting discharge plume is negatively buoyant and achieves
poor ocean dilution. Based on this analysis, Scenarios 6, 7 and 8 have been identified as having
constituents that may exceed the Ocean Plan objective.
Chlordane, PCBs, and toxaphene were only detected when analyzed with low-detection methods,
which have far greater sensitivity than standard methods. These results were used to investigate
potential to exceed Ocean Plan objectives because these objectives are orders of magnitude
below detection limits of methods currently used for discharge compliance.

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

27

DRAFT MPWSP Ocean Plan Compliance

July 2016

4 Conclusions

The purpose of this analysis was to assess the ability of the MPWSP and Variant to comply with
the Ocean Plan objectives. Trussell Tech used a conservative approach to estimate the water
qualities of the secondary effluent, GWR Concentrate, Desal Brine and hauled brine for these
projects. These water quality data were then combined for various discharge scenarios, and a
concentration at the edge of the ZID was calculated for each constituent and scenario. Seventeen
constituents showed potential to exceed the Ocean Plan objectives. These constituents can be
divided into three categories:

Detected concentrations exceed Ocean Plan objectives (Category I): four constituents
were detected in all source waters and the blended concentration at the edge of the ZID
exceeded the Ocean Plan objective
Insufficient analytical sensitivity to determine compliance (Category II): ten constituents
were not detected above the MRL in any of the source waters, but the MRL was not
sensitive enough to demonstrate compliance with the Ocean Plan objective
Combination of Categories I and II: discharge blends contain sources with exceedances
of Ocean Plan objectives (Category I) and sources whose compliance is indeterminate
(Category II).

Based on the data, assumptions, modeling, and analytical methodology presented in this
technical memorandum, the Variant shows a potential to exceed certain Ocean Plan objectives
under specific discharge scenarios. In particular, potential issues were identified for the Variant
discharge scenarios involving low secondary effluent flows with Desal Brine and GWR
Concentrate: discharges are predicted to exceed or come close to exceeding multiple Ocean Plan
objectives, specifically those for ammonia, chlordane, PCBs, TCDD equivalents, and toxaphene.
Ammonia clearly exceeds the Ocean Plan objective and must be resolved for the Variant. TCDD
equivalents shows a potential to exceed the Ocean Plan objective through a best-case analysis.
Chlordane, PCBs and toxaphene, which were predicted to exceed the objectives, were detected at
concentrations that are orders of magnitude below detection limits of methods currently used for
discharge compliance.

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

28

DRAFT MPWSP Ocean Plan Compliance

July 2016

5 References
Central Coast Long-term Environmental Assessment Network, 2014. Regional Monitoring
Program Annual Report. Submitted to California Water Board, Central Coast Region,
San Luis Obispo, CA.
Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, 2014. Waste Discharge Requirements for
the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency Regional Treatment Plant.
National Research Council (NRC), 1993. Managing Wastewater in Coastal Urban Areas.
National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
Roberts, P. J. W, 2016. Modeling Brine Disposal into Monterey Bay. Draft Technical
Memorandum to Environmental Science Associates (ESA). 4 May.
State Water Resources Control Board, California Environmental Protection Agency (SWRCB),
2012. California Ocean Plan: Water Quality Control Plan, Ocean Waters of California.
Trussell Technologies, Inc (Trussell Tech), 2015a. Ocean Plan Compliance Assessment for the
Pure Water Monterey Groundwater Replenishment Project. Technical Memorandum
prepared for MRWPCA and MPWMD. Feb.
Trussell Technologies, Inc (Trussell Tech), 2015b. Ocean Plan Compliance Assessment for the
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and Project Variant. Technical Memorandum
prepared for MRWPCA and MPWMD. March.
Trussell Technologies, Inc (Trussell Tech), 2015c. Addendum Report to Ocean Plan
Compliance Assessment Reports: Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project, Pure Water
Monterey Groundwater Replenishment Project, and the Monterey Peninsula Water
Supply Project Variant. Technical Memorandum prepared for MRWPCA and MPWMD.
April.

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

29

DRAFT MPWSP Ocean Plan Compliance

July 2016

Appendix A

Table A1 Complete list of predicted concentrations of Ocean Plan constituents at the edge of the ZID
for the MPWSP
Constituent

Units

Ocean Plan
Objective

Estimated Concentration at Edge of ZID by Scenario


MPWSP

2
Objectives for protection of marine aquatic life - 6-month median limit
Arsenic
g/L
8
3.9
Cadmium
g/L
1
0.3
Chromium (Hexavalent)
g/L
2
0.1
Copper
g/L
3
1.9
Lead
g/L
2
0.03
Mercury
g/L
0.04
0.03
Nickel
g/L
5
0.7
Selenium
g/L
15
0.04
Silver
g/L
0.7
0.2
Zinc
g/L
20
8.1
Cyanide
g/L
1
0.6
Total Chlorine Residual
g/L
2

Ammonia (as N) - 6-mo median


g/L
600
25.7
Ammonia (as N) - Daily Max
g/L
2,400
31.4
Acute Toxicity a
TUa
0.3
Chronic Toxicity a
TUc
1
Phenolic Compounds (non-chlorinated)

g/L

30

5.5

4.0
0.3
0.1
2.0
0.03
0.02
0.7
0.05
<0.2
8.1
0.5

172.1
228.8

4.1
0.3
0.1
2.0
0.03
0.02
0.6
0.05
<0.2
8.2
0.5

287
384

3.7
0.1
0.04
2.1
0.01
0.01
0.2
0.04
<0.2
8.2
0.2

409.0
549.8

3.2
0.02
0.01
2.0
0.003
0.002
0.05
0.01
<0.2
8.0
0.1

139.2
187.2

5.2

Chlorinated Phenolics b
g/L
1
<2.20
<2.06
Endosulfan
g/L
0.009
7.05E-06
6.77E-05
Endrin
g/L
0.002
1.35E-07
4.45E-07
HCH (Hexachlorocyclohexane)
g/L
0.004
1.82E-05
1.56E-04
Radioactivity (Gross Beta) a
pCi/L
0.0
Radioactivity (Gross Alpha) a
pCi/L
0.0
Objectives for protection of human health non carcinogens 30-day average limit
Acrolein
g/L
220
<0.2
<0.2
Antimony
g/L
1200
0.01
0.01
Bis (2-chloroethoxy) methane
g/L
4.4
<1.1
<1.0
Bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether
g/L
1200
<1.1
<1.0
Chlorobenzene
g/L
570
<0.1
<0.1
Chromium (III)
g/L
190000
1.1
1.0
Di-n-butyl phthalate
g/L
3500
<1.1
<1.0
Dichlorobenzenes
g/L
5100
<0.1
0.1
Diethyl phthalate
g/L
33000
<0.1
<0.1
Dimethyl phthalate
g/L
820000
<0.1
<0.1
4,6-dinitro-2-methylphenol
g/L
220
<5.4
<4.8
2,4-Dinitrophenol b
g/L
4.0
<5.5
<4.9
Ethylbenzene
g/L
4100
<0.1
<0.1
Fluoranthene
g/L
15
<0.01
0.01
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
g/L
58
<0.01
<0.01
Nitrobenzene
g/L
4.9
<2.6
<2.4
Thallium
g/L
2
<0.01
<0.01
Toluene
g/L
85000
<0.06
<0.05
Tributyltin b
g/L
0.0014
<0.01
<0.005
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
g/L
540000
<0.1
<0.1
Objectives for protection of human health carcinogens 30-day average limit
Acrylonitrile c d
g/L
0.10
--Aldrin b
g/L
0.000022
<6.51E-06
<2.63E-05

4.9

2.2

0.5

<1.92
1.15E-04
6.86E-07
2.63E-04

<0.82
1.68E-04
9.09E-07
3.81E-04

<0.17
5.72E-05
3.05E-07
1.30E-04

<0.2
0.01
<0.9
<0.9
<0.05
0.9
<0.9
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<4.3
<4.4
<0.05
0.01
<0.01
<2.1
<0.01
<0.05
<0.005
<0.05

<0.1
0.01
<0.3
<0.3
<0.02
0.3
<0.3
0.03
<0.1
<0.04
<1.5
<1.5
<0.02
0.003
<0.01
<0.7
<0.01
<0.02
<0.002
<0.02

<0.03
0.003
<0.05
<0.05
<0.004
0.1
<0.1
0.01
<0.02
<0.01
<0.2
<0.2
<0.004
0.0005
<0.002
<0.1
<0.002
<0.004
<0.0004
<0.004

-<4.18E-05

-<5.70E-05

-<1.92E-05

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

30

DRAFT MPWSP Ocean Plan Compliance

Constituent
Benzene
Benzidine b
Beryllium d
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether b
Bis(2-ethyl-hexyl)phthalate
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlordane
Chlorodibromomethane
Chloroform
DDT
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
3,3-Dichlorobenzidine b
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethylene
Dichlorobromomethane
Dichloromethane
1,3-dichloropropene
Dieldrin
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine b
Halomethanes
Heptachlor b
Heptachlor Epoxide
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachloroethane
Isophorone
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
N-Nitrosodi-N-Propylamine
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
PAHs
PCBs
TCDD Equivalents d
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Toxaphene e
Trichloroethylene
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol b
Vinyl chloride

Units
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L

Ocean Plan
Objective
5.9
0.000069
0.033
0.045
3.5
0.90
0.000023
8.6
130
0.00017
18
0.0081
28
0.9
6.2
450
8.9
0.00004
2.6
0.16
130
0.00005

0.00002
0.00021
14
2.5
730
7.3
0.38
2.5
0.0088
0.000019
3.9E-09
2.3
2.0
2.1E-04
27
9.4
0.29
36

July 2016

Estimated Concentration at Edge of ZID by Scenario


MPWSP
2
<0.1
<5.5
2.38E-6
<2.6
0.1
<0.1
1.23E-6
<0.1
0.1
1.53E-7
0.1
<5.5
<0.1
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
3.01E-6
<0.01
<1.1
0.1
<4.60E-06
1.35E-07
4.18E-06
2.60E-08
<1.1
<0.1
0.0002
0.0003
<1.1
1.51E-04
8.76E-06
6.23E-11
<0.1
<0.1
5.75E-06
<0.1
<0.1
<1.1
<0.03

3
<0.1
<4.9
2.14E-6
<2.4
0.4
<0.1
3.91E-6
<0.1
0.1
5.28E-7
0.1
<4.9
<0.1
0.1
<0.1
0.1
<0.1
3.15E-6
<0.02
<1.0
0.1
<4.51E-05
4.45E-07
4.08E-06
6.03E-08
<1.0
<0.1
0.0003
0.001
<1.0
2.48E-04
1.07E-05
6.17E-10
<0.1
<0.1
3.42E-05
<0.1
<0.1
<1.0
<0.03

4
<0.05
<4.4
1.91E-6
<2.1
0.7
<0.05
6.00E-6
<0.05
0.1
8.21E-7
0.1
<4.4
<0.05
0.05
<0.05
0.05
<0.05
3.21E-6
<0.02
<0.9
0.05
<7.69E-05
6.86E-07
3.93E-06
8.68E-08
<0.9
<0.05
0.0003
0.001
<0.9
3.23E-04
1.20E-05
1.05E-09
<0.05
<0.05
5.65E-05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.9
<0.03

5
<0.02
<1.5
6.41E-7
<0.7
0.9
<0.02
7.89E-6
<0.02
0.04
1.09E-6
0.03
<1.5
<0.02
0.02
<0.02
0.02
<0.02
2.01E-6
<0.03
<0.3
0.02
<1.12E-04
9.09E-07
1.99E-06
1.06E-07
<0.3
<0.02
0.0002
0.001
<0.3
3.45E-04
9.86E-06
1.53E-09
<0.02
<0.02
7.99E-05
<0.02
<0.02
<0.3
<0.01

6
<0.004
<0.2
1.00E-7
<0.1
0.3
<0.004
2.65E-6
<0.004
0.01
3.68E-7
0.01
<0.2
<0.004
0.004
<0.004
0.004
<0.004
5.37E-7
<0.01
<0.05
0.004
<3.81E-05
3.05E-07
4.72E-07
3.52E-08
<0.05
<0.004
0.0001
0.0003
<0.05
1.11E-04
2.94E-06
5.22E-10
<0.004
<0.004
2.71E-05
<0.004
<0.004
<0.05
<0.003

Calculating flow-weighted averages for toxicity (acute and chronic) and radioactivity (gross beta and gross alpha)
is not appropriate based the nature of the constituent.
b
All observed values from some data sources were below the MRL, and the flow-weighted average of the MRLs is
higher than the Ocean Plan objective. No compliance conclusions can be drawn for these constituents.
c
Acrylonitrile was only detected in one potential source water for the Variant Project. It was not detected in any
potential source waters for the MPWSP Project; therefore, a compliance determination cannot be made for the
MPWSP Project and only partial determination can be made for the Variant Project.
d
Acrylonitrile, beryllium and TCDD equivalents represent a special case; they were detected in some source waters,
but were also not detected above the MRL in others, and the MRL values are above the Ocean Plan objectives. For
these constituents, a value of 0 was assumed when it was not detected in a source water and the MRL was above the
Ocean Plan objective. This assumption was made to show there is potential for the constituent to exceed the Ocean
Plan objective in some flow scenarios, but there is not enough information to provide a complete compliance

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

31

DRAFT MPWSP Ocean Plan Compliance

July 2016

determination at this time. When only the detected values were considered, acrylonitrile and beryllium did not
exceed the Ocean Plan objective by 80% or more and therefore were not included in Tables 7 through 10.
e
Toxaphene was only detected using the low-detection techniques of the CCLEAN program. It was detected once
(09/2011) out of 12 samples collected from the secondary effluent from 2010 through 2015, and during the 7-day
composite sample from the test slant well.


Table A2 Complete list of predicted concentrations at the edge of the ZID expressed as a percentage
of Ocean Plana
Constituent

Units

Ocean Plan
Objective

Percentage of Ocean Plan Objective at Edge of ZID by Scenario a

2
Objectives for protection of marine aquatic life - 6-month median limit
Arsenic
g/L
8
49%
Cadmium
g/L
1
32%
Chromium (Hexavalent)
g/L
2
3%
Copper
g/L
3
64%
Lead
g/L
2
2%
Mercury
g/L
0.04
67%
Nickel
g/L
5
14%
Selenium
g/L
15
0.3%
Silver
g/L
0.7
26%
Zinc
g/L
20
40%
Cyanide
g/L
1
57%
Total Chlorine Residual
g/L
2

Ammonia (as N) - 6-mo median


g/L
600
4%
Ammonia (as N) - Daily Max
g/L
2,400
1%
Acute Toxicity b
TUa
0.3
Chronic Toxicity b
TUc
1
Phenolic Compounds (non-chlorinated)

g/L

30

MPWSP
3

50%
29%
3%
65%
2%
61%
13%
0.3%
<26%
41%
54%

29%
10%

51%
26%
3%
67%
2%
54%
12%
0.4%
<25%
41%
51%

48%
16%

46%
10%
2%
69%
1%
20%
5%
0.3%
<24%
41%
23%

68%
23%

40%
2%
1%
68%
0.2%
4%
1%
0.1%
<23%
40%
5%

23%
8%

16%
-1%
0.03%
7%

7%
-2%
0.05%
10%

2%
-1%
0.02%
3%

<0.1%
0.0012%
<20%
<0.07%
<0.01%
0.0005%
<0.03%
0.001%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<2%
-<0.01%
0.1%
<0.01%
<43%
<0.4%
<0.01%
-<0.01%

<0.1%
0.0009%
<7%
<0.02%
<0.01%
0.0002%
<0.01%
0.001%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<1%
-<0.01%
0.02%
<0.01%
<15%
<0.4%
<0.01%
-<0.01%

<0.01%
0.0002%
<1%
<0.01%
<0.01%
0.00003%
<0.01%
0.0002%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.1%
-<0.01%
0.003%
<0.01%
<2%
<0.1%
<0.01%
-<0.01%

18%
17%
Chlorinated Phenolics
g/L
1
--Endosulfan
g/L
0.009
0.1%
1%
Endrin
g/L
0.002
0.01%
0.02%
HCH (Hexachlorocyclohexane)
g/L
0.004
0.5%
4%
Radioactivity (Gross Beta) b
pci/L
0.0
Radioactivity (Gross Alpha) b
pci/L
0.0
Objectives for protection of human health non carcinogens 30-day average limit
Acrolein
g/L
220
<0.1%
<0.1%
Antimony
g/L
1200
0.0010%
0.0011%
Bis (2-chloroethoxy) methane
g/L
4.4
<24%
<22%
Bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether
g/L
1200
<0.09%
<0.08%
Chlorobenzene
g/L
570
<0.01%
<0.01%
Chromium (III)
g/L
190000
0.0006%
0.0005%
Di-n-butyl phthalate
g/L
3500
<0.03%
<0.03%
Dichlorobenzenes
g/L
5100
0.001%
0.001%
Diethyl phthalate
g/L
33000
<0.01%
<0.01%
Dimethyl phthalate
g/L
820000
<0.01%
<0.01%
4,6-dinitro-2-methylphenol
g/L
220
<2%
<2%
2,4-Dinitrophenol c
g/L
4.0
--Ethylbenzene
g/L
4100
<0.01%
<0.01%
Fluoranthene
g/L
15
0.1%
0.1%
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
g/L
58
<0.01%
<0.01%
Nitrobenzene
g/L
4.9
<54%
<48%
Thallium
g/L
2
<0.3%
<0.4%
Toluene
g/L
85000
<0.01%
<0.01%
Tributyltin c
g/L
0.0014
--1,1,1-Trichloroethane
g/L
540000
<0.01%
<0.01%
c

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

32

DRAFT MPWSP Ocean Plan Compliance

Constituent

Units

Ocean Plan
Objective

Percentage of Ocean Plan Objective at Edge of ZID by Scenario a

2
3
Objectives for protection of human health carcinogens 30-day average limit
Acrylonitrile d e
g/L
0.10
--Aldrin c
g/L
0.000022
--Benzene
g/L
5.9
<1%
<1%
Benzidine c
g/L
0.000069
--Beryllium e
g/L
0.033
0%
0%
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether c
g/L
0.045
--Bis(2-ethyl-hexyl)phthalate
g/L
3.5
3%
12%
Carbon tetrachloride
g/L
0.90
<6%
<6%
Chlordane
g/L
0.000023
5%
17%
Chlorodibromomethane
g/L
8.6
<1%
<1%
Chloroform
g/L
130
0.04%
0.04%
DDT
g/L
0.00017
0.09%
0.31%
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
g/L
18
0.3%
0.3%
3,3-Dichlorobenzidine c
g/L
0.0081
--1,2-Dichloroethane
g/L
28
<0.2%
<0.2%
1,1-Dichloroethylene
g/L
0.9
6%
6%
Dichlorobromomethane
g/L
6.2
<1%
<1%
Dichloromethane
g/L
450
0.01%
0.01%
1,3-dichloropropene
g/L
8.9
<1%
<1%
Dieldrin
g/L
0.00004
8%
8%
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
g/L
2.6
<0.5%
<1%
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine c
g/L
0.16
--Halomethanes
g/L
130
0.04%
0.04%
0.00005
Heptachlor c
g/L
--Heptachlor Epoxide
g/L
0.00002
1%
2%
Hexachlorobenzene
g/L
0.00021
2%
2%
Hexachlorobutadiene
g/L
14
1.86E-7%
4.30E-7%
Hexachloroethane
g/L
2.5
<43%
<38%
Isophorone
g/L
730
<0.008%
<0.007%
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
g/L
7.3
0.003%
0.004%
N-Nitrosodi-N-Propylamine
g/L
0.38
0.1%
0.1%
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
g/L
2.5
<43%
<38%
PAHs
g/L
0.0088
2%
3%
PCBs
g/L
0.000019
46%
56%
TCDD Equivalents e
g/L
3.9E-09
2%
16%
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
g/L
2.3
<2%
<2%
Tetrachloroethylene
g/L
2.0
<3%
<3%
Toxaphene e
g/L
2.1E-04
3%
16%
Trichloroethylene
g/L
27
<0.2%
<0.2%
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
g/L
9.4
<1%
<1%
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol c
g/L
0.29
--Vinyl chloride
g/L
36
<0.1%
<0.1%

July 2016

MPWSP
4

--<1%
-0%
-19%
<5%
26%
<1%
0.05%
0.48%
0.3%
-<0.2%
5%
<1%
0.01%
<1%
8%
<1%
-0.04%
-3%
2%
6.20E-7%
<35%
<0.007%
0.004%
0.2%
<34%
4%
63%
27%
<2%
<2%
27%
<0.2%
<1%
-<0.1%

--<0.3%
-0%
-25%
<2%
34%
<0.2%
0.03%
0.64%
0.2%
-<0.1%
2%
<0.3%
0.005%
<0.2%
5%
<1%
-0.02%
-5%
1%
7.60E-7%
<12%
<0.003%
0.003%
0.2%
<12%
4%
52%
38%
<1%
<1%
38%
<0.1%
<0.2%
-<0.04%

--<0.1%
-0%
-9%
<0.5%
12%
<0.05%
0.01%
0.22%
0.05%
-<0.02%
0.5%
<0.1%
0.001%
<0.05%
1%
<0.3%
-0.003%
-2%
0.2%
2.52E-7%
<2%
<0.001%
0.001%
0.1%
<2%
1%
15%
13%
<0.2%
<0.2%
13%
<0.02%
<0.04%
-<0.01%

Note that if the percentage as determined by using the MRL was less than 0.01 percent, then a minimum value is
shown as <0.01% (e.g., if the MRL indicated the value was <0.000001%, for simplicity, it is displayed as
<0.01%). Also, shading indicates constituent is expected to be greater than 80 percent (orange shading) or exceed
(red shading) the ocean plan objective for that discharge scenario.
b
Calculating flow-weighted averages for toxicity (acute and chronic) and radioactivity (gross beta and gross alpha)
is not appropriate based the nature of the constituent. These constituents were measured individually for the
secondary effluent and GWR concentrate, and these individual concentrations would comply with the Ocean Plan
objectives.
c
All observed values from all data sources were below the MRL, and the flow-weighted average of the MRLs is
higher than the Ocean Plan objective. No compliance conclusions can be drawn for these constituents.

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

33

DRAFT MPWSP Ocean Plan Compliance

July 2016

Acrylonitrile, beryllium and TCDD equivalents represent a special case; they were detected in some source waters,
but were also not detected above the MRL in others, and the MRL values are above the Ocean Plan objectives. For
these constituents, a value of 0 was assumed when it was not detected in a source water and the MRL was above the
Ocean Plan objective. This assumption was made to show there is potential for the constituent to exceed the Ocean
Plan objective in some flow scenarios, but there is not enough information to provide a complete compliance
determination at this time. When only the detected values were considered, acrylonitrile and beryllium did not
exceed the Ocean Plan objective by 80% or more and therefore were not included in Tables 7 through 10.
e
Toxaphene was only detected using the low-detection techniques of the CCLEAN program. It was detected once
(09/2011) out of 12 samples collected from the secondary effluent from 2010 through 2015, and during the 7-day
composite sample from the test slant well.

Table A3 Complete list of predicted concentrations of Ocean Plan constituents at the edge of the ZID
for the Variant
Constituent

Units

Estimated Concentration at Edge of ZID by Scenario

Ocean
Plan
Objective

1
2
3
Objectives for protection of marine aquatic life - 6-month median limit
Arsenic
g/L
8
3.9
4.0
4.1
Cadmium
g/L
1
0.3
0.3
0.2
Chromium (Hexavalent)
g/L
2
0.09
0.09
0.09
Copper
g/L
3
1.9
2.0
2.0
Lead
g/L
2
0.03
0.03
0.03
Mercury
g/L
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.02
Nickel
g/L
5
0.7
0.7
0.6
Selenium
g/L
15
0.1
0.1
0.1
Silver
g/L
0.7
0.2
<0.2
<0.2
Zinc
g/L
20
8.1
8.3
8.5
Cyanide
g/L
1
0.6
0.6
0.5
Total Chlorine Residual
g/L
2

Ammonia (as N) - 6-mo


g/L
600
34
245
396
median

Ammonia (as N) - Daily


Max
Acute Toxicity a
Chronic Toxicity a
Phenolic Compounds (nonchlorinated)

g/L

2,400

TUa
TUc

0.3
1

g/L

30

Variant
6
5

10

3.8
0.1
0.06
2.1
0.02
0.01
0.4
0.1
<0.2
8.5
0.3

3.3
0.02
0.02
2.1
0.01
0.002
0.1
0.05
<0.2
8.3
0.1

3.8
0.3
0.16
2.2
0.1
0.03
1.0
0.2
<0.2
9.5
0.7

4.0
0.3
0.2
2.3
0.05
0.02
0.9
0.2
<0.2
9.5
0.7

4.0
0.2
0.1
2.2
0.04
0.02
0.7
0.2
<0.2
9.3
0.5

3.4
0.1
0.05
2.1
0.02
0.01
0.3
0.1
<0.2
8.5
0.2

3.2
0.01
0.01
2.0
0.004
0.002
0.1
0.03
<0.2
8.2
0.05

446

239

1111

1154

1060

445

151

43

328

531

600

322

1493

1551

1425

598

203

5.4

5.0

4.7

2.4

0.7

6.7

6.2

4.8

1.8

0.4

Chlorinated Phenolics
g/L
1
<2.2
<2.0
<1.8
<0.9
<0.2
<2.0
<1.8
<1.4
<0.5
<0.1
Endosulfan
g/L 0.009 3.3E-05 3.1E-04 5.1E-04 5.9E-04 3.2E-04 1.5E-03 1.4E-03 1.4E-03 5.9E-04 2.0E-04
Endrin
g/L 0.002 1.5E-07 6.0E-07 9.2E-07 9.9E-07 5.2E-07 2.5E-06 2.6E-06 2.3E-06 9.8E-07 3.3E-07
HCH (Hexachlorocyclohexane)
g/L 0.004 4.4E-05 3.9E-04 6.4E-04 7.3E-04 3.9E-04 1.8E-03 1.9E-03 1.7E-03 7.3E-04 2.5E-04
Radioactivity (Gross Beta) a pci/L
0.0
Radioactivity
pci/L
0.0
(Gross Alpha) a
Objectives for protection of human health non carcinogens 30-day average limit
Acrolein
g/L
220
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.1
0.04
Antimony
g/L
1200
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.01
0.004
Bis (2-chloroethoxy)
g/L
4.4
<1.0
<0.9
<0.8
<0.4
<0.1
<0.9
<0.8
<0.6
<0.2
<0.04
methane
Bis (2-chloroisopropyl)
g/L
1200
<1.0
<0.9
<0.8
<0.4
<0.1
<0.9
<0.8
<0.6
<0.2
<0.04
ether
Chlorobenzene
g/L
570
<0.1
<0.05 <0.04 <0.02 <0.01 <0.05 <0.05 <0.04 <0.01 <0.003
Chromium (III)
g/L 190000
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.4
0.1
1.2
1.1
0.8
0.3
0.1
Di-n-butyl phthalate
g/L
3500
<1.0
<0.9
<0.8
<0.4
<0.1
<0.9
<0.8
<0.6
<0.2
<0.1
Dichlorobenzenes
g/L
5100
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.04
0.01
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.03
0.01
Diethyl phthalate
g/L 33000
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.04
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.04 <0.02
Dimethyl phthalate
g/L 820000
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.04 <0.02
<0.1
<0.1
<0.05 <0.02 <0.01
b

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

34

DRAFT MPWSP Ocean Plan Compliance

Constituent

Estimated Concentration at Edge of ZID by Scenario

Ocean
Units Plan
Objective

1
2
3
4
4,6-dinitro-2-methylphenol g/L
220
<5.3
<4.6
<4.1
<1.8
2,4-Dinitrophenol b
g/L
4.0
<5.4
<4.7
<4.1
<1.8
Ethylbenzene
g/L
4100
<0.1
<0.05 <0.04 <0.02
Fluoranthene
g/L
15
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.003
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene g/L
58
<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Nitrobenzene
g/L
4.9
<2.6
<2.2
<1.9
<0.8
Thallium
g/L
2
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
Toluene
g/L 85000
<0.1
<0.05 <0.04 <0.02
Tributyltin b
g/L 0.0014
<0.01 <0.005 <0.004 <0.002
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
g/L 540000 <0.05 <0.05 <0.04 <0.02
Objectives for protection of human health carcinogens 30-day average limit
Acrylonitrile c
g/L
0.10
0.001 0.007 0.011 0.012
Aldrin

Benzene
Benzidine b
Beryllium c
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether b
Bis(2-ethyl-hexyl)phthalate
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlordane
Chlorodibromomethane
Chloroform
DDT
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
3,3-Dichlorobenzidine b
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethylene
Dichlorobromomethane
Dichloromethane
1,3-dichloropropene
Dieldrin
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine b
Halomethanes
Heptachlor b
Heptachlor Epoxide
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachloroethane
Isophorone
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
N-Nitrosodi-N-Propylamine
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
PAHs
PCBs
TCDD Equivalents c
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Toxaphene e
Trichloroethylene
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol b
Vinyl chloride

g/L 0.000022

July 2016

<9.0E06

<4.9E05

<7.8E05

Variant
6

5
<0.4
<0.3
<0.01
0.001
<0.004
<0.1
0.005
<0.01
<0.001
<0.01

<4.6
<4.7
<0.05
0.01
<0.01
<2.2
0.03
<0.05
<0.005
<0.05

<4.1
<4.1
<0.05
0.01
<0.01
<2.0
0.03
<0.05
<0.004
<0.05

<3.0
<3.0
<0.04
0.01
<0.01
<1.4
0.02
<0.04
<0.003
<0.04

<1.0
<0.2
<1.0
<0.2
<0.01 <0.003
0.002 0.0003
<0.004 <0.002
<0.5
<0.1
0.01
0.003
<0.01 <0.003
<0.001 <0.0003
<0.01 <0.003

10

0.007

0.034

0.035

0.031

0.013

0.004

<8.7E<4.6E-05 <6.4E-05 <9.2E-05 <1.1E-04 <5.6E-05 <2.4E-05


05

g/L
5.9
<0.1
<0.05 <0.04 <0.02 <0.01 <0.05 <0.05 <0.04
g/L 0.000069 <5.4
<4.7
<4.2
<1.8
<0.4
<4.7
<4.2
<3.0
g/L 0.033 3.61E-6 3.10E-6 2.66E-6 1.08E-6 1.72E-7 3.14E-6 2.72E-6 1.88E-6
g/L 0.045
<2.6
<2.2
<1.9
<0.8
<0.2
<2.2
<2.0
<1.4
g/L
3.5
0.1
0.6
0.9
1.0
0.5
2.4
2.5
2.3
g/L
0.90
0.1
0.05
0.04
0.02
0.01
0.1
0.1
0.04
g/L 0.000023 1.4E-06 5.2E-06 8.0E-06 8.6E-06 4.5E-06 2.2E-05 2.2E-05 2.0E-05
g/L
8.6
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.05
0.02
0.1
0.1
0.1
g/L
130
0.1
0.3
0.5
0.5
0.3
1.2
1.3
1.2
g/L 0.00017 9.6E-07 8.1E-06 1.3E-05 1.5E-05 8.1E-06 3.7E-05 3.9E-05 3.6E-05
g/L
18
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.04
0.01
0.1
0.1
0.1
g/L 0.0081
<5.4
<4.7
<4.2
<1.8
<0.4
<4.7
<4.2
<3.0
g/L
28
<0.1
<0.05 <0.04 <0.02 <0.01 <0.05 <0.05 <0.04
g/L
0.9
0.1
0.05
0.04
0.02
0.01
0.05
0.05
0.04
g/L
6.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.05
0.02
0.1
0.1
0.1
g/L
450
0.1
0.05
0.05
0.02
0.01
0.1
0.1
0.05
g/L
8.9
0.1
0.05
0.05
0.02
0.01
0.1
0.1
0.04
g/L 0.00004 3.3E-06 6.6E-06 8.8E-06 8.5E-06 4.2E-06 2.1E-05 2.2E-05 2.0E-05
g/L
2.6
<0.01 <0.02 <0.03 <0.03 <0.01 <0.01 <0.02 <0.03
g/L
0.16
<1.0
<0.9
<0.8
<0.4
<0.1
<0.9
<0.8
<0.6
g/L
130
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.03
0.01
0.1
0.1
0.1
g/L 0.00005 <7.0E-6 <6.5E-5 <1.1E-4 <1.2E-4 <6.6E-05 <6.3E-05 <1.1E-04 <1.5E-04
g/L 0.00002 1.5E-7 6.0E-7 9.2E-7 9.9E-7 5.2E-7 2.5E-6 2.6E-6 2.3E-6
g/L 0.00021 4.1E-6 4.0E-6 3.8E-6 2.2E-6 7.0E-7 5.9E-6 5.5E-6 4.4E-6
g/L
14
2.8E-8 7.7E-8 1.1E-7 1.2E-7 6.0E-8 2.9E-7 3.0E-7 2.7E-7
g/L
2.5
<1.0
<0.9
<0.8
<0.3
<0.1
<0.9
<0.8
<0.6
g/L
730
<0.1
<0.05 <0.04 <0.02 <0.01 <0.05 <0.05 <0.04
g/L
7.3
0.0003 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001
0.002
g/L
0.38
0.0003 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.0003 0.001
0.001
g/L
2.5
<1.0
<0.9
<0.8
<0.3
<0.1
<0.9
<0.8
<0.6
g/L 0.0088 0.0002 0.0003 0.0004 0.0004 0.0002 0.0012 0.0012 0.0010
g/L 0.000019 8.7E-6 1.2E-5 1.3E-5 1.1E-5 4.8E-6 2.8E-5 2.8E-5 2.4E-5
g/L 3.9E-09 9.8E-11 9.3E-10 1.5E-9 1.7E-9 9.3E-10 4.3E-9 4.5E-9 4.1E-9
g/L
2.3
<0.1
<0.05 <0.04 <0.02 <0.01 <0.05 <0.05 <0.04
g/L
2.0
<0.1
<0.05 <0.04 <0.02 <0.01 <0.05 <0.05 <0.04
g/L 2.1E-04 7.4E-06 4.8E-05 7.8E-05 8.7E-05 4.7E-05 2.2E-04 2.3E-04 2.1E-04
g/L
27
<0.1
<0.05 <0.04 <0.02 <0.01 <0.05 <0.05 <0.04
g/L
9.4
<0.1
<0.05 <0.04 <0.02 <0.01 <0.05 <0.05 <0.04
g/L
0.29
<1.0
<0.9
<0.8
<0.3
<0.1
<0.9
<0.8
<0.6
g/L
36
<0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.02 <0.005 <0.03 <0.03 <0.02

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

<0.01
<1.0

<0.003
<0.2

6.15E-7

1.03E-7

<0.5
1.0
0.02
8.5E-06
0.04
0.5
1.5E-05
0.03
<1.0
<0.01
0.01
0.04
0.02
0.02
8.1E-06
<0.01
<0.2
0.03

<0.1
0.3
0.004
2.9E-06
0.01
0.2
5.1E-06
0.01
<0.2
<0.003
0.003
0.01
0.004
0.004
2.7E-06
<0.01
<0.04
0.01

<7.5E-05 <3.4E-05

9.8E-7
1.6E-6
1.1E-7
<0.2
<0.01
0.001
0.001
<0.2
0.0004
9.7E-6

3.3E-7
4.4E-7
3.8E-8
<0.04
<0.003
0.0003
0.0003
<0.04
0.0001
3.0E-6

1.7E-9

5.9E-10

<0.01
<0.01
8.7E-05
<0.01
<0.01
<0.2
<0.01

<0.003
<0.003
2.9E-05
<0.003
<0.003
<0.04
<0.003

35

DRAFT MPWSP Ocean Plan Compliance

July 2016

Calculating flow-weighted averages for toxicity (acute and chronic) and radioactivity (gross beta and gross alpha)
is not appropriate based the nature of the constituent. These constituents were measured individually for the
secondary effluent and GWR concentrate, and these individual concentrations would comply with the Ocean Plan
objectives.
b
All observed values from some data sources were below the MRL, and the flow-weighted average of the MRLs is
higher than the Ocean Plan objective. No compliance conclusions can be drawn for these constituents.
c
Acrylonitrile, beryllium and TCDD equivalents represent a special case; they were detected in some source waters,
but were also not detected above the MRL in others, and the MRL values are above the Ocean Plan objectives. For
these constituents, a value of 0 was assumed when it was not detected in a source water and the MRL was above the
Ocean Plan objective. This assumption was made to show there is potential for the constituent to exceed the Ocean
Plan objective in some flow scenarios, but there is not enough information to provide a complete compliance
determination at this time. When only the detected values were considered, acrylonitrile and beryllium did not
exceed the Ocean Plan objective by 80% or more and therefore were not included in Tables 7 through 10.
e
Toxaphene was only detected using the low-detection techniques of the CCLEAN program. It was detected once
(09/2011) out of 12 samples collected from the secondary effluent from 2010 through 2015, and during the 7-day
composite sample from the test slant well.


Table A4 Complete list of predicted concentrations at the edge of the ZID expressed as a percentage
of Ocean Plana
Percentage of Ocean Plan Objective at Edge of ZID by Scenario a

Ocean
Units Plan
Objective

Constituent

1
2
3
4
Objectives for protection of marine aquatic life - 6-month median limit
Arsenic
g/L
8
49%
50%
51%
47%
Cadmium
g/L
1
31%
27%
24%
11%
Chromium (Hexavalent) g/L
2
5%
5%
5%
3%
Copper
g/L
3
64%
66%
68%
69%
Lead
g/L
2
2%
2%
2%
1%
Mercury
g/L
0.04
66%
58%
51%
23%
Nickel
g/L
5
14%
13%
13%
7%
Selenium
g/L
15
0.4%
1%
1%
1%
Silver
g/L
0.7
26% <27% <27%
<26%
Zinc
g/L
20
41%
42%
43%
43%
Cyanide
g/L
1
57%
53%
49%
26%
Total Chlorine Residual g/L
2

Ammonia (as N) - 6-mo


g/L
600
6%
41%
66%
74%
median

Ammonia (as N) - Daily


Max
Acute Toxicity b
Chronic Toxicity b
Phenolic Compounds
(non-chlorinated)

Chlorinated Phenolics
Endosulfan
Endrin
HCH
(Hexachlorocyclohexane)

g/L

2,400

TUa
TUc

0.3
1

g/L

30

g/L
g/L
g/L

1
0.009
0.002

g/L

0.004

Variant
6
5

10

41%
2%
1%
68%
0.3%
6%
2%
0.3%
<24%
41%
7%

48%
31%
8%
75%
3%
64%
20%
2%
<26%
47%
71%

49%
27%
8%
75%
2%
57%
19%
2%
<26%
48%
65%

50%
20%
6%
75%
2%
42%
15%
1%
<27%
47%
50%

43%
7%
2%
70%
1%
15%
6%
1%
<25%
43%
18%

39%
1%
1%
68%
0.2%
4%
1%
0.2%
<24%
41%
5%

40%

185%

192%

177%

74%

25%

2%

14%

22%

25%

13%

62%

65%

59%

25%

8%

<18%

<17%

<16%

<8%

<2%

<22%

<21%

<16%

<6%

<1%

--0.4%
3%
0.01% 0.03%

-6%
0.05%

-7%
0.05%

-4%
0.03%

-16%
0.1%

-17%
0.1%

-15%
0.1%

-7%
0.05%

-2%
0.02%

16%

18%

10%

45%

47%

43%

18%

6%

1%

10%

Radioactivity (Gross
pci/L
0.0
Beta) b
Radioactivity
pci/L
0.0
(Gross Alpha) b
Objectives for protection of human health non carcinogens 30-day average limit
Acrolein
g/L
220
0.1% 0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.03% 0.2% 0.2%
0.2%
0.1%
0.02%
Antimony
g/L
1200 0.001% 0.001% 0.001% 0.001% 0.0005% 0.003% 0.003% 0.002% 0.001% 0.0003%
Bis (2-chloroethoxy)
g/L
4.4
<24% <21% <18%
<8%
<2%
<21% <18% <13%
<5%
<1%
methane

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

36

DRAFT MPWSP Ocean Plan Compliance

Constituent
Bis (2-chloroisopropyl)
ether
Chlorobenzene
Chromium (III)
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Dichlorobenzenes
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
4,6-dinitro-2methylphenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol c
Ethylbenzene
Fluoranthene

Ocean
Units Plan
Objective
g/L

1200

g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L

570
190000
3500
5100
33000
820000

g/L

220

July 2016

Percentage of Ocean Plan Objective at Edge of ZID by Scenario a


1

<0.1% <0.1%

3
<0.1%

Variant
6

10

<0.03% <0.01% <0.1% <0.1% <0.05% <0.02% <0.004%

<0.01% <0.01% <0.01% <0.004% <0.001% <0.01% <0.01% <0.01% <0.002% <0.001%
0.001% 0.001% 0.0005% 0.0002% 0.0001% 0.001% 0.001% 0.0004% 0.0001% 0.00003%
<0.03% <0.03% <0.02% <0.01% <0.003% <0.03% <0.02% <0.02% <0.01% <0.001%

0.001% 0.001% 0.001% 0.001% 0.0003% 0.002% 0.002% 0.001% 0.001% 0.0002%
<0.01% <0.01% <0.01% <0.01% <0.01% <0.01% <0.01% <0.01% <0.01% <0.01%
<0.01% <0.01% <0.01% <0.01% <0.01% <0.01% <0.01% <0.01% <0.01% <0.01%
<2%

<2%

<2%

<1%

<0.2%

g/L
4.0
-----g/L
4100 <0.01% <0.01% <0.01% <0.01% <0.01%
g/L
15
0.1% 0.1%
0.1%
0.02% 0.004%
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene g/L
58
<0.01% <0.01% <0.02% <0.01% <0.01%
Nitrobenzene
g/L
4.9
<53% <45% <39%
<16%
<3%
Thallium
g/L
2
0.3% 0.5%
1%
0.5%
0.2%
Toluene
g/L 85000 <0.01% <0.01% <0.01% <0.01% <0.01%
Tributyltin c
g/L 0.0014
-----1,1,1-Trichloroethane
g/L 540000 <0.01% <0.01% <0.01% <0.01% <0.01%
Objectives for protection of human health carcinogens 30-day average limit
Acrylonitrile d
g/L
0.10
1%
7%
11%
12%
7%
Aldrin c
g/L 0.000022
-----Benzene
g/L
5.9
<1%
<1%
<1%
<0.4% <0.1%
Benzidine c
g/L 0.000069
-----Beryllium d
g/L 0.033
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether c g/L 0.045
-----Bis(2-ethylg/L
3.5
3%
16%
25%
28%
15%
hexyl)phthalate
Carbon tetrachloride
g/L
0.90
6%
5%
5%
2%
1%
Chlordane
g/L 0.000023 6%
23%
35%
37%
20%
Chlorodibromomethane g/L
8.6
1%
1%
1%
0.5%
0.2%
Chloroform
g/L
130
0.1% 0.2%
0.3%
0.4%
0.2%
DDT
g/L 0.00017
1%
5%
8%
9%
5%
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
g/L
18
0.3% 0.3%
0.3%
0.2%
0.1%
3,3-Dichlorobenzidine c g/L 0.0081
-----1,2-Dichloroethane
g/L
28
<0.2% <0.2% <0.2% <0.1% <0.02%
1,1-Dichloroethylene
g/L
0.9
6%
5%
5%
2%
1%
Dichlorobromomethane g/L
6.2
1%
1%
1%
1%
0.3%
Dichloromethane
g/L
450
0.01% 0.01% 0.01% 0.005% 0.002%
1,3-dichloropropene
g/L
8.9
1%
1%
1%
0.3%
0.1%
Dieldrin
g/L 0.00004
8%
16%
22%
21%
11%
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
g/L
2.6
<0.5% <1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine c g/L
0.16
-----Halomethanes
g/L
130
0.04% 0.04% 0.04% 0.03% 0.01%
Heptachlor c
g/L 0.00005
-----Heptachlor Epoxide
g/L 0.00002
1%
3%
5%
5%
3%
Hexachlorobenzene
g/L 0.00021
2%
2%
2%
1%
0.3%

<2%

<2%

<1%

<0.5%

<0.1%

-<0.01%
0.1%
<0.01%
<46%
1%
<0.01%
-<0.01%

-<0.01%
0.1%
<0.01%
<40%
1%
<0.01%
-<0.01%

-<0.01%
0.04%
<0.01%
<28%
1%
<0.01%
-<0.01%

-<0.01%
0.01%
<0.01%
<9%
0.5%
<0.01%
-<0.01%

-<0.01%
0.002%
<0.01%
<2%
0.2%
<0.01%
-<0.01%

34%
-<1%
-0%
--

35%
-<1%
-0%
--

31%
-<1%
-0%
--

13%
-<0.2%
-0%
--

4%
-<0.1%
-0%
--

69%

72%

66%

27%

9%

5%
88%
1%
1%
21%
0.4%
-<0.1%
4%
2%
0.01%
0.5%
49%
<1%
-0.1%
-12%
2%

2%
37%
0.4%
0.4%
9%
0.2%
-<0.05%
1%
1%
0.004%
0.2%
20%
<1%
-0.02%
-5%
1%

0.4%
12%
0.1%
0.1%
3%
0.05%
-<0.01%
0.4%
0.2%
0.001%
0.04%
7%
<0.3%
-0.01%
-2%
0.2%

2E-6% 2E-6% 8E-7%


<32% <23%
<8%
<0.01% <0.01% <0.01%
0.02% 0.02% 0.01%

3E-7%
<1%
<0.01%
0.005%

7%
6%
94%
97%
1%
1%
1%
1%
22%
23%
1%
0.5%
--<0.2% <0.2%
6%
5%
2%
2%
0.01% 0.01%
1%
1%
54%
55%
<0.4% <1%
--0.1% 0.1%
--12%
13%
3%
3%

Hexachlorobutadiene

g/L

14

Hexachloroethane
Isophorone
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
N-Nitrosodi-NPropylamine
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine

g/L
g/L
g/L

2.5
730
7.3

2E-7%
<42%
<0.01%
0.004%

g/L

0.38

0.1%

0.2%

0.3%

0.3%

0.1%

0.1%

0.2%

0.3%

0.1%

0.1%

g/L

2.5

<42%

<36%

<32%

<14%

<3%

<36%

<32%

<23%

<8%

<1%

6E-7%
<36%

8E-7% 8E-7% 4E-7% 2E-6%


<32%
<14%
<3%
<36%
<0.01% <0.01% <0.01% <0.01% <0.01%
0.01% 0.02% 0.01% 0.01% 0.01%

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

37

DRAFT MPWSP Ocean Plan Compliance

Constituent
PAHs
PCBs
TCDD Equivalents d
1,1,2,2Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Toxaphene e
Trichloroethylene
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol c
Vinyl chloride

Ocean
Units Plan
Objective

July 2016

Percentage of Ocean Plan Objective at Edge of ZID by Scenario a


Variant
6

2
3%
61%
24%

3
4%
70%
39%

4
4%
57%
44%

5
2%
26%
24%

10

g/L 0.0088
g/L 0.000019
g/L 3.9E-09

1
2%
46%
3%

14%
146%
110%

14%
145%
115%

12%
126%
105%

5%
51%
44%

1%
16%
15%

g/L

2.3

<2%

<2%

<2%

<1%

<0.3%

<2%

<2%

<2%

<1%

<0.1%

g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L

2.0
2.1E-04
27
9.4
0.29
36

<2%
99%
<0.1%
<0.4%
-<0.1%

<1%
41%
<0.05%
<0.1%
-<0.03%

<0.2%
14%
<0.01%
<0.03%
-<0.01%

<3%
<2%
4%
23%
<0.2% <0.2%
<1%
<1%
--<0.1% <0.1%

<2%
37%
<0.2%
<0.5%
-<0.1%

<1%
<0.3%
<2%
<2%
42%
22%
103% 107%
<0.1% <0.02% <0.2% <0.2%
<0.2% <0.1%
<1% <0.5%
----<0.04% <0.01% <0.1% <0.1%

Note that if the percentage as determined by using the MRL was less than 0.01 percent, then a minimum value is
shown as <0.01% (e.g., if the MRL indicated the value was <0.000001%, for simplicity, it is displayed as
<0.01%). Also, shading indicates constituent is expected to be greater than 80 percent (orange shading) or exceed
(red shading) the ocean plan objective for that discharge scenario.
b
Calculating flow-weighted averages for toxicity (acute and chronic) and radioactivity (gross beta and gross alpha)
is not appropriate based the nature of the constituent. These constituents were measured individually for the
secondary effluent and GWR concentrate, and these individual concentrations would comply with the Ocean Plan
objectives.
c
All observed values from all data sources were below the MRL, and the flow-weighted average of the MRLs is
higher than the Ocean Plan objective. No compliance conclusions can be drawn for these constituents.
d
Acrylonitrile, beryllium and TCDD equivalents represent a special case; they were detected in some source waters,
but were also not detected above the MRL in others, and the MRL values are above the Ocean Plan objectives. For
these constituents, a value of 0 was assumed when it was not detected in a source water and the MRL was above the
Ocean Plan objective. This assumption was made to show there is potential for the constituent to exceed the Ocean
Plan objective in some flow scenarios, but there is not enough information to provide a complete compliance
determination at this time. When only the detected values were considered, acrylonitrile and beryllium did not
exceed the Ocean Plan objective by 80% or more and therefore were not included in Tables 7 through 10.
e
Toxaphene was only detected using the low-detection techniques of the CCLEAN program. It was detected once
(09/2011) out of 12 samples collected from the secondary effluent from 2010 through 2015, and during the 7-day
composite sample from the test slant well.

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

38

DRAFT MPWSP Ocean Plan Compliance

July 2016

Appendix B
Trussell Technologies, Inc (Trussell Tech), 2015. Ocean Plan Compliance Assessment for the
Pure Water Monterey Groundwater Replenishment Project. Technical Memorandum
prepared for MRWPCA and MPWMD. Feb.

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

39

Ocean&Plan&Compliance&Assessment&&
for&the&Pure&Water&Monterey&Groundwater&
Replenishment&Project!

Technical&Memorandum&
February(2015(

&

Prepared for:

1939 Harrison Street, Suite 600


Oakland, CA 94612

Ocean&Plan&Compliance&Assessment&
for&the&Pure&Water&Monterey&Groundwater&Replenishment&
Project&

&
&
&
&
&
&
&
Technical&Memorandum&

February&2015&

Prepared(By:(
(
Trussell&Technologies,&Inc.&
Gordon(Williams,(Ph.D.,(P.E.(

Ocean Plan Compliance

February 2015

Table&of&Contents&
1! Introduction&......................................................................................................................&2!
1.1! Treatment!through!the!RTP!and!AWT!Facility!..................................................................................................!2!
1.2! California!Ocean!Plan!....................................................................................................................................................!3!
1.3! Objective!of!Technical!Memorandum!....................................................................................................................!4!
2! Methodology&for&Ocean&Plan&Compliance&.........................................................................&5!

2.1! Methodology!for!Determination!of!Discharge!Water!Quality!.....................................................................!5!
2.1.1! Future)Secondary)Effluent).......................................................................................................................................)6!
2.1.2! GWR)RO)Concentrate).................................................................................................................................................)9!
2.1.3! Hauled)Brine)..................................................................................................................................................................)9!
2.1.4! Combined)Ocean)Discharge)Concentrations)...................................................................................................)9!
2.2! Ocean!Modeling!and!Ocean!Plan!Compliance!Analysis!Methodology!..................................................!10!

3! Ocean&Plan&Compliance&Results&.......................................................................................&12!
3.1! Water!Quality!of!Combined!Discharge!...............................................................................................................!12!
3.2! Ocean!Modeling!Results!...........................................................................................................................................!14!
3.3! Ocean!Plan!Compliance!Results!............................................................................................................................!16!
4! Conclusions&.....................................................................................................................&21!
5! References&......................................................................................................................&21!

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

Ocean Plan Compliance

February 2015

1 Introduction&
The Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency (MRWPCA) and the Monterey
Peninsula Water Management District (Project Partners) are in the process of developing the
Pure Water Monterey Groundwater Replenishment Project (Proposed Project). The Proposed
Project involves treating secondary effluent from the MRWPCA Regional Treatment Plant
(RTP) through the proposed Advanced Water Treatment Facility (AWT Facility) and then
injecting this highly purified recycled water into the Seaside Groundwater Basin, later extracting
it for replacement of existing municipal water supplies. The Proposed Project will also provide
additional tertiary recycled water for agricultural irrigation in northern Salinas Valley as part of
the Castroville Seawater Intrusion Project (CISP). A waste stream, known as the reverse
osmosis concentrate (RO concentrate), would be generated by the AWT Facility and
discharged through the existing MRWPCA ocean outfall. The goal of this technical
memorandum is to analyze whether the discharge of the Proposed Projects RO concentrate to
the ocean through the existing outfall would impact marine water quality, and thus, human
health, marine biological resources, or beneficial uses of the receiving waters.

1.1 Treatment&through&the&RTP&and&AWT&Facility&

The existing MRWPCA RTP treatment process includes screening, primary sedimentation,
secondary biological treatment through trickling filters (TFs), followed by a solids contactor (i.e.,
bio-flocculation), and then clarification (Figure 1). Much of the secondary effluent undergoes
tertiary treatment (granular media filtration and disinfection) to produce recycled water used for
agricultural irrigation. The unused secondary effluent is discharged to the Monterey Bay through
the MRWPCA Outfall. MRWPCA also accepts trucked brine waste for ocean disposal, which is
stored in a pond and mixed with secondary effluent for disposal.
The proposed AWT Facility would include several advanced treatment technologies for
purifying the secondary effluent water: ozone (O3), biologically active filtration (BAF) (this is an
optional unit process), membrane filtration (MF), reverse osmosis (RO), and an advanced
oxidation process (AOP) using UV-hydrogen peroxide. The Project Partners conducted a pilotscale study of the ozone, MF, and RO elements of the AWT Facility from December 2013
through July 2014, successfully demonstrating the ability of the various treatment processes to
produce highly-purified recycled water that complies with the California Groundwater
Replenishment Using Recycled Water Regulations (Groundwater Replenishment Regulations)
and Central Coast Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) standards, objectives and guidelines
for groundwater.

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

Ocean Plan Compliance

February 2015

Figure&1&&Simplified&diagram&of&existing&MRWPCA&RTP&and&proposed&AWT&Facility&treatment&

Reverse osmosis is an excellent removal process, separating out most dissolved constituents
from the recycled water. The dissolved constituents removed through RO are concentrated into a
waste stream known as the RO concentrate. Unlike the waste streams from the BAF and MF, the
RO concentrate cannot be recycled back to the RTP headworks and would be discharged through
the MRWPCA Outfall. Discharges through the outfall are subject to National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting, which is based on the California State
Water Resources Control Board 2012 Ocean Plan (Ocean Plan). Monitoring of the RO
concentrate was conducted during the Proposed Projects pilot-scale study.

1.2 California&Ocean&Plan&

The Ocean Plan sets forth water quality objectives for ocean discharges with the intent of
preserving the quality of the ocean water for beneficial uses, including the protection of both
human and aquatic ecosystem health (SWRCB, 2012). For typical wastewater discharges, when
released from an outfall, the wastewater and ocean water undergo rapid mixing due to the
momentum and buoyancy of the discharge.1 The mixing occurring in the rising plume is affected
1

Municipal wastewater effluent, being effectively fresh water, is less dense than seawater and thus rises (due to
buoyancy) while it mixes with ocean water.

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

Ocean Plan Compliance

February 2015

by the buoyancy and momentum of the discharge, a process referred to as initial dilution (NRC,
1993). The Ocean Plan objectives are to be met after the initial dilution of the discharge into the
ocean. The initial dilution occurs in an area known as the zone of initial dilution (ZID). The
extent of dilution in the ZID is quantified as the minimum probable initial dilution (Dm). The
water quality objectives established in the Ocean Plan are adjusted by the Dm to derive the
NPDES ocean discharge limits for a wastewater discharge prior to ocean dilution.
The current MRWPCA wastewater discharge is governed by NPDES permit R3-2014-0013
issued by the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Because the
existing NPDES permit for the MRWPCA ocean outfall must be amended to discharge the RO
concentrate, comparing future discharge concentrations to current NPDES permit limits would
not be an appropriate metric or threshold for determining whether the Proposed Project would
have a significant impact on marine water quality. Instead, compliance with the Ocean Plan
objectives was selected as an appropriate threshold for determining whether or not the Proposed
Project would result in a significant impact requiring mitigation. Modeling of the Proposed
Project ocean discharge was conducted by FlowScience, Inc. to determine Dm values for the
various discharge scenarios. The ocean modeling results were combined with projected
discharge water quality to assess compliance with the Ocean Plan.

1.3 Objective&of&Technical&Memorandum&

Trussell Technologies, Inc. (Trussell Tech) estimated worst-case water quality for the Proposed
Project ocean discharge water in-pipe (i.e., prior to being discharged through the outfall and
diluted in the ocean) and used the FlowScience ocean discharge modeling results to provide an
assessment of whether the Proposed Project would consistently meet Ocean Plan water quality
objectives. The purpose of this technical memorandum is to summarize the assumptions,
methodology, results and conclusions of the Ocean Plan compliance assessment.

&

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

Ocean Plan Compliance

February 2015

2 Methodology&for&Ocean&Plan&Compliance&

To analyze impacts due to ocean discharge of RO concentrate, the Proposed Project technical
team (Trussell Tech with MRWPCA staff) conducted a thorough water quality and flow
characterization of the proposed sources of water to be diverted into the wastewater collection
system that, after primary and secondary treatment, will be used as influent to the AWT Facility.
The team collected all available water quality data for secondary effluent and water quality
monitoring results for the Proposed Project new source waters.2 Using the full suite of data, the
team was able to estimate the future worst-case water quality of the combined ocean discharge.
With the results of ocean modeling, concentrations at the edge of the ZID were estimated to
determine the ability of the Proposed Project to comply with the Ocean Plan. The purpose of this
section is to outline the methodology used to make this determination. A summary of the
methodology is presented in Figure 2.

2.1 Methodology&for&Determination&of&Discharge&Water&Quality&

Water quality data for three types of discharge waters were used to estimate the future combined
water quality in the ocean outfall discharge under Proposed Project conditions: (1) the RTP
secondary effluent, (2) hauled brine waste (discussed in Section 2.1.3), and (3) the Proposed
Project RO concentrate. First, Trussell Tech estimated the potential influence of the new source
waters (e.g., agricultural wash water and agricultural drainage waters) on the worst-case water
quality for each of the three types of discharge water. The volumetric contribution of each new
source water would change under the different flow scenarios that could occur under the
Proposed Project. MRWPCA staff estimated the volume that would be collected from source
water for each month of the different types of operational years for the Proposed Project (Bob
Holden, Source Water Scenarios Spreadsheet, October 16, 2014)3. All of the different flow
scenarios were considered in developing the assumed worst-case concentrations for the Ocean
Plan constituents in the secondary effluent. This conservative approach used the highest
observed concentrations from all data sources for each source water in the analysis4. Once the
estimated worst-case water quality was determined for the RTP secondary effluent, these values
were used in estimating the worst-case water qualities for the hauled brine waste and the

A one-year monitoring program from July 2013 to June 2014 was conducted for five of the potential source
waters. Regular monthly and quarterly sampling was carried out for the RTP secondary effluent, agricultural wash
water, and Blanco Drain drainage water. Limited sampling of stormwater from Lake El Estero was performed due
to seasonal availability, and there was one sampling event for the Tembladero Slough drainage water.
3
The monthly flows for each source water were estimated by MRWPCA staff for three types of operational years:
(1) wet/normal years where a drought reserve is being built, (2) wet/normal years where the drought reserve has
been met, and (3) a drought year. Further, two phases of the Proposed Project have been defined for each of these
types of years (Phase A and Phase B).
4
The exception to this statement is cyanide. Only cyanide data collected from April 2005 through January 2011, as
part of the NPDES monitoring program, were used in the analysis. In mid-2011, Monterey Bay Analytical Service
(MBAS) began performing the cyanide analysis on the RTP effluent, at which time the reported values increased by
an order of magnitude. Because no operational or source water composition changes took place at this time that
would result in such an increase, it is reasonable to conclude the increase is an artifact of the change in analysis
method and therefore the results were questionable. Therefore, although the cyanide concentrations reported by
MBAS are presented separately; they are not used in the analysis for evaluating compliance with the Ocean Plan
objectives for the EIR.

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

Ocean Plan Compliance

February 2015

Proposed Project RO concentrate, as appropriate. The methodology for each type of water is
further described in this section.

Figure&2&&Logic&flowQchart&for&determination&of&project&compliance&with&the&Ocean&Plan&objectives

2.1.1 Future&Secondary&Effluent&

Because the Proposed Project involves bringing new source waters into the RTP, the water
quality of those source waters as well as the existing secondary effluent needed to be taken into
account to estimate the water quality of the future secondary effluent. The following sources of
data were considered for selecting an existing secondary effluent concentration for each
constituent in the analysis:
Source water monitoring conducted for the Proposed Project from July 2013 through
June 2014
Historical NPDES compliance data collected semi-annually by MRWPCA (2005-2014)

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

Ocean Plan Compliance

February 2015

Historical Priority Pollutant data collected annually by MRWPCA (2004-2014)


Data collected by the Central Coast Long-Term Environmental Assessment Network
(CCLEAN) (2008-2013)

The existing secondary effluent concentration for each constituent selected for the analysis was
the maximum reported value from the above sources.
Only one data source was available for several of the new source waters (i.e., agricultural wash
water, Blanco Drain, Tembladero Slough, and the Reclamation Ditch5), namely, data collected
during the source water monitoring conducted for the Proposed Project. From these data, the
maximum observed concentration was selected for each source water.
Source water flows used for calculation of blended future secondary effluent concentrations were
taken from the six projected operational conditions prepared by MRWPCA staff Phase A and
B for the three conditions: (a) normal/wet year, building reserve, (b) normal/wet year, full
reserve, and (c) drought year6. For each constituent, a total of 72 future concentrations were
calculated 12 months of the year for the 6 projected future source water flow contributions. Of
these concentrations, a maximum monthly flow-weighted concentration was selected for each
constituent to be used for the Ocean Plan compliance analysis.
When a constituent cannot be quantified or is not detected, it is reported as less than the Method
Reporting Limit (<MRL).7 Because the actual concentration could be any value equal to or less
than the MRL, the conservative approach is to use the value of the MRL in the flow-weighting
calculations. In some cases, constituents were not detected in any of the source waters; in this
case, the values are reported as ND(<X), where X is the MRL. For some non-detected
constituents, the MRL exceeds the Ocean Plan objective, and thus no compliance determination
can be made8.
5

For the Reclamation Ditch, water quality data related to the Ocean Plan were not available. Concentrations for the
Reclamation Ditch were conservatively assumed to be the higher of either the Blanco Drain or Tembladero Slough
concentration.
6
An alternative scenario exists in which all reasonably available source waters are diverted to the RTP regardless of
whether there is demand for recycled water (spreadsheet provided by Larry Hampson, October 17, 2014). This
scenario was not evaluated here because it would represent an unlikely flow scenario in which there would be RTP
effluent discharged to the ocean in the summer months. Trussell Technologies performed an analysis using this
alternative scenario and estimated that the concentrations of the Ocean Plan constituents would be less than or equal
to the estimated concentrations of the primary scenarios used in this memorandum, and thus further analysis of the
alternative scenario is not included.
7
The lowest amount of an analyte in a sample that can be quantitatively determined with stated, acceptable precision
and accuracy under stated analytical conditions (i.e., the lower limit of quantitation). Therefore, acceptable quality
control and quality assurance procedures are calibrated to the MRL, or lower. To take into account day-to-day
fluctuations in instrument sensitivity, analyst performance, and other factors, the MRL is established at three times
the Method Detection Limit (or greater). The Method Detection Limit is the minimum concentration of a substance
that can be measured and reported with 99% confidence that the analyte concentration is greater than zero. (40 Code
of Federal Regulations Section136 Appendix B).
8
This phenomenon is common in the implementation of the Ocean Plan where for some constituents, suitable
analytical methods are not capable of measuring low enough to quantify the minimum toxicologically relevant
concentrations. For these constituents, a discharge is considered compliant if the monitoring results are less than the
MRL.

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

Ocean Plan Compliance

February 2015

The following approaches were used for addressing the cases where a constituent was reported as
less than the MRL:
Aggregate constituents with multiple congeners or sub-components: Some Ocean
Plan constituents are a combination of multiple congeners or sub-components (e.g.,
chlordane, PAHs, PCBs, and TCDD equivalents). Per the Ocean Plan, if individual
congeners or sub-components are below the MRL, they are assumed to be zero for the
purposes of calculating the aggregate parameter.
Combining different types of waters: The same approach to constituents that were
below the MRL was used for both combining different source waters (i.e., predicting
future secondary effluent concentrations based on source water contributions) and for
combining the different discharge components (i.e., RTP secondary effluent, hauled
brine, and RO concentrate). For each constituent:
o When all waters had maximum values reported above the MRL: The flowweighted average of the maximum detected concentrations was used when all
water had values reported above the MRL.
o When some waters had maximum values reported as less than the MRL:
! When the MRL was more than two orders of magnitude greater (i.e., more
than 100 times greater) than the highest detected value from the other
waters, the waters with maximum concentrations below the MRL were
ignored (i.e. treated as having a concentration of zero). This case is
exclusive to times when CCLEAN data were reported as detections for the
RTP secondary effluent, and all of the other source waters were below the
MRL9. The analytical methods used for CCLEAN are capable of
detecting concentrations many orders of magnitude below the detection
limits for traditional methods, and thus to include the <MRL from the
other methods would overshadow the CCLEAN data. Additionally, in
cases where the traditional analytical method had an MRL greater than the
Ocean Plan objective, performing the analysis using the high MRL from
the non-CCLEAN methods would result in an inability to make a
compliance determination for these constituents.
! When the MRL was within two orders of magnitude or less (i.e., less than
100 times greater) than the highest detected value from the other waters,
the constituents that were reported as less than the MRL and were
assumed to have a concentration at the MRL for the purposes of
calculating a flow-weighted average.
o All waters had maximum values reported as less than the MRL: A flowweighted average MRL was calculated for the constituent and the result was
reported as less than this combined MRL. For constituents where multiple MRLs
exist for the same water (due to different laboratory analysis methods or
dilutions), the lowest MRL was used.

Specifically, this case applies to endrin, chlordane, heptachlor epoxide, hexachlorobenzene, hexachlorobutadiene,
PCBs, and toxaphene.

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

Ocean Plan Compliance

February 2015

2.1.2 GWR&RO&Concentrate&

Two potential worst-case concentrations were available for the Proposed Project RO concentrate:
Measured in the concentrate during pilot testing
Calculated from the blended future secondary effluent concentration, using the following
treatment assumptions10:
o No removal prior to the RO process (i.e., at the RTP or AWT Facility ozone or
MF)
o 81% RO recovery (i.e., of the water feeding into the RO system, 81% is product
water, also known as permeate, and 19% is the RO concentrate)
o Complete rejection of each constituent by the RO membrane
The higher of these two values was selected as the final concentration of the RO concentrate for
all constituents, except as noted in the Appendix footnotes.

2.1.3 Hauled&Brine&

Currently, small volumes of brine water are trucked to the RTP and blended with secondary
effluent in a brine pond. The waste from this pond (hauled brine) is then discharged along
with the secondary effluent bound for ocean discharge (if there is any). For the Proposed
Project, the hauled brine would be discharged with both secondary effluent and RO concentrate
(see Figure 1). The point at which the hauled brine is added to the ocean discharge water is
downstream of the AWT Facility intake, and thus it would not impact the quality of the Proposed
Project product water or the RO concentrate. Currently, all sampling of the hauled brine takes
place after dilution by secondary effluent in the brine pond, and so the data represent a mix of
secondary effluent and brine water. It is appropriate to use these data for the hauled brine quality
since the practice of diluting with secondary effluent will continue in the future. Two potential
values were available for the hauled brine concentration:
Historical NPDES compliance data collected semi-annually by MRWPCA (2005-2013)
of hauled brine water diluted with existing secondary effluent
Future secondary effluent concentration, as previously described
The higher of these two values was selected for all constituents; because the hauled brine is
diluted by secondary effluent prior to discharge, it is also appropriate to use future secondary
effluent concentrations to represent the concentration within hauled brine. Even if a constituent
were not present in the hauled brine, if it is present in the secondary effluent it would be present
in the combined discharge.

2.1.4 Combined&Ocean&Discharge&Concentrations&

Having calculated the worst-case future concentrations for each of the three discharge
components, the combined concentration prior to discharge was determined as a flow-weighted
average of the contributions of each of the three discharge components. As discussed in Section
3.1, a range of secondary effluent flow conditions was considered.
10

Based on the treatment assumptions, the RO concentrate would equal 5.3 times the AWT Facility influent (i.e.,
blended future secondary effluent) concentration.

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

Ocean Plan Compliance

February 2015

2.2 Ocean&Modeling&and&Ocean&Plan&Compliance&Analysis&
Methodology&

In order to determine Ocean Plan compliance, Trussell Tech used the following information: (1)
the in-pipe (i.e., pre-ocean dilution) concentration of a constituent (C in-pipe) that was developed
as discussed in the previous section, (2) the minimum probable dilution for the ocean mixing
(Dm) for the relevant discharge flow scenarios that was modeled by FlowScience (FlowScience,
2014), and (3) the background concentration of the constituent in the ocean (CBackground) that is
specified in the Ocean Plans Table 3. With this information the concentration at the edge of
the zone of initial dilution (CZID) was calculated using the following equation:
C!"# = !

!!"!!"!# !!!! !!"#$%&'()*


!!!!!

(1)

The CZID was then compared to the Ocean Plan objectives11 in the Ocean Plans Table 1
(SWRCB, 2012). As described previously, the in-pipe concentration was estimated as a flowweighted average of the future secondary effluent, Proposed Project RO concentrate, and hauled
brine with the concentrations determined as discussed above. The Dm values for various flow
scenarios were determined by modeling (see FlowScience, 2014). Note that this approach could
not be applied for some constituents (e.g., acute toxicity, chronic toxicity, and radioactivity12).
The assumptions used by FlowScience for the ocean discharge dilution modeling are as follows:

Flow: A sensitivity analysis of relationship between Dm and flow rate was performed for
the various discharges types. The greatest Dm sensitivity to flow changes was to
variations in the RTP secondary effluent flow. To simplify the analysis, the flow
scenarios used in the compliance analysis only considered the maximum flows for the
hauled brine and the RO concentrate, because these flows result in the lowest Dm, thus
making the analysis conservative. The flows considered for each discharge type are as
follows:
o Secondary effluent: a range of conditions was modeled that reflect realistic future
discharge scenarios (minimum flow, moderate flow, and maximum flow).
o Proposed Project RO concentrate: 0.94 million gallons per day (mgd), which
would be the resulting RO concentrate flow when the AWT Facility is producing

11

Note that the Ocean Plan (see Ocean Plan Table 2) also defines effluent limitations for oil and grease, suspended
solids, settable solids, turbidity, and pH; however, it was not necessary to evaluate these parameters in this
assessment. If necessary, the pH of the water would be adjusted to be within acceptable limits prior to discharge.
Oil and grease, suspended solids, settable solids, and turbidity do not need to be considered in this analysis as the
RO concentrate would be significantly better than the secondary effluent with regards to these parameters. Prior to
the RO treatment, the process flow would be treated by MF, which will reduce these parameters, and the waste
stream from the MF will be returned to RTP headworks.
12
Calculating flow-weighted averages for toxicity (acute and chronic) and radioactivity (gross beta and gross alpha)
is not appropriate based on the nature of the constituent. These constituents were measured individually for the
secondary effluent and RO concentrate, and these individual concentrations would comply with the Ocean Plan
objectives (Trussell Technologies, 2014 and 2015). See section 3.4.

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

10

Ocean Plan Compliance

February 2015

4.0 mgd of highly-purified recycled water (corresponds to treating 5.49 mgd of


RTP secondary effluent); although the AWT Facility will not be operated at this
influent flowrate year round, this is the highest potential RO concentrate flow
o Hauled brine: 0.1 mgd, which is the maximum anticipated value (blend of
secondary effluent and hauled brine) anticipated by MRWPCA.
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS): the greatest dilution is achieved when the salinity of the
discharge water is the most different from the ambient salinity; therefore, the most
conservative TDS will be the highest (i.e., closest to ambient salinity) of:
o Secondary effluent: 1,100 milligram per liter (mg/L), which is the maximum
expected future TDS, taking into account the flow contribution of each source
water and the maximum observed TDS value from each source water
o Proposed Project RO concentrate: 5,800 mg/L, which is the maximum expected
future TDS based on the maximum expected future secondary effluent TDS and
the RO treatment assumptions listed in the section above (i.e. in a drought year).
o Hauled brine: 40,000 mg/L, which is the maximum anticipated value (blend of
secondary effluent and hauled brine) from MRWPCA.
Ambient salinity: 33,500 mg/L
Temperature: 20C

An additional consideration of the ocean dilution modeling is the variation in ocean conditions
throughout the year. Three conditions were modeled for all flow scenarios: Davidson
(November to March), Upwelling (April to August), and Oceanic (September to October)13. In
order to conservatively demonstrate Ocean Plan compliance, the lowest Dm from the applicable
ocean conditions was used for each flow scenario.
Ocean dilution modeling covered a range of secondary effluent flowrates between 0 and 24.7
mgd14, and the results showed that Ocean Plan compliance would be achieved when considering
all potential secondary effluent flowrates. To simplify the calculation and presentation of these
results, representative flowrate ranges were chosen. In order to select the representative flow
scenarios to use for the compliance assessment, the balance between in-pipe dilution and dilution
through the outfall needed to be taken into account. In general, higher secondary effluent flows
being discharged to the ocean would provide dilution of the Proposed Project RO concentrate;
however, greater dilution due to ocean water mixing would be provided at lower wastewater
discharge flows. The balance of these influences was considered in determining compliance
under the five representative discharge conditions that are described in Section 3.2 for the
Proposed Project.

&
13

Note that these ranges assign the transitional months to the ocean condition that is typically more restrictive at
relevant discharge flows.
14
The 24.7 mgd represents the secondary effluent flow if the RTP is operating at its design capacity of 29.6 mgd,
and there is a net flow of 4.9 mgd to the AWT Facility (a total flow of approximately 5.46 mgd would be sent to the
AWT Facility, but 0.55 mgd of MF backwash water is returned to the RTP headworks from the AWT Facility).

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

11

Ocean Plan Compliance

February 2015

3 Ocean&Plan&Compliance&Results&
3.1 Water&Quality&of&Combined&Discharge&

As described above, the first step in the Ocean Plan compliance analysis was to estimate the
worst-case water quality for each of the three future discharge components: future RTP effluent,
Proposed Project RO concentrate, and hauled brine waste. A summary of the estimated water
qualities of these components is given in Table 1. Additional considerations and assumptions for
each constituent are documented in the Table 1 notes section.
&

Table&1&&Summary&of&estimated&worstQcase&water&quality&for&the&three&waters&that&would&be&
discharged&through&the&ocean&outfall&
Secondary
Hauled Brine
Effluent
Ocean Plan water quality objectives for protection of marine aquatic life
Arsenic
g/L
45
45
Cadmium
g/L
1.2
1.2
Chromium (Hexavalent)
g/L
2.7
130
Copper
g/L
25.9
39
Lead
g/L
0.82
0.82
Mercury
g/L
0.089
0.089
Nickel
g/L
13.1
13.1
Selenium
g/L
6.5
75
Silver
g/L
ND(<1.59)
ND(<1.59)
Zinc
g/L
48.4
48.4
Cyanide (MBAS data)
g/L
89.5
89.5
Cyanide
g/L
7.2
46
Total Chlorine Residual
g/L
ND(<200)
ND(<200)
Ammonia (as N), 6-month median
g/L
36,400
36,400
Ammonia (as N), daily maximum
g/L
49,000
49,000
Acute Toxicity
TUa
2.3
2.3
Chronic Toxicity
TUc
40
40
Phenolic Compounds (non-chlorinated)
g/L
69
69
Chlorinated Phenolics
g/L
ND(<20)
ND(<20)
Endosulfan
g/L
0.048
0.048
Endrin
g/L
0.000079
0.000079
HCH (Hexachlorocyclohexane)
g/L
0.060
0.060
Radioactivity (Gross Beta)
pCi/L
32
307
Radioactivity (Gross Alpha)
pCi/L
18
457
Objectives for protection of human health - noncarcinogens
Acrolein
g/L
9.0
9.0
Antimony
g/L
0.79
0.79
Bis (2-chloroethoxy) methane
g/L
ND(<4.2)
ND(<4.2)
Bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether
g/L
ND(<4.2)
ND(<4.2)
Chlorobenzene
g/L
ND(<0.5)
ND(<0.5)
Chromium (III)
g/L
7.3
87
Di-n-butyl phthalate
g/L
ND(<7)
ND(<7)
Dichlorobenzenes
g/L
1.6
1.6
Diethyl phthalate
g/L
ND(<5)
ND(<5)
Dimethyl phthalate
g/L
ND(<2)
ND(<2)
4,6-dinitro-2-methylphenol
g/L
ND(<20)
ND(<20)
2,4-dinitrophenol
g/L
ND(<13)
ND(<13)
Constituent

Units

RO Concentrate

Notes

12
6.4
14
136
4.3
0.510
69
34
ND(<0.19)
255
143
38
ND(<200)
191,579
257,895
0.77
100
363
ND(<20)
0.25
0.00
0.314
34.8
14.4

1,12
2,11
2,11
2,11
2,11
5,12
2,11
2,11
4,14
2,11
2,12,13,16
6,11,16
10
1,11
1,11
7,12,13
7,12,13
1,9,11
4,14
5,9,11
3,11
11
1,7,12,13
1,7,12,13

47
4
ND(<1)
ND(<1)
ND(<0.5)
38
ND(<1)
8
ND(<1)
ND(<0.5)
ND(<5)
ND(<5)

2,11
1,11
4,14
4,14
4,14
1,11
4,14
1,11
4,14
4,14
4,14
4,14

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

12

Ocean Plan Compliance


Constituent

Units

Ethylbenzene
Fluoranthene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Nitrobenzene
Thallium
Toluene
Tributyltin
1,1,1-trichloroethane

g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L

February 2015
Secondary
Effluent
ND(<0.5)
ND(<0.5)
ND(<0.5)
ND(<2.3)
0.69
ND(<0.5)
ND(<0.05)
ND(<0.5)

Hauled Brine

RO Concentrate

Notes

ND(<0.5)
ND(<0.5)
ND(<0.5)
ND(<2.3)
0.69
ND(<0.5)
ND(<0.05)
ND(<0.5)

ND(<0.5)
ND(<0.1)
ND(<0.05)
ND(<1)
3.7
ND(<0.5)
ND(<0.02)
ND(<0.5)

4,14
4,14
4,14
4,14
2,11
4,14
8,14
4,14

2.5
ND(<0.007)
ND(<0.5)
ND(<19.8)
0.0052
ND(<4.2)
78
0.5
0.000735
2.4
39
0.022
1.6
ND(<19)
ND(<0.5)
ND(<0.5)
2.6
0.64
0.56
0.0056
ND(<2)
ND(<4.2)
1.4
ND(<0.01)
0.000059
0.000078
0.000009
ND(<2.3)
ND(<0.5)
0.096
0.076
ND(<2.3)
0.0529
0.000679
1.54E-07
ND(<0.5)
ND(<0.5)
0.00709
ND(<0.5)
ND(<0.5)
ND(<2.3)
ND(<0.5)

13
ND(<0.01)
ND(<0.5)
ND(<0.05)
ND(<0.5)
ND(<1)
411
2.7
0.00387
13
204
0.035
8.4
ND(<2)
ND(<0.5)
ND(<0.5)
14
3.4
3.0
0.0029
ND(<0.1)
ND(<1)
7.5
ND(<0.01)
0.000311
0.000411
0.000047
ND(<0.5)
ND(<0.5)
0.150
0.019
ND(<1)
0.278
0.00357
8.09E-07
ND(<0.5)
ND(<0.5)
3.73E-02
ND(<0.5)
ND(<0.5)
ND(<1)
ND(<0.5)

2,11
4,14
4,14
4,14
4,14
4,14
1,11
2,11
3,9,11
2,11
2,11
2,9,11
1,11
4,14
4,14
4,14
2,11
2,11
2,11
2,11
4,14
4,14
2,9,11
4,14
3,11
3,11
3,11
4,14
4,14
2,12,13
1,12,13
4,14
3,9,11
3,9,11
8,9,11
4,14
4,14
3,11
4,14
4,14
4,14
4,14

Objectives for protection of human health - carcinogens

Acrylonitrile
Aldrin
Benzene
Benzidine
Beryllium
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
Bis(2-ethyl-hexyl)phthalate
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlordane
Chlorodibromomethane
Chloroform
DDT
1,4-dichlorobenzene
3,3-dichlorobenzidine
1,2-dichloroethane
1,1-dichloroethylene
Dichlorobromomethane
Dichloromethane (methylenechloride)
1,3-dichloropropene
Dieldrin
2,4-dinitrotoluene
1,2-diphenylhydrazine (azobenzene)
Halomethanes
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachloroethane
Isophorone
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
N-Nitrosodi-N-Propylamine
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
PAHs
PCBs
TCDD Equivalents
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Toxaphene
Trichloroethylene
1,1,2-trichloroethane
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
Vinyl chloride

g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L

2.5
ND(<0.007)
ND(<0.5)
ND(<19.8)
ND(<0.69)
ND(<4.2)
78
0.5
0.000735
2.4
39
0.0011
1.6
ND(<19)
ND(<0.5)
ND(<0.5)
2.6
0.64
0.56
0.0005
ND(<2)
ND(<4.2)
1.4
ND(<0.01)
0.000059
0.000078
0.000009
ND(<2.3)
ND(<0.5)
0.096
0.076
ND(<2.3)
0.0529
0.000679
1.54E-07
ND(<0.5)
ND(<0.5)
0.00709
ND(<0.5)
ND(<0.5)
ND(<2.3)
ND(<0.5)

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

13

Ocean Plan Compliance

February 2015

Table 1 Notes:
RTP Effluent and Hauled Brine Data
1
Existing RTP effluent exceeds concentrations observed in other proposed source waters; the value reported is the
existing secondary effluent value.
2
The proposed new source waters may increase the secondary effluent concentration; the value reported is based on
predicted source water blends.
3
RTP effluent value is based on CCLEAN data; no other source waters were considered due to MRL differences.
4
MRL provided represents the maximum flow-weighted MRL based on the blend of source waters.
5
The only water with a detected concentration was the RTP effluent, however the flow-weighted concentration
increases due to higher MRLs for the proposed new source waters.
6
Additional source water data are not available; the reported value is for RTP effluent.
7
Calculation of the flow-weighted concentration was not feasible due to constituent and the maximum observed
value reported.
8
Agricultural Wash Water data are based on an aerated sample, instead of a raw water sample.
9
This value in the Ocean Plan is an aggregate of several congeners or compounds. Per the approach described in
the Ocean Plan, for cases where the individual congeners/compounds were less than the MRL, a value of 0 is
assumed in calculating the aggregate value, as the MRLs span different orders of magnitude.
10
For all waters, it is assumed that dechlorination will be provided when needed such that the total chlorine residual
will be below detection.
RO Concentrate Data
11
The value presented represents a calculated value assuming no removal prior to RO, complete rejection through
RO membrane, and an 81% RO recovery.
12
The value represents the maximum value observed during the pilot testing study.
13
The calculated value for the RO concentrate data (described in note 11) was not used in the analysis because it
was not considered representative. It is expected that the value would increase as a result of treatment through the
AWT Facility (e.g. formation of N-Nitrosodimethylamine as a disinfection by-product), or that it will not
concentrate linearly through the RO (e.g. toxicity and radioactivity).
14
The MRL provided represents the limit from the source water and pilot testing monitoring programs.
15
The value presented represents a calculated value assuming 20% removal through primary and secondary
treatment, 70% and 90% removal through ozone for DDT and dieldrin, respectively (based on Oram, 2008),
complete rejection through the RO membrane, and an 81% RO recovery. The assumed RTP concentrations for
Dieldrin and DDT do not include contributions from the agricultural drainage waters. This is because in all but one
flow scenario (Scenario 4, described later), either the agricultural drainage waters are not being brought into the RTP
because there is sufficient water from other sources (e.g. during wet and normal precipitation years), or the RTP
effluent is not being discharged to the outfall (e.g., summer months). In this one scenario (Scenario 4), there is a
minimal discharge of secondary effluent to the ocean during a drought year under Davidson ocean conditions; for
this flow scenario only, different concentrations are assumed for the RTP effluent. DDT and dieldrin concentrations
of 0.022 g/L and 0.0056 g/L were used for Scenario 4 in the analysis.
Cyanide Data
16
In mid-2011, MBAS began performing the cyanide analysis on the RTP effluent, at which time the reported
values increased by an order of magnitude. Because no operational or source water composition changes took place
at this time that would result in such an increase, it is reasonable to conclude the increase is an artifact of the change
in analysis method and therefore questionable. Therefore, the cyanide values as measured by MBAS are listed
separately from other cyanide values, and the MBAS data were not be used in the analysis for evaluating compliance
with the Ocean Plan objectives for the EIR.

3.2 Ocean&Modeling&Results&

FlowScience performed modeling of various discharges that include combinations of RTP


secondary effluent, hauled brine waste, and Proposed Project RO concentrate (FlowScience,
2014). Year-round compliance with the Ocean Plan objectives was assessed through the
evaluation of five representative discharge scenarios. All scenarios assume the maximum flow

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

14

Ocean Plan Compliance

February 2015

rates for the RO concentrate and hauled brine waste, which is a conservative assumption in terms
of constituent loading and minimum dilution. Various secondary effluent flows were used in the
compliance analysis, which represent the different types of future discharge compositions.
The five scenarios used for the compliance assessment in terms of secondary effluent flows to be
discharged with the other discharges are shown in Table 2, and include:
(1) RTP Design Capacity: maximum flows for the Proposed Project with all 172
discharge ports open15. The Oceanic ocean condition was used as it represents the
worst-case dilution for this flow scenario. This scenario represents the maximum
(NPDES) permitted wastewater flow (with the Proposed Project in operation).
(2) Maximum Flow under Current Port Configuration: the maximum flow that can
be discharged with the current ports configuration (130 of the 172 ports open)16. The
Oceanic ocean condition was used as it represents the worst-case dilution for this
flow scenario. This scenario was chosen as it represents the maximum wastewater
flow under the existing diffuser conditions.
(3) Minimum Wastewater Flow (Oceanic/Upwelling): the maximum influence of the
Proposed Project RO concentrate on the ocean discharge under Oceanic/Upwelling
ocean conditions (i.e., no secondary effluent discharged). The Oceanic ocean
condition was used as it represents the worst-case dilution for this flow scenario.
(4) Minimum Wastewater Flow (Davidson): the maximum influence of the Proposed
Project RO concentrate on the ocean discharge under Davidson ocean condition (i.e.,
the minimum wastewater flow). Observed historic wastewater flows generally
exceed 0.4 mgd during Davidson oceanic conditions. Additional source waters would
be brought into the RTP if necessary to maintain the 0.4 mgd minimum.
(5) Moderate Wastewater Flow: conditions with a moderate wastewater flow when the
Proposed Project RO concentrate has a greater influence to the water quality than in
Scenarios 1 and 2, but where the ocean dilution (Dm) is reduced due to the higher
overall discharge flow (i.e., compared to Scenarios 2 and 3). The Davidson ocean
condition was used as it represents the worst-case dilution for this flow scenario.

15

Note that this scenario would only apply if wastewater flows increased to the point that MRWPCA took action to
open the 42 discharge ports that are currently closed. Scenario 2 is the maximum discharge flow under the current
port configuration.
16
For Scenarios 2 through 5, ocean modeling was performed assuming 120 ports open, which would yield more
conservative Dm values than 130 ports, as dilution increases with increasing numbers of open ports.

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

15

Ocean Plan Compliance

February 2015

Table&2&&Flow&scenarios&and&modeled&Dm&values&used&for&Ocean&Plan&compliance&analysis&
No.
1
2
3
4
5

Flows (mgd)

Discharge Scenario
(Ocean Condition)
RTP Design Capacity
(Oceanic)
RTP Capacity with Current Port Configuration
(Oceanic)
Minimum Wastewater Flow
(Oceanic)
Minimum Wastewater Flow
(Davidson)
Moderate Wastewater Flow Condition
(Davidson)

Dm

Secondary
effluent

RO
concentrate

Hauled
brine

24.7

0.94

0.1

150

23.7

0.94

0.1

137

0.94

0.1

523

0.4

0.94

0.1

285

0.94

0.1

201

3.3 Ocean&Plan&Compliance&Results&

The flow-weighted in-pipe concentration for each constituent was then calculated for each
discharge scenario using the water quality presented in Table 1 and the flows presented in Table
2. The in-pipe concentration was then used to calculate the concentration at the edge of the ZID
using the Dm values presented in Table 2. The resulting concentrations for each constituent in
each scenario were compared to the Ocean Plan objective to assess compliance. The estimated
concentrations for all five flow-scenarios are presented as concentrations at the edge of the ZID
(Table 3) and as a percentage of the Ocean Plan objective (Table 4). As shown, none of the
constituents are expected to exceed 80% of their Ocean Plan objective17.
Table&3&&Predicted&concentrations&of&Ocean&Plan&constituents&at&the&edge&of&the&ZID&&
Constituent

Units

Objectives for protection of marine aquatic life


Arsenic
ug/L
Cadmium
ug/L
Chromium (Hexavalent)
ug/L
Copper
ug/L
Lead
ug/L
Mercury
ug/L
Nickel
ug/L
Selenium
ug/L
Silver
ug/L
Zinc
ug/L
Cyanide (MBAS data)
ug/L
Cyanide
ug/L
Total Chlorine Residual
ug/L
Ammonia (as N) - 6-mo median
ug/L
Ammonia (as N) - Daily Max
ug/L

Ocean
Plan
Objective

8
1
2
3
2
0.04
5
15
0.7
20
1
1
2
600
2,400

3.3
0.009
0.02
2.2
0.006
0.006
0.1
0.05
<0.17
8.3
0.61
0.056
<1.3
279
375

3.3
0.01
0.03
2.2
0.007
0.006
0.1
0.06
<0.17
8.3
0.66
0.062
<1.4
306
413

3.0
0.01
0.05
2.2
0.008
0.006
0.1
0.07
<0.16
8.4
0.26
0.074
<0.4
337
454

3.1
0.02
0.07
2.3
0.011
0.006
0.2
0.10
<0.16
8.6
0.44
0.105
<0.7
481
648

3.2
0.01
0.04
2.2
0.008
0.006
0.1
0.07
<0.17
8.4
0.50
0.076
<1.0
359
483

Estimated Concentrations at Edge of ZID by Discharge Scenario

17

Aldrin, benzidine, 3,3-dichlorobenzidine and heptachlor were not detected in any source waters, however their
MRLs are greater than the Ocean Plan objective. Therefore, no percentages are presented Table 4 as no compliance
conclusions can be drawn for these constituents. This is a typical occurrence for ocean discharges since the MRL is
higher than the ocean plan objective for some constituents.

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

16

Ocean Plan Compliance

February 2015

Constituent

Units

Ocean
Plan
Objective

Acute Toxicitya
Chronic Toxicitya
Phenolic Compounds (non-

TUa
TUc

0.3
1

ug/L

30

chlorinated)

Estimated Concentrations at Edge of ZID by Discharge Scenario


1

0.53

0.58

0.64

0.91

0.68

<0.14
0.00040
6.7E-07
0.00050

<0.04
0.00045
7.3E-07
0.00055

<0.07
0.00064
1.0E-06
0.00079

<0.10
0.00047
7.8E-07
0.00059

0.08
0.0066
<0.03
<0.03
<0.004
0.064
<0.05
0.01
<0.04
<0.01
<0.1
<0.09
<0.004
<0.004
<0.003
<0.02
0.006
<0.004
<0.0004
<0.004

0.08
0.0073
<0.002
<0.002
<0.001
0.082
<0.003
0.01
<0.003
<0.001
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
<0.0003
<0.0002
<0.002
0.006
<0.001
<0.00004
<0.001

0.1
0.010
<0.007
<0.007
<0.002
0.116
<0.01
0.02
<0.008
<0.004
<0.04
<0.03
<0.002
<0.001
<0.001
<0.005
0.009
<0.002
<0.0001
<0.002

0.09
0.0078
<0.02
<0.02
<0.002
0.082
<0.03
0.02
<0.02
<0.008
<0.08
<0.06
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0.007
<0.002
<0.0002
<0.002

0.02
<0.00005
<0.004
<0.1
0.005
<0.03
0.66
0.004
6.2E-06
0.02
0.3
1.8E-05
0.01
<0.1
<0.004
0.004
0.02

0.02
<0.00002
<0.001
<0.004
0.001
<0.002
0.72
0.005
6.8E-06
0.02
0.4
6.4E-05
0.01
<0.01
<0.001
0.001
0.02

0.03
<0.00003
<0.002
<0.02
0.002
<0.007
1.03
0.007
9.7E-06
0.03
0.5
1.1E-04
0.02
<0.03
<0.002
0.002
0.03

0.03
<0.00004
<0.002
<0.08
0.003
<0.02
0.77
0.005
7.2E-06
0.02
0.4
4.7E-05
0.02
<0.1
<0.002
0.002
0.03

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.005
4.5E-06
<0.01

0.01
6.1E-06
<0.001

0.01
1.3E-05
<0.003

0.01
5.9E-06
<0.01

<0.03

<0.002

<0.01

<0.02

Chlorinated Phenolics
ug/L
1
<0.13
Endosulfan
ug/L
0.009
0.00037
Endrin
ug/L
0.002
6.0E-07
HCH (Hexachlorocyclohexane)
ug/L
0.004
0.00046
Radioactivity (Gross Beta)a
pci/L

Radioactivity (Gross Alpha)a


pci/L

Objectives for protection of human health - noncarcinogens


Acrolein
ug/L
220
0.07
Antimony
ug/L
1200
0.0060
Bis (2-chloroethoxy) methane
ug/L
4.4
<0.03
Bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether
ug/L
1200
<0.03
Chlorobenzene
ug/L
570
<0.003
Chromium (III)
ug/L
190000
0.058
Di-n-butyl phthalate
ug/L
3500
<0.04
Dichlorobenzenes
ug/L
5100
0.01
Diethyl phthalate
ug/L
33000
<0.03
Dimethyl phthalate
ug/L
820000
<0.01
4,6-dinitro-2-methylphenol
ug/L
220
<0.1
2,4-Dinitrophenol
ug/L
4.0
<0.08
Ethylbenzene
ug/L
4100
<0.003
Fluoranthene
ug/L
15
<0.003
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
ug/L
58
<0.003
Nitrobenzene
ug/L
4.9
<0.01
Thallium
ug/L
2
0.005
Toluene
ug/L
85000
<0.003
Tributyltin
ug/L
0.0014
<0.0003
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
ug/L
540000
<0.003
Objectives for protection of human health - carcinogens
Acrylonitrile
ug/L
0.10
0.02
Aldrinb
ug/L
0.000022
<0.00005
Benzene
ug/L
5.9
<0.003
Benzidineb
ug/L
0.000069
<0.1
Beryllium
ug/L
0.033
0.005
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
ug/L
0.045
<0.03
Bis(2-ethyl-hexyl)phthalate
ug/L
3.5
0.60
Carbon tetrachloride
ug/L
0.90
0.004
Chlordane
ug/L
0.000023
5.6E-06
Chlorodibromomethane
ug/L
8.6
0.02
Chloroform
ug/L
130
0.3
DDT
ug/L
0.00017
1.6E-05
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
ug/L
18
0.01
3,3-Dichlorobenzidineb
ug/L
0.0081
<0.1
1,2-Dichloroethane
ug/L
28
<0.003
1,1-Dichloroethylene
ug/L
0.9
0.003
Dichlorobromomethane
ug/L
6.2
0.02
Dichloromethane
ug/L
450
0.005
(methylenechloride)
1,3-dichloropropene
ug/L
8.9
0.004
Dieldrin
ug/L
0.00004
4.0E-06
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
ug/L
2.6
<0.01
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine
ug/L
0.16
<0.03
(azobenzene)

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

17

Ocean Plan Compliance

February 2015

Constituent

Units

Ocean
Plan
Objective

Halomethanes
Heptachlorb
Heptachlor Epoxide
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachloroethane
Isophorone
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
N-Nitrosodi-N-Propylamine
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
PAHs
PCBs
TCDD Equivalents
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Toxaphene
Trichloroethylene
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
Vinyl chloride

ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L

130
0.00005
0.00002
0.00021
14
2.5
730
7.3
0.38
2.5
0.0088
0.000019
3.9E-09
2.3
2.0
2.1E-04
27
9.4
0.29
36

Estimated Concentrations at Edge of ZID by Discharge Scenario


1
0.011
<0.0001
4.5E-07
6.0E-07
6.9E-08
<0.01
<0.003
0.001
0.0005
<0.01
0.00041
5.20E-06
1.18E-09
<0.003
<0.003
5.43E-05
<0.003
<0.003
<0.01
<0.003

2
0.012
<0.0001
5.0E-07
6.6E-07
7.6E-08
<0.02
<0.004
0.001
0.001
<0.02
0.00045
5.72E-06
1.30E-09
<0.004
<0.004
5.97E-05
<0.004
<0.004
<0.02
<0.004

3
0.013
<0.00002
5.5E-07
7.2E-07
8.3E-08
<0.001
<0.001
0.0003
0.00005
<0.002
0.00049
6.29E-06
1.42E-09
<0.001
<0.001
6.57E-05
<0.001
<0.001
<0.002
<0.001

4
0.019
<0.00003
7.8E-07
1.0E-06
1.2E-07
<0.004
<0.002
0.0005
0.0001
<0.01
0.00070
8.98E-06
2.03E-09
<0.002
<0.002
9.38E-05
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
<0.002

5
0.014
<0.00005
5.8E-07
7.7E-07
8.9E-08
<0.01
<0.002
0.001
0.0003
<0.01
0.00052
6.70E-06
1.52E-09
<0.002
<0.002
6.99E-05
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
<0.002

Calculating flow-weighted averages for toxicity (acute and chronic) and radioactivity (gross beta and gross alpha)
is not appropriate based the nature of the constituent. These constituents were measured individually for the
secondary effluent and RO concentrate, and these individual concentrations would comply with the Ocean Plan
objectives.
b
All observed values from all data sources were below the MRL, and the flow-weighted average of the MRLs is
higher than the Ocean Plan objective. No compliance conclusions can be drawn for these constituents.

&

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

18

Ocean Plan Compliance

February 2015

Table&4&&Predicted&concentrations&of&all&COP&constituents,&expressed&as&percent&of&Ocean&Plan&
Objective&
Constituent

Units

Objectives for protection of marine aquatic life


Arsenic
ug/L
Cadmium
ug/L
Chromium (Hexavalent)
ug/L
Copper
ug/L
Lead
ug/L
Mercury
ug/L
Nickel
ug/L
Selenium
ug/L
Silver
ug/L
Zinc
ug/L
Cyanide (MBAS data)
ug/L
Cyanide
ug/L
Total Chlorine Residual
ug/L
Ammonia (as N) - 6-mo median
ug/L
Ammonia (as N) - Daily Max
ug/L
Acute Toxicitya
TUa
Chronic Toxicitya
TUc
Phenolic Compounds (nonug/L

chlorinated)

Ocean
Plan
Objective
8
1
2
3
2
0.04
5
15
0.7
20
1
1
2
600
2,400
0.3
1
30

Chlorinated Phenolics
ug/L
1
Endosulfan
ug/L
0.009
Endrin
ug/L
0.002
HCH (Hexachlorocyclohexane)
ug/L
0.004
Radioactivity (Gross Beta)a
pci/L

Radioactivity (Gross Alpha)a


pci/L

Objectives for protection of human health - noncarcinogens


Acrolein
ug/L
220
Antimony
ug/L
1200
Bis (2-chloroethoxy) methane
ug/L
4.4
Bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether
ug/L
1200
Chlorobenzene
ug/L
570
Chromium (III)
ug/L
190000
Di-n-butyl phthalate
ug/L
3500
Dichlorobenzenes
ug/L
5100
Diethyl phthalate
ug/L
33000
Dimethyl phthalate
ug/L
820000
4,6-dinitro-2-methylphenol
ug/L
220
2,4-Dinitrophenol
ug/L
4.0
Ethylbenzene
ug/L
4100
Fluoranthene
ug/L
15
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
ug/L
58
Nitrobenzene
ug/L
4.9
Thallium
ug/L
2
Toluene
ug/L
85000
Tributyltin
ug/L
0.0014
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
ug/L
540000
Objectives for protection of human health - carcinogens
Acrylonitrile
ug/L
0.10
Aldrinb
ug/L
0.000022
Benzene
ug/L
5.9
Benzidineb
ug/L
0.000069
Beryllium
ug/L
0.033

Estimated Percentage of Ocean Plan Objective at Edge of ZID by


Discharge Scenarioc
1

41%
1%
1%
73%
0.3%
14%
2%
0.3%
<24%
42%
61%
6%
46%
16%

41%
1%
1%
73%
0.3%
14%
2%
0.4%
<24%
42%
66%
6%
51%
17%

38%
1%
2%
75%
0.4%
15%
2%
0.5%
<23%
42%
26%
7%
56%
19%

38%
2%
3%
78%
0.5%
16%
3%
0.7%
<23%
43%
44%
10%
80%
27%

40%
1%
2%
75%
0.4%
15%
3%
0.5%
<24%
42%
50%
8%
60%
20%

2%

2%

2%

3%

2%

<13%
4%
0.03%
11%

<14%
4%
0.03%
13%

<4%
5%
0.04%
14%

<7%
7%
0.05%
20%

<10%
5%
0.04%
15%

0.03%
<0.01%
<0.61%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.06%
<2.10%
<0.01%
<0.02%
<0.01%
<0.30%
0.27%
<0.01%
<23%
<0.01%

0.03%
<0.01%
<0.67%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.06%
<2.30%
<0.01%
<0.02%
<0.01%
<0.33%
0.29%
<0.01%
<25%
<0.01%

0.04%
<0.01%
<0.06%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.28%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.04%
0.32%
<0.01%
<3%
<0.01%

0.05%
<0.01%
<0.17%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.02%
<0.68%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.10%
0.46%
<0.01%
<8%
<0.01%

0.04%
<0.01%
<0.39%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.04%
<1.38%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.20%
0.34%
<0.01%
<15%
<0.01%

20%

<0.06%

14%

21%

<0.06%

15%

24%

<0.02%

3%

34%

<0.03%

5%

25%

<0.04%

9%

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

19

Ocean Plan Compliance

February 2015
Estimated Percentage of Ocean Plan Objective at Edge of ZID by
Discharge Scenarioc

Constituent

Units

Ocean
Plan
Objective

Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
Bis(2-ethyl-hexyl)phthalate
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlordane
Chlorodibromomethane
Chloroform
DDT
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
3,3-Dichlorobenzidineb
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethylene
Dichlorobromomethane
Dichloromethane
(methylenechloride)
1,3-dichloropropene
Dieldrin
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine
(azobenzene)
Halomethanes
Heptachlorb
Heptachlor Epoxide
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachloroethane
Isophorone
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
N-Nitrosodi-N-Propylamine
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
PAHs
PCBs
TCDD Equivalents
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Toxaphene
Trichloroethylene
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
Vinyl chloride

ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L

0.045
3.5
0.90
0.000023
8.6
130
0.00017
18
0.0081
28
0.9
6.2

1
<60%
17%
0.4%
24%
0.2%
0.2%
9%
0.1%

<0.01%
0.4%
0.3%

2
<66%
19%
0.5%
27%
0.2%
0.3%
10%
0.1%

<0.01%
0.4%
0.4%

3
<6%
21%
0.5%
30%
0.3%
0.3%
37%
0.1%

<0.01%
0.1%
0.4%

4
<16%
29%
0.7%
42%
0.4%
0.4%
62%
0.1%

<0.01%
0.2%
0.6%

5
<38%
22%
0.6%
32%
0.3%
0.3%
27%
0.1%

<0.01%
0.3%
0.4%

ug/L

450

<0.01%

<0.01%

<0.01%

<0.01%

<0.01%

ug/L
ug/L
ug/L

8.9
0.00004
2.6

0.05%
10%
<0.5%

0.05%
11%
<0.5%

0.06%
15%
<0.02%

0.08%
34%
<0.1%

0.06%
15%
<0.3%

ug/L

0.16

<17%

<18%

<2%

<5%

<11%

ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L

130
0.00005
0.00002
0.00021
14
2.5
730
7.3
0.38
2.5
0.0088
0.000019
3.9E-09
2.3
2.0
2.1E-04
27
9.4
0.29
36

0.01%

2%
0.3%
<0.01%
<0.6%
<0.01%
0.01%
0.13%
<0.6%
5%
27%
30%
<0.1%
<0.2%
26%
<0.01%
<0.04%
<5%
<0.01%

0.01%

2%
0.3%
<0.01%
<0.6%
<0.01%
0.01%
0.14%
<0.7%
5%
30%
33%
<0.2%
<0.2%
28%
<0.01%
<0.04%
<6%
<0.01%

0.01%
<38%
3%
0.3%
<0.01%
<0.1%
<0.01%
<0.01%
0.01%
<0.1%
6%
33%
37%
<0.04%
<0.05%
31%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<1%
<0.01%

0.01%
<70%
4%
0.5%
<0.01%
<0.2%
<0.01%
0.01%
0.04%
<0.2%
8%
47%
52%
<0.1%
<0.1%
45%
<0.01%
<0.02%
<2%
<0.01%

0.01%

3%
0.4%
<0.01%
<0.4%
<0.01%
0.01%
0.08%
<0.4%
6%
35%
39%
<0.1%
<0.1%
33%
<0.01%
<0.03%
<3%
<0.01%

Calculating flow-weighted averages for toxicity (acute and chronic) and radioactivity (gross beta and gross alpha)
is not appropriate based the nature of the constituent. These constituents were measured individually for the
secondary effluent and RO concentrate, and these individual concentrations would comply with the Ocean Plan
objectives (see Section 3.4).
b
All observed values from all data sources were below the MRL, and the flow-weighted average of the MRLs is
higher than the Ocean Plan objective. No compliance conclusions can be drawn for these constituents.
c
Note that if the percentage as determined by using the MRL was less than 0.01 percent, then a minimum value is
shown as <0.01% (e.g., if the MRL indicated the value was <0.000001%, for simplicity, it is displayed as
<0.01%).

3.4 Toxicity&

The NPDES permit includes daily maximum effluent limitations for acute and chronic toxicity
that are based on the current allowable Dm of 145. The acute toxicity effluent limitation is 4.7
TUa (acute toxicity units) and the chronic toxicity effluent limitation is 150 TUc (chronic
Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

20

Ocean Plan Compliance

February 2015

toxicity units). The permit requires that toxicity testing be conducted twice per year, with one
sample collected during the wet season when the discharge is primarily secondary effluent and
once during the dry season when the discharge is primarily trucked brine waste. The MRWPCA
ocean discharge has consistently complied with these toxicity limits (CCRWQCB, 2014).
Toxicity testing of RO concentrate generated by the pilot testing was conducted in support of the
Proposed Project (Trussell Technologies, 2015). On April 9, 2014, a sample of RO concentrate
was sent to Pacific EcoRisk for acute and chronic toxicity analysis. Based on these results (RO
concentrate values presented in Table 1), the Proposed Project concentrate requires a minimum
Dm of 16:1 and 99:1 for acute and chronic toxicity, respectively, to meet the Ocean Plan
objectives. These Dm values were compared to predicted Dm values for the discharge of
concentrate only from the Proposed Projects full-scale AWT Facility and the discharge of
concentrate combined with secondary effluent from the RTP. The minimum dilution modeled for
the various Proposed Project discharge scenarios was 137:1, which is when the secondary
effluent discharge is at the maximum possible flow under the current port configuration
(FlowScience, 2014). Given that the lowest expected Dm value for the various Proposed Project
ocean discharge scenarios is greater than the required dilution factor for compliance with the
Ocean Plan toxicity objectives, this sample illustrates that the discharge scenarios would comply
with Ocean Plan objectives.

4 Conclusions&

The purpose of the analysis documented in this technical memorandum was to assess the ability
of the Proposed Project to comply with the Ocean Plan objectives. Trussell Tech used a
conservative approach to estimate the water qualities of the RTP secondary effluent, RO
concentrate, and hauled brine waste for the Proposed Project. These water quality data were then
combined for various discharge scenarios, and a concentration at the edge of the ZID was
calculated for each constituent and scenario. Compliance assessments could not be made for
selected constituents, as noted, due to analytical limitations, but this is a typical occurrence for
these Ocean Plan constituents. Based on the data, assumptions, modeling, and analytical
methodology presented in this technical memorandum, the Proposed Project would comply with
the Ocean Plan objectives.

5 References&
Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (CCRWQCB), 2014. Waste Discharge
Requirements for the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency Regional
Treatment Plant.
FlowScience, 2014. MRWPCA GWR Discharge Dilution Analysis FSI 144082. Technical
Memorandum to Robert Holden, MRWPCA. 8 Nov.
NRC, 1993. Managing Wastewater in Coastal Urban Areas. National Academy Press,
Washington, D.C.
State Water Resources Control Board, California Environmental Protection Agency (SWRCB),
2012. California Ocean Plan: Water Quality Control Plan, Ocean Waters of California.
Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

21

Ocean Plan Compliance

February 2015

Trussell Technologies, Inc. (2014). Pure Water Monterey Groundwater Recharge Project:
Advanced Water Treatment Facility Piloting. Draft Report, Prepared for the MRWPCA
and the MPWMD. Dec.
Trussell Technologies, Inc. (2015). AWT Facility Pilot-Scale RO Concentrate Toxicity
Testing. Communication, Prepared for Bob Holden, MRWPCA. Feb.

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

22

DRAFT MPWSP Ocean Plan Compliance

July 2016

Appendix C
Trussell Technologies, Inc (Trussell Tech), 2015b. Ocean Plan Compliance Assessment for the
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and Project Variant. Technical Memorandum
prepared for MRWPCA and MPWMD. March.

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

40

!Addendum!Report!to!Ocean!Plan!Compliance!Assessment!Reports:!
Monterey!Peninsula!Water!Supply!Project,!Pure!Water!Monterey!
Groundwater!Replenishment!Project,!and!the!Monterey!Peninsula!
Water!Supply!Project!Variant!

Addendum!Report!
April&17th&2015&

Prepared for:

1939 Harrison Street, Suite 600


Oakland, CA 94612

Addendum!Report!to!Ocean!Plan!Compliance!Assessment!Reports:!
Monterey!Peninsula!Water!Supply!Project,!Pure!Water!Monterey!
Groundwater!Replenishment!Project,!and!the!Monterey!Peninsula!
Water!Supply!Project!Variant!

!
!
!
!
!
!

!Addendum!Report!

April!17th!2015!

Prepared&By:&
&
Trussell!Technologies,!Inc.!
Gordon&Williams,&Ph.D.,&P.E.&

Addendum to Ocean Plan Compliance Reports

April 2015

Table!of!Contents!
1! Introduction!......................................................................................................................!2!
2! Modeling!Update!Results!..................................................................................................!3!
2.1! Updated!Results!for!the!MPWSP!..............................................................................................................................!3!
2.2! Updated!Results!for!the!Variant!Project!...............................................................................................................!4!
2.3! Updated!Results!for!the!GWR!Project!....................................................................................................................!6!
3! Conclusions!.......................................................................................................................!8!
4! References!......................................................................................................................!10!
Appendix!A!!Updated!Ocean!Discharge!Modeling!Results!...................................................!11!
Appendix!B!!Estimated!Concentrations!of!All!Ocean!Plan!Constituents!...............................!14!

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

Addendum to Ocean Plan Compliance Reports

April 2015

1 Introduction!
Trussell Technologies, Inc. (Trussell Tech) previously prepared two Technical Memoranda to
assess compliance of the following three proposed projects with the California Ocean Plan
(SWRCB, 2012):
1. Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP), which would include a
seawater desalination plant capable of producing 9.6 million gallons per day (mgd) of
drinking water (Ocean Plan compliance assessment described in Trussell Tech, 2015b).
2. Pure Water Monterey Groundwater Replenishment Project (GWR Project),
which would include an Advanced Water Treatment facility (AWT Facility) capable of
producing an average flow of 3.3 mgd of highly purified recycled water for injection into
the Seaside Groundwater Basin (Ocean Plan compliance assessment described in Trussell
Tech, 2015a). The AWT Facility source water would be secondary treated wastewater
(secondary effluent) from the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agencys
(MRWPCAs) Regional Treatment Plant (RTP).
3. Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Variant or Variant Project, which
would be a combination of a smaller seawater desalination plant capable of producing 6.4
mgd of drinking water along with the GWR Project (Ocean Plan compliance assessment
described in Trussell Tech, 2015b).
Both the proposed desalination facility and the proposed AWT Facility would employ reverse
osmosis (RO) membranes to purify the waters, and as a result, both projects would produce RO
concentrate waste streams that would be disposed through the existing MRWPCA ocean outfall:
the RO concentrate from the desalination facility (Desal Brine), and the RO concentrate from
the AWT Facility (GWR Concentrate). Additional details regarding the project backgrounds,
assessment methodologies, results, and conclusions for discharge of these waste streams are
described in the previous Technical Memoranda (Trussell Tech, 2015a and 2015b).
The Ocean Plan objectives are to be met after initial dilution of the discharge in the ocean. The
initial dilution occurs in an area known as the zone of initial dilution (ZID). The extent of
dilution in the ZID is quantified and referred to as the minimum probable initial dilution (Dm).
The water quality objectives established in the Ocean Plan are adjusted by the Dm to derive the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit limits for a treated
wastewater discharge prior to ocean dilution.
Part of the methodology for estimating the concentration of a constituent for the Ocean Plan is
estimating the Dm based on ocean modeling. FlowScience, Inc. (FlowScience) conducted
modeling of mixing in the ocean for various discharge scenarios related to the proposed projects
to determine Dm values for the key discharge scenarios. Recently, additional modeling by
FlowScience (FlowScience, 2015) was performed to (1) update the number of currently open
discharge ports in the MRWPCA ocean outfall from 120 to 130 open ports, (2) update the GWR
RO concentrate flow from 0.73 to 0.94 mgd and account for the hauled brine1 for the MPWSP
1

The hauled brine is waste that is trucked to the RTP and blended with secondary effluent prior to being discharged.
The maximum anticipated flow of this stream is 0.1 mgd (blend of brine and secondary effluent).

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

Addendum to Ocean Plan Compliance Reports

April 2015

and Variant Project discharge scenarios, and (3) model additional key discharge scenarios that
were missing from the initial ocean modeling for the MPWSP and Variant Project.
The purpose of this Addendum Report is to provide an understanding of the impact of the
updated ocean discharge modeling on the previous Ocean Plan compliance assessments for the
various proposed projects.

2 Modeling!Update!Results!

FlowScience performed additional ocean discharge modeling for key discharge scenarios (see
Appendix A) and Trussell Tech used these modeling results to perform an updated analysis of
Ocean Plan compliance for the various proposed projects. Results from these analyses are
presented in the following subsections: the MPWSP in Section 2.1; the Variant Project in Section
2.2; and the GWR Project in Section 2.3. Note that the results for the GWR Project in Section
2.3 are also applicable to the Variant Project. Not all previously modeled scenarios were
repeated; the scenarios selected for updating were chosen to demonstrate the impact of the
updated model input parameters (i.e., number of open ports, inclusion of the hauled waste flow,
and GWR Concentrate flow update). In addition, some new scenarios were added to ensure that
the worst-case discharge conditions were considered for all of the proposed projects.

2.1 Updated!Results!for!the!MPWSP!

The following discharge scenarios related to the MPWSP were modeled using 130 open ports for
the MRWPCA ocean outfall:
1. Desal Brine with no secondary effluent (updated scenario): The maximum influence of
the Desal Brine on the overall discharge (i.e., no secondary effluent discharged) would be
when there is no secondary effluent discharged. This scenario would be representative of
conditions when demand for recycled water is highest (e.g., during summer months), and
all of the RTP secondary effluent is recycled through the Salinas Valley Reclamation
Project (SVRP) for agricultural irrigation. The hauled waste is also included in this
discharge scenario.
2. Desal Brine with moderate secondary effluent flow (new scenario): Desal Brine
discharged with a relatively moderate secondary effluent flow that results in a plume with
slightly negative buoyancy. This scenario represents times when demand for recycled
water is low or the secondary effluent flow is low, and there is excess secondary effluent
that is discharged to the ocean.
The updated Dm values for these two discharge scenarios are provided in Table 1. The net
impact of using 130 open ports and including the hauled waste was a slight increase
(approximately 6%) in the amount of dilution associated with ocean mixing. This confirms that
previously modeled MPWSP discharge scenarios with Desal Brine included in Trussell 2015b
were conservative (i.e. the previous analysis slightly over-estimated the ZID concentration for
the Ocean Plan constituents).

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

Addendum to Ocean Plan Compliance Reports

April 2015

!
Table!1!!Updated!minimum!probable!dilution!(Dm)!values!for!select!MPWSP!discharge!scenarios!!
No.

Discharge flows (mgd)

Discharge Scenario
(Ocean Condition)

Secondary
effluent

Hauled
Waste

Desal
Brine

Previously
Reported Dm
(120 ports)a

Updated Dm
(130 ports)

Desal Brine with no secondary effluent flow


0
0.1
13.98
16
17
(Davidson)
Desal Brine with moderate secondary
effluent flow
2
9
0.1
13.98
n/a b
22
(Davidson)
a
The previously reported Dm was used in the analysis presented in Trussell 2015b, and was determined with the
assumption that 120 ports on the outfall were open and did not consider the hauled waste flow.
b
Not applicable, as Discharge Scenario 2, consisting of Desal Brine and a moderate secondary effluent flow, was
not previously modeled.
1

The Dm values reported in Table 1 were used to assess the Ocean Plan compliance for MPWSP
Scenarios 1 and 2 using the same methodology and water quality assumptions previously
described (Trussell, 2015b). The estimated concentrations at the edge of the ZID for constituents
that are expected to exceed the Ocean Plan objective are provided in Table 2. A new exceedance
was identified in MPWSP Scenario 2, where the ammonia concentration at the edge of the ZID
was predicted to exceed the 6-month median Ocean Plan objective. A list of estimated
concentrations for these two scenarios for all Ocean Plan constituents is provided in Appendix B
(Table A1).
Table!2!W!Predicted!concentration!at!the!edge!of!the!ZID!expressed!for!constituents!of!interest!in!the!
MPWSP!as!both!a!concentration!and!percentage!of!Ocean!Plan!Objective!a!
MPWSP Ocean Discharge Scenario
Estimated Concentration at Edge Estimated Percentage of Ocean Plan
of ZID
objective at Edge of ZID
1
2
1
2

Units

Ocean
Plan
Objective

Ammonia (as N) 6-mo median

ug/L

600

19

626

3%

104%

PCBs

ug/L

1.9E-05

1.2E-04

6.7E-05

609%

351%

Constituent

Red shading indicates constituent is expected to exceed the ocean plan objective for that discharge scenario.

2.2 Updated!Results!for!the!Variant!Project!

The following discharge scenarios related to the Variant Project were modeled using 130 open
ports for the MRWPCA ocean outfall:
1. Desal Brine without secondary effluent or GWR Concentrate (updated scenario):
Desal Brine discharged without secondary effluent or GWR Concentrate. This scenario
would be representative of conditions when the smaller (6.4 mgd) desalination facility is
in operation, but the AWT Facility is not operating (e.g., offline for maintenance), and all
of the secondary effluent is recycled through the SVRP (e.g., during high irrigation water
demand summer months). The hauled waste is also included in this discharge scenario.
2. Desal Brine with moderate secondary effluent flow and no GWR concentrate (new
scenario): Desal Brine discharged with a relatively moderate secondary effluent flow, but
no GWR Concentrate, which results in a plume with slightly negative buoyancy. This

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

Addendum to Ocean Plan Compliance Reports

April 2015

scenario represents times when demand for recycled water is low or the secondary
effluent flow is low, and there is excess secondary effluent that is discharged to the
ocean. The hauled waste is also included in this discharge scenario.
3. Desal Brine with GWR Concentrate and no secondary effluent (updated scenario):
Desal Brine discharged with GWR Concentrate and no secondary effluent. This scenario
would be representative of the condition where both the desalination facility and the
AWT Facility are in operation, and there is the highest demand for recycled water
through the SVRP (e.g., during summer months). The hauled waste is also included in
this discharge scenario.
4. Desal Brine with GWR Concentrate and a moderate secondary effluent flow (new
scenario): Desal Brine discharged with GWR Concentrate and a relatively moderate
secondary effluent flow that results in a plume with slightly negative buoyancy. This
scenario represents times when both the desalination facility and the AWT Facility are
operating, but demand for recycled water is low and there is excess secondary effluent
discharged to the ocean. The hauled waste is also included in this discharge scenario.
Variant conditions with no Desal Brine contribution: All scenarios described for the
GWR Project are also applicable to the Variant Project. See Section 2.3 for these
additional scenarios.
The updated Dm values for these two discharge scenarios are provided in Table 3. Similar to the
MPWSP modeling, the net impact of using 130 open ports, including the hauled waste, and using
a GWR concentrate flow of 0.94 mgd (instead of 0.73 mgd) was a slight increase (approximately
6%) in the amount of dilution associated with the ocean mixing for the Variant Project discharge
scenarios. This confirms that previously modeled Variant discharge scenarios with Desal Brine
included in Trussell 2015b were conservative (i.e. the previous analysis slightly over-estimated
the ZID concentration for the Ocean Plan constituents).
!

Table!3!!Updated!minimum!probable!dilution!(Dm)!values!for!select!MPWSP!discharge!scenarios!!
No.

Discharge Scenario
(Ocean Condition)

Discharge flows (mgd)


Secondary
effluent

Hauled
Waste

GWR
Concentrate

Desal
Brine

Previously
Reported
Dm
(120 ports)a

Updated
Dm

(130 ports)

Desal Brine with no secondary


0
0.1
0
8.99
15
16
effluent and no GWR Conc.
(Upwelling)
Desal Brine with moderate
2
5.8
0.1
0
8.99
n/a b
22
secondary effluent flow and no
GWR Conc. (Davidson)
Desal Brine and GWR Conc. with
3
0
0.1
0.94
8.99
17
18
no secondary effluent flow
(Upwelling)
Desal Brine and GWR Conc. with
4
5.3
0.1
0.94
8.99
n/a b
24
moderate secondary effluent flow
(Upwelling)
a
The previously reported Dm was used in the analysis presented in Trussell 2015b, and was performed with 120
open ports on the outfall, did not consider the hauled waste flow, and assumed a GWR Concentrate flow of 0.73
instead of 0.94 mgd.
b
Not applicable, as Discharge Scenarios 2 and 4, with moderate secondary effluent flows, were not previously
modeled.
1

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

Addendum to Ocean Plan Compliance Reports

April 2015

The Dm values reported in Table 3 were used to assess the Ocean Plan compliance for Variant
Project Scenarios 1 through 4 using the same methodology and water quality assumptions
previously described (Trussell, 2015b). The estimated concentrations at the edge of the ZID for
constituents that are expected to exceed the Ocean Plan objective are provided in Table 4. For
the updated scenarios (Variant Project Scenarios 1 and 3), the changes to the underlying
modeling parameters increased the amount of dilution in the ocean mixing, thus the resulting
ZID concentrations decreased slightly. For the new scenarios (Variant Project Scenarios 2 and
4), ammonia was identified as an exceedance in Variant Scenario 2 when there is no GWR
Concentrate in the combined discharge. This had not been shown in the previous analysis. A list
of estimated concentrations for these four scenarios for all Ocean Plan constituents is provided in
Appendix B (Table A2).
Table!4!W!Predicted!concentration!at!the!edge!of!the!ZID!expressed!for!constituents!of!interest!in!the!
MPWSP!as!both!a!concentration!and!percentage!of!Ocean!Plan!Objective!a!
Constituent

Ocean
Units
Plan
Objective

Variant Project Ocean Discharge Scenario


Estimated Percentage of Ocean Plan
Estimated Concentration at Edge of ZID
objective at Edge of ZID
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4

Objectives for protection of marine aquatic life


Copper
ug/L
3
2.1
Ammonia (as N)
ug/L
600
29
6-mo median
Objectives for protection of human health - carcinogens

2.4

2.7

2.7

70%

81%

91%

90%

629

968

985

4.8%

105%

161%

164%

Chlordane

ug/L

2.3E-05

1.2E-05

1.8E-05

2.9E-05

2.4E-05

52%

77%

125%

106%

DDT

ug/L

1.7E-04

4.6E-05

3.9E-05

2.1E-04

1.2E-04

27%

23%

122%

70%

PCBs

ug/L

1.9E-05

1.2E-04

6.7E-05

1.2E-04

6.7E-05

643%

351%

614%

355%

TCDD Equivalents

ug/L

3.9E-09

1.0E-10

2.7E-09

4.1E-09

4.2E-09

2.6%

68%

104%

107%

Toxaphene

ug/L

2.1E-04

8.0E-05

1.6E-04

2.5E-04

2.2E-04

38%

74%

119%

106%

Shading indicates constituent is expected to be greater than 80 percent (orange shading) or exceed (red shading) the
Ocean Plan objective for that discharge scenario.

2.3 Updated!Results!for!the!GWR!Project!

The proposed Variant Project is inclusive of the proposed GWR Project, such that the analysis in
this section is also part of the Variant Project. The following discharge scenarios related to the
GWR Project were modeled using 130 open ports for the MRWPCA ocean outfall:
1. Maximum Flow under Current Port Configuration (updated scenario): the maximum
flow that can be discharged with the current port configuration (130 of the 172 ports
open). The Oceanic ocean condition was used as it represents the worst-case dilution for
this flow scenario. This scenario was chosen because it represents the maximum
secondary effluent flow under existing diffuser conditions.
2. Minimum Secondary effluent Flow - Oceanic/Upwelling (updated scenario): the
maximum influence of the GWR Concentrate on the ocean discharge under Oceanic and
Upwelling ocean conditions (i.e., no secondary effluent discharged). The Oceanic ocean
condition was used as it represents less dilution for this flow scenario compared to the
Upwelling condition.
Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

Addendum to Ocean Plan Compliance Reports

April 2015

3. Minimum Secondary effluent Flow Davidson (updated scenario): the maximum


influence of the GWR Concentrate on the ocean discharge under Davidson ocean
condition (i.e., the minimum secondary effluent flow). Observed historic secondary
effluent flows generally exceed 0.4 mgd during Davidson oceanic conditions. Additional
source waters would be brought into the RTP if necessary to maintain the 0.4 mgd
minimum.
4. Low Secondary effluent Flow (updated scenario): conditions with a relatively low
secondary effluent flow of 3 mgd when the GWR Concentrate has a greater influence on
the water quality than in Scenarios 1, but where the Dm is reduced due to the higher
overall discharge flow (i.e., compared to Scenarios 2 and 3). The Davidson ocean
condition was used as it represents the worst-case dilution for this flow scenario.
5. Moderate Secondary effluent Flow (new scenario): conditions with a relatively
moderate secondary effluent flow of 8 mgd when the GWR Concentrate has a greater
influence on the water quality than in Scenario 1, but where the ocean dilution is reduced
due to the higher overall discharge flow (i.e., compared to Scenarios 2 through 4). The
Davidson ocean condition was used as it represents the worst-case dilution for this flow
scenario.
The updated Dm values for these five discharge scenarios are provided in Table 5. Similar to the
modeling for the MPWSP and Variant Project, the impact of using 130 open ports was a slight
increase (approximately 4%) in the amount of dilution associated with the ocean mixing for the
GWR Project discharge scenarios. This confirms that previously modeled GWR Project
discharge scenarios included in Trussell 2015a were conservative (i.e. the previous analysis
slightly over-estimated the ZID concentration for the Ocean Plan constituents).
!

Table!5!!Updated!minimum!probable!dilution!(Dm)!values!for!select!MPWSP!discharge!scenarios!!
No.

Discharge Scenario
(Ocean Condition)

Discharge flows (mgd)


Secondary
effluent

Hauled
Waste

GWR
Concentrate

Previously
Reported Dm
(120 ports)a

Updated Dm
(130 ports)

Maximum flow with GWR Concentrate


23.7
0.1
0.94
137
142
with current port configuration (Oceanic)
GWR Concentrate with no secondary
2
0
0.1
0.94
523
540
effluent (Oceanic)
GWR Concentrate with minimum
3
0.4
0.1
0.94
285
295
secondary effluent flow (Davidson)
GWR Concentrate with low secondary
4
3
0.1
0.94
201
208
effluent flow (Davidson)
GWR Concentrate with moderate
5
8
0.1
0.94
n/a b
228
secondary effluent flow (Davidson)
a
The previously reported Dm was used in the analysis presented in Trussell 2015a, and was performed with 120
open ports on the outfall.
b
Not applicable, as Discharge Scenarios 5, with 8 mgd of secondary effluent flow, was not previously modeled.
1

The Dm values reported in Table 5 were used to assess Ocean Plan compliance for GWR Project
Scenarios 1 through 5 using the same methodology and water quality assumptions previously
described (Trussell, 2015a). For the updated scenarios (GWR Project Scenarios 1 through 4), the
changes to the underlying modeling parameters increased the amount of dilution from ocean
mixing. Thus, as previously shown, none of the GWR Project scenarios resulted in an estimated
Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

Addendum to Ocean Plan Compliance Reports

April 2015

exceedance of the Ocean Plan objectives. For the new scenario (GWR Project Scenario 5), it
was estimated that none of the Ocean Plan objectives would be exceeded. Tables with the
estimated Ocean Plan constituent concentrations at the edge of the ZID for the GWR Project
discharge Scenarios 1 through 5 are provided in Appendix B as concentrations (Table A3) and as
a percentage of the Ocean Plan objective (Table A4).

3 Conclusions!

Additional modeling of the ocean discharges of various scenarios for the MPWSP, Variant
Project, and GWR project were performed, including updating previous modeling to reflect
changes in the baseline assumptions and key discharge scenarios that were absent from the
previous analyses. Two primary conclusions can be drawn from these efforts: (1) all conclusions
from the previously modeled discharge conditions remain the same, and (2) ammonia was
identified as a potential exceedance for both the MPWSP and the Variant Project when the Desal
Brine is discharged with a moderate flow of secondary effluent.
For the updated scenarios, three changes were made with respect to modeling of the ocean
discharge: (1) there are currently 130 open discharge ports, which is more than the 120 ports
used in the previous analysis; (2) for the MPWSP and Variant Project scenarios, the hauled waste
flow was added; and (3) for the Variant Project scenarios, a GWR Concentrate flow 0.94 mgd
was used instead of 0.73 mgd. In all cases, the impact of making these changes to the ocean
mixing was minor and resulted in slightly greater dilution of the ocean discharges and thus
slightly lower concentrations of constituents at the edge of the ZID. These changes were
minimal and do not alter the previous conclusions.
Results from the newly modeled scenarios have implications with respect to Ocean Plan
compliance. Previously, two types of exceedance were identified: (1) exceedance of PCBs for
discharges with a high fraction of Desal Brine flow, and (2) exceedance of several parameters
(ammonia, chlordane, DDT, PCBs, TCDD equivalents, and toxaphene) when discharging Desal
Brine and GWR Concentrate with little or no secondary effluent. In this most recent analysis, a
third type of exceedance was identifiedwhen the discharge contains both the Desal Brine and a
moderate secondary effluent flow there may be an exceedance of the Ocean Plan 6-month
median objective for ammonia. This type of exceedance was shown for both the MPWSP
(Scenario 2) and the Variant Projects (Scenarios 2 and 4) and is a result of the combination of
having high ammonia in the treated wastewater with the high salinity (i.e., higher density) of the
Desal Brine.
As previously shown, ammonia is not an issue when discharging secondary effluent and GWR
Concentrate without Desal Brine, or when the dense Desal Brine2 is discharged with sufficient
secondary effluent, such that the combined discharge results in a rising plume with relatively
2

Compared to the ambient seawater (33,000 to 34,000 mg/L of TDS), the Desal Brine is denser (~57,500 mg/L of
TDS) and when discharged on its own would sink, whereas the secondary effluent (~1,000 mg/L of TDS) and GWR
Concentrate (~5,000 mg/L) are relatively light and would rise when discharged. In the combined discharge, the
secondary effluent and GWR Concentrate would dilute the salinity of the desalination brine and thus reduce the
density. With sufficient dilution, the combined discharge would be less dense than the ambient ocean water,
resulting in a rising plume with more dilution in the ZID.

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

Addendum to Ocean Plan Compliance Reports

April 2015

high ocean mixing in the ZID. This potential Ocean Plan exceedance emerges when there is not
sufficient secondary effluent to dilute the Desal Brine, and thus the combined discharge is denser
than the ambient seawater. This negatively buoyant discharge sinks, resulting in relatively low
mixing in the ZID. Similarly, as previously shown, ammonia is not an issue when the Desal
Brine is discharged with a low secondary effluent flow, where even though there is relatively low
ocean mixing in the ZID, the ammonia concentration in the discharge is less because the
secondary effluent is a smaller fraction of the overall combined discharge. The worst-case
scenario occurs near the point where the Desal Brine is discharged with the highest flow of
secondary effluent that still results in a sinking plume. This secondary effluent flow ends up
being a moderate flow: approximately 9 mgd when combined with the Desal Brine from the
MPWSP or 5.3 mgd of Desal Brine in the case of the Variant Project.
It should be noted that ammonia was already identified as a potential exceedance (along with
several other constituents) when the Desal Brine is discharged with the GWR Concentrate with
little or no secondary effluent; however, as illustrated by the Variant Scenario 4, these
exceedances also apply when there is a moderate flow of secondary effluent (approximately 5.3
mgd).

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

Addendum to Ocean Plan Compliance Reports

April 2015

4 References!
FlowScience, 2015. Results of dilution analysis FSI 144082. Transmittal from Gang Zhao.
April 17, 2015 (see Appendix A)
State Water Resources Control Board, California Environmental Protection Agency (SWRCB),
2012. California Ocean Plan: Water Quality Control Plan, Ocean Waters of California.
Trussell Technologies, Inc (Trussell Tech), 2015a. Ocean Plan Compliance Assessment for the
Pure Water Monterey Groundwater Replenishment Project. Technical Memorandum
prepared for MRWPCA and MPWMD. Feb.
Trussell Technologies, Inc (Trussell Tech), 2015b. Ocean Plan Compliance Assessment for the
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and Project Variant. Technical Memorandum
prepared for MRWPCA. March.

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

10

Addendum to Ocean Plan Compliance Reports

April 2015

Appendix!A!!Updated!Ocean!Discharge!Modeling!Results!
FlowScience, 2015. Results of dilution analysis FSI 144082. Transmittal from Gang Zhao.
April 17, 2015!

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

11

Flow Science Incorporated


48 S. Chester Avenue, Suite 200, Pasadena, CA 91106
(626) 304-1134 FAX (626) 304-9427

T r a n s m it t a l L e t t e r
To:

Gordon Williams Ph.D., PE.


Trussell Technologies Inc.

Subject:

Results of dilution analysis


FSI 144082

From:

Gang Zhao Ph.D., PE.


Flow Science Inc.

Date:

April 17, 2015

Dear Dr. Williams,

Please find attached the Excel spreadsheet containing results of the latest round of dilution
analyses for effluent discharged through the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control
Agencys ocean outfall. The method used in the Visual Plumes (VP) model is capable of
handling slightly negatively buoyant conditions and produces reasonable results. In addition, the
VP model results are conservative for the slightly negatively buoyant scenarios in that the VP
predicted dilution ratios are lower than those obtained from the semi-empirical method.
Therefore, the semi-empirical method was not used for all slightly negatively buoyant scenarios.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.

Gang Zhao Ph.D., PE.


Principal Engineer
Flow Science Incorporated
48 South Chester Ave., Suite 200
Pasadena, CA 91106
Tel: 626-304-1134
Fax: 626-304-9427
email: gzhao@flowscience.com

Pasadena, CA Philadelphia, PA Harrisonburg, VA


www.flowscience.com

MPWSP, Variant Project, and GWR Project Discharge Scenarios Update


From: Flow Science Inc. (FSI 144082)
Flow (mgd)
Scenario Description

RTP
Secondary
Effluent

Hauled
Waste

GWR
Concentrat
e

Desal
Brine

Ocean Condition
Total
Combined Combined
Discharge TDS (mg/L) Temp (C)
Flow (MGD)

Davidson Upwelling Oceanic

VP

Semi-EMP

Number of
Open
Discharge
Ports

Plume
diam.
(inch)

Min.
Dilution

Horiz.
Distance
from port
(ft)

130
130
130
130
130

84
90
100
192

22
23
25
54

17
18
20
41

79
89
172

22
25
51

16
18
36

Plume
diam.
(inch)

Min.
Dilution

Horiz.
Distance
from port
(ft)

37

17

12

84

34

32

16

10

82

37

35

18

11

MPWSP Scenarios (Large desal)


M.1
M.2
M.3
M.4
M.5

0
0.1
9
0.1
Desal Brine with Moderate WW flow
9.5
0.1
Desal Brine with Moderate WW flow
10
0.1
Desal Brine with Moderate WW flow
12
0.1
MPWSP Variant Scenarios (Small desal + AWT Facility RO Conc.)
Var.1 Desal Brine with no WW and no GWR flow
0
0.1
Var.2 Desal Brine with Moderate WW flow
5.8
0.1
Var.3 Desal Brine with Moderate WW flow
6.2
0.1
Var.4 Desal Brine with Moderate WW flow
6.7
0.1
Var.5 Desal Brine and GWR Conc. with no WW flow
0
0.1

13.98
13.98
13.98
13.98
13.98

14.08
23.08
23.58
24.08
26.08

58,101
35,254
34,523
33,823
31,290

11.7
14.9
15.0
15.1
15.5

0
0
0
0
0.94

8.99
8.99
8.99
8.99
8.99

9.09
14.89
15.29
15.79
10.03

58,029
35,353
34,457
33,401
53,135

10.0
14.9
15.1
15.2
10.9

Desal Brine with no WW flow

Desal Brine with Moderate WW flow

X
X
X
X
X

130
130
130
130
130

Var.6

Desal Brine and GWR Conc. with moderate WW flow

5.3

0.1

0.94

8.99

15.33

35,145

14.1

130

86

24

18

Var.7

Desal Brine and GWR Conc. with moderate WW flow

5.6

0.1

0.94

8.99

15.63

34,491

14.2

130

99

28

20

Var.8

Desal Brine and GWR Conc. with moderate WW flow

0.1

0.94

8.99

19.03

28,133

16.0

130

161

56

33

0
0.4
0.4
3
8
23.7

0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1

0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94

1.04
1.44
1.44
4.04
9.04
24.74

9,088
6,869
6,869
3,156
2,019
1,436

20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0

130
130
130
130
130
130

124
128
126
136
208
200

540
295
454
208
228
142

6
6
6
10
17
26

X
X
X
X

Variant (when no Brine and GWR Only)


GWR.1
GWR.2
GWR.3
GWR.4
GWR.5
GWR.6

Minimum wastewater flow (Oceanic/Upwelling)


Minimum wastewater flow (Davidson)
Minimum wastewater flow (Oceanic)
Low wastewater flow
Moderate Wastewater flow
Max flow under current port configuration

X
X
X
X
X
X

Addendum to Ocean Plan Compliance Reports

April 2015

Appendix!B!!Estimated!Concentrations!of!All!Ocean!Plan!
Constituents!
Table!A1!!MPWSP!complete!list!of!Ocean!Plan!constituents!at!the!edge!of!the!ZID!as!estimated!
concentration!and!as!a!percentage!of!the!Ocean!Plan!objective!a!
Constituent

Units

Ocean
Plan
Objective

MPWSP Ocean Discharge Scenario


Estimated Concentration at Edge Estimated Percentage of Ocean Plan
of ZID
objective at Edge of ZID
1
2
1
2

Objectives for protection of marine aquatic life


Arsenic
ug/L
8
Cadmium
ug/L
1
Chromium (Hexavalent)
ug/L
2
Copper
ug/L
3
Lead
ug/L
2
Mercury
ug/L
0.04
Nickel
ug/L
5
Selenium
ug/L
15
Silver
ug/L
0.7
Zinc
ug/L
20
Cyanide
ug/L
1
Total Chlorine Residual d
ug/L
2
Ammonia (as N) - 6-mo median
ug/L
600
Ammonia (as N) - Daily Max
ug/L
2,400
Acute Toxicity b
TUa
0.3
Chronic Toxicity b
TUc
1
Phenolic Compounds (non-chlorinated)
ug/L
30
Chlorinated Phenolics
ug/L
1
Endosulfan
ug/L
0.009
Endrin
ug/L
0.002
HCH (Hexachlorocyclohexane)
ug/L
0.004
Radioactivity (Gross Beta) b
pci/L

Radioactivity (Gross Alpha) b


pci/L

Objectives for protection of human health non carcinogens


Acrolein
ug/L
220
Antimony
ug/L
1200
Bis (2-chloroethoxy) methane
ug/L
4.4
Bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether
ug/L
1200
Chlorobenzene
ug/L
570
Chromium (III)
ug/L
190000
Di-n-butyl phthalate
ug/L
3500
Dichlorobenzenes
ug/L
5100
Diethyl phthalate
ug/L
33000
Dimethyl phthalate
ug/L
820000
4,6-dinitro-2-methylphenol
ug/L
220
2,4-Dinitrophenol
ug/L
4.0
Ethylbenzene
ug/L
4100
Fluoranthene
ug/L
15
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
ug/L
58
Nitrobenzene
ug/L
4.9
Thallium
ug/L
2
Toluene
ug/L
85000
Tributyltin
ug/L
0.0014
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
ug/L
540000
Objectives for protection of human health - carcinogens
Acrylonitrile
ug/L
0.10

4.9
0.44
0.051
2.1
0.35
0.021
0.48
3.1
0.15
9.5
0.49
-19
24

4.6
0.23
0.058
2.2
0.18
0.013
0.32
1.5
0.16
8.9
0.36
-626
842

62%
44%
2.6%
69%
18%
53%
10%
20%
22%
47%
49%

3.2%
1.0%

58%
23%
2.9%
72%
8.8%
33%
6.3%
10%
23%
45%
36%

104%
35%

0.027
<0.0079
9.6E-06
1.6E-06
5.1E-05

1.2
<0.34
2.6E-04
2.1E-06
6.0E-04

0.09%
<0.8%
0.1%
0.08%
1.3%

3.9%
<34%
2.9%
0.1%
15%

<0.0020
0.91
<2.0E-04
<2.0E-04
<2.0E-04
5.9
<0.0020
6.3E-04
<0.0020
<7.9E-04
<2.0E-04
<2.0E-04
<2.0E-04
1.0E-04
<2.0E-04
<2.0E-04
<0.094
<0.050
<2.0E-05
<0.050

<0.086
0.45
<0.0086
<0.0086
<0.0086
2.9
<0.086
0.027
<0.086
<0.034
<0.0086
<0.0086
<0.0086
4.9E-05
<0.0086
<0.0086
<0.053
<0.032
<8.6E-04
<0.032

<0.01%
0.08%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<4.7%
<0.01%
<1.4%
<0.01%

<0.04%
0.04%
<0.2%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.2%
<0.01%
0.00%
<0.01%
<0.2%
<2.7%
<0.0%
<61%
<0.01%

<7.9E-04

<0.034

<0.8%

<34%

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

14

Addendum to Ocean Plan Compliance Reports

Constituent

Units

Ocean
Plan
Objective

Aldrin c
Benzene
Benzidine c
Beryllium
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
Bis(2-ethyl-hexyl)phthalate
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlordane
Chlorodibromomethane
Chloroform
DDT
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
3,3-Dichlorobenzidine
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethylene
Dichlorobromomethane
Dichloromethane
1,3-dichloropropene
Dieldrin
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine (azobenzene)
Halomethanes
Heptachlor
Heptachlor Epoxide
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachloroethane
Isophorone
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
N-Nitrosodi-N-Propylamine
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
PAHs
PCBs
TCDD Equivalents
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Toxaphene
Trichloroethylene
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
Vinyl chloride

ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L

0.000022
5.9
0.000069
0.033
0.045
3.5
0.90
0.000023
8.6
130
0.00017
18
0.0081
28
0.9
6.2
450
8.9
0.00004
2.6
0.16
130
0.00005
0.00002
0.00021
14
2.5
730
7.3
0.38
2.5
0.0088
0.000019
3.9E-09
2.3
2.0
2.1E-04
27
9.4
0.29
36

April 2015

MPWSP Ocean Discharge Scenario


Estimated Concentration at Edge Estimated Percentage of Ocean Plan
of ZID
objective at Edge of ZID
1
2
1
2
<2.0E-05
<0.050
<2.0E-04
2.1E-06
<2.0E-04
0.086
<0.028
1.1E-05
<2.0E-04
7.9E-04
3.1E-05
0.050
<9.9E-06
<0.050
0.050
<2.0E-04
0.050
<0.050
5.0E-06
<7.9E-04
<2.0E-04
2.9E-04
4.8E-07
2.3E-08
3.1E-08
3.6E-09
<2.0E-04
<2.0E-04
1.7E-04
2.0E-04
<2.0E-04
6.8E-04
1.2E-04
6.0E-11
<0.050
<0.050
7.5E-05
<0.050
<0.050
<2.0E-04
<0.028

<8.6E-04
<0.032
<0.0086
0.0085
<0.0086
1.4
<0.022
1.8E-05
<0.0086
0.034
3.3E-05
0.051
<4.3E-04
<0.032
0.032
<0.0086
0.033
<0.032
1.1E-05
<0.034
<0.0086
0.0093
2.3E-07
1.0E-06
1.3E-06
1.5E-07
<0.0086
<0.0086
3.7E-04
0.0014
<0.0086
0.0012
6.7E-05
2.6E-09
<0.032
<0.032
1.6E-04
<0.032
<0.032
<0.0086
<0.022

<0.8%

<0.01%
<0.4%
2.5%
<3.1%
48%
<0.01%
<0.01%
18%
0.3%
<0.1%
<0.2%
5.5%
<0.01%
0.01%
<0.6%
13%
<0.03%
<0.1%
<0.01%
1.0%
0.1%
0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
0.05%
<0.01%
7.7%
609%
1.5%
<2.2%
<2.5%
35%
<0.2%
<0.5%
<0.07%
<0.08%

<0.5%

26%
<19%
39%
<2.4%
77%
<0.10%
0.03%
20%
0.3%
<5.3%
<0.1%
3.6%
<0.1%
<0.01%
<0.4%
27%
<1.3%
<5.4%
<0.01%
0.5%
5.1%
0.6%
<0.01%
<0.3%
<0.01%
<0.01%
0.4%
<0.3%
14%
351%
67%
<1.4%
<1.6%
74%
<0.1%
<0.3%
<3.0%
<0.06%

Note that if the percentage as determined by using the MRL was less than 0.01 percent, then a minimum value is
shown as <0.01% (e.g., if the MRL indicated the value was <0.000001%, for simplicity, it is displayed as
<0.01%). Also, shading indicates constituent is expected to be greater than 80 percent (orange shading) or exceed
(red shading) the ocean plan objective for that discharge scenario.
b
Calculating flow-weighted averages for toxicity (acute and chronic) and radioactivity (gross beta and gross alpha)
is not appropriate based on the nature of the constituent. These constituents were measured for the secondary
effluent and those concentrations would comply with the Ocean Plan objectives.
c
All observed values from all data sources were below the MRL, and the flow-weighted average of the MRLs is
higher than the Ocean Plan objective. No compliance conclusions can be drawn for these constituents.
d
For total chlorine residual, any waste streams containing a free-chlorine residual would be dechlorinated prior to
discharge.

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

15

Addendum to Ocean Plan Compliance Reports

April 2015

Table!A2!!Variant!Project!list!of!predicted!concentrations!of!Ocean!Plan!constituents!at!the!edge!of!
the!ZID!as!a!concentration!and!as!a!percentage!of!the!Ocean!Plan!objective!a!
Constituent

Ocean
Units
Plan
Objective

Objectives for protection of marine aquatic life


8
Arsenic
ug/L
1
Cadmium
ug/L
2
Chromium (Hexavalent)
ug/L
3
Copper
ug/L
2
Lead
ug/L
0.04
Mercury
ug/L
5
Nickel
ug/L
15
Selenium
ug/L
0.7
Silver
ug/L
20
Zinc
ug/L
1
Cyanide
ug/L
2
Total Chlorine Residual d
ug/L
600
Ammonia (as N); 6-mo median ug/L
2,400
Ammonia (as N); Daily Max
ug/L
0.3
Acute Toxicity b
TUa
1
Chronic Toxicity b
TUc
Phenolic Compounds (non30
ug/L

chlorinated)

Variant Project Ocean Discharge Scenario


Estimated Percentage of Ocean Plan
Estimated Concentration at Edge of ZID
objective at Edge of ZID
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
5.1
0.46
0.084
2.1
0.37
0.022
0.51
3.3
0.16
9.6
0.53
-29
37

4.6
0.23
0.083
2.4
0.18
0.014
0.45
1.6
0.18
9.4
0.36
-629
846

4.7
0.41
0.14
2.7
0.32
0.021
0.75
2.8
0.16
10.5
0.62
-968
1302

4.4
0.22
0.11
2.7
0.17
0.014
0.56
1.5
0.18
9.8
0.41
-985
1325

63%
46%
4.2%
70%
19%
56%
10%
22%
22%
48%
53%
-4.8%
1.5%

58%
23%
4.2%
81%
9.1%
35%
9.0%
10.5%
26%
47%
36%
-105%
35%

59%
41%
6.9%
91%
16%
54%
15%
19%
22%
53%
62%

161%
54%

55%
22%
5.3%
90%
8.6%
36%
11%
10%
25%
49%
41%

164%
55%

0.045

1.2

1.8

1.9

0.1%

4.0%

6.1%

6.2%

<0.34
8.3E-04
2.1E-06
0.0010
4.6
0.23

<0.11
0.0013
3.4E-06
0.0016
4.7
0.41

<0.33
0.0013
2.8E-06
0.0016
4.4
0.22

<1.3%
0.4%
0.08%
2.0%
63%
46%

<34%
9.2%
0.10%
26%
58%
23%

<11%
14%
0.2%
40%
59%
41%

<33%
14%
0.1%
41%
55%
22%

0.16
0.45
<0.072
<0.072
<0.0086
3.0
<0.12
0.028
<0.086
<0.034
<0.34
<0.22
<0.0086
4.9E-05
<0.0086
<0.040
0.057
<0.032
<8.6E-04
<0.032

0.24
0.80
<0.0071
<0.0071
<0.0027
5.3
<0.0086
0.042
<0.0076
<0.0035
<0.035
<0.031
<0.0027
5.8E-04
<5.1E-04
<0.0061
0.10
<0.045
<1.2E-04
<0.045

0.24
0.41
<0.062
<0.062
<0.0083
2.7
<0.10
0.043
<0.073
<0.029
<0.29
<0.20
<0.0083
2.9E-04
<0.0072
<0.035
0.059
<0.029
<7.5E-04
<0.029

<0.01%
0.08%
<0.06%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.2%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.03%
5.0%
<0.01%
<2.3%
<0.01%

0.07%
0.04%
<1.64%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.2%
<5.6%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.8%
2.8%
<0.01%
<62%
<0.01%

0.1%
0.07%
<0.2%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.02%
<0.8%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.1%
4.9%
<0.01%
<8.9%
<0.01%

0.1%
0.03%
<1.40%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.1%
<4.9%
<0.01%
0.05%
<0.01%
<0.7%
2.9%
<0.01%
<54%
<0.01%

0.044
<1.2E-04
<0.032
<0.34

0.067
<5.3E-05
<0.045
<0.011

0.069
<1.2E-04
<0.029
<0.28

1.6%
<21%
<0.9%

44%

<0.5%

67%

<0.8%

69%

<0.5%

1
<0.013
Chlorinated Phenolics
ug/L
0.009
3.5E-05
Endosulfan
ug/L
0.002
1.7E-06
Endrin
ug/L
0.004
7.8E-05
HCH (Hexachlorocyclohexane)
ug/L

5.1
Radioactivity (Gross Beta) b
pci/L

0.46
Radioactivity (Gross Alpha) b
pci/L
Objectives for protection of human health non carcinogens
220
0.0058
Acrolein
ug/L
1200
0.96
Antimony
ug/L
4.4
<0.0027
Bis (2-chloroethoxy) methane
ug/L
1200
<0.0027
Bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether
ug/L
570
<3.2E-04
Chlorobenzene
ug/L
190000
6.3
Chromium (III)
ug/L
3500
<0.0045
Di-n-butyl phthalate
ug/L
5100
0.0010
Dichlorobenzenes
ug/L
33000
<0.0032
Diethyl phthalate
ug/L
820000
<0.0013
Dimethyl phthalate
ug/L
220
<0.013
4,6-dinitro-2-methylphenol
ug/L
4.0
<0.0084
2,4-Dinitrophenol
ug/L
4100
<3.2E-04
Ethylbenzene
ug/L
15
1.1E-04
Fluoranthene
ug/L
58
<3.2E-04
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
ug/L
4.9
<0.0015
Nitrobenzene
ug/L
2
0.10
Thallium
ug/L
85000
<0.053
Toluene
ug/L
0.0014
<3.2E-05
Tributyltin
ug/L
540000
<0.053
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
ug/L
Objectives for protection of human health - carcinogens
0.10
0.0016
Acrylonitrile
ug/L
0.000022
<4.5E-06
Aldrin c
ug/L
5.9
<0.053
Benzene
ug/L
0.000069
<0.013
Benzidine c
ug/L

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

16

Addendum to Ocean Plan Compliance Reports

Constituent
Beryllium
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether c
Bis(2-ethyl-hexyl)phthalate
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlordane
Chlorodibromomethane
Chloroform
DDT
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
3,3-Dichlorobenzidine c
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethylene
Dichlorobromomethane
Dichloromethane
1,3-dichloropropene
Dieldrin
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine
Halomethanes
Heptachlor
Heptachlor Epoxide
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachloroethane
Isophorone
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
N-Nitrosodi-N-Propylamine
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
PAHs
PCBs
TCDD Equivalents
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Toxaphene
Trichloroethylene
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
Vinyl chloride
a

Ocean
Units
Plan
Objective
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L

0.033
0.045
3.5
0.90
0.000023
8.6
130
0.00017
18
0.0081
28
0.9
6.2
450
8.9
0.00004
2.6
0.16
130
0.00005
0.00002
0.00021
14
2.5
730
7.3
0.38
2.5
0.0088
0.000019
3.9E-09
2.3
2.0
2.1E-04
27
9.4
0.29
36

April 2015

Variant Project Ocean Discharge Scenario


Estimated Percentage of Ocean Plan
Estimated Concentration at Edge of ZID
objective at Edge of ZID
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
3.4E-06
<0.0027
0.11
0.029
1.2E-05
0.0016
0.025
4.6E-05
0.053
<0.012
<0.053
0.053
0.0017
0.053
0.053
8.7E-06
<0.0013
<0.0027
9.2E-04
5.0E-07
3.8E-08
5.0E-08
5.8E-09
<0.0015
<3.2E-04
2.4E-04
2.2E-04
<0.0015
7.3E-04
1.2E-04
1.0E-10
<0.053
<0.053
8.0E-05
<0.053
<0.053
<0.0015
<0.029

1.5E-06
<0.072
1.4
0.022
1.8E-05
0.042
0.67
3.9E-05
0.051
<0.33
<0.032
0.032
0.045
0.035
0.033
1.2E-05
<0.034
<0.072
0.025
2.3E-07
1.0E-06
1.3E-06
1.6E-07
<0.040
<0.0086
0.0017
0.0014
<0.040
0.0012
6.7E-05
2.7E-09
<0.032
<0.032
1.6E-04
<0.032
<0.032
<0.040
<0.022

0.0025
<0.0071
2.1
0.037
2.9E-05
0.065
1.0
2.1E-04
0.085
<0.020
<0.045
0.045
0.069
0.060
0.057
2.2E-05
<0.0015
<0.0071
0.038
4.1E-07
1.6E-06
2.1E-06
2.4E-07
<0.0037
<0.0027
9.3E-04
2.8E-04
<0.0061
0.0020
1.2E-04
4.1E-09
<0.045
<0.045
2.5E-04
<0.045
<0.045
<0.0061
<0.026

0.0012
<0.062
2.1
0.025
2.4E-05
0.066
1.0
1.2E-04
0.064
<0.27
<0.029
0.029
0.071
0.038
0.036
1.8E-05
<0.028
<0.062
0.038
2.0E-07
1.6E-06
2.1E-06
2.4E-07
<0.034
<0.0083
0.0018
0.0012
<0.035
0.0017
6.7E-05
4.2E-09
<0.029
<0.029
2.2E-04
<0.029
<0.029
<0.035
<0.020

0.01%
<6.0%
3.1%
3.3%
52%
0.02%
0.02%
27%
0.3%

<0.2%
5.9%
0.03%
0.01%
0.6%
22%
<0.05%
<1.7%
<0.01%
1.0%
0.2%
0.02%
<0.01%
<0.06%
<0.01%
<0.01%
0.06%
<0.06%
8.3%
643%
2.6%
<2.3%
<2.6%
38%
<0.2%
<0.6%
<0.5%
<0.08%

<0.0%

39%
2.4%
77%
0.5%
0.5%
23%
0.3%

<0.1%
3.6%
0.7%
<0.0%
0.4%
31%
<1.3%
<45%
0.02%
0.5%
5.1%
0.6%
<0.01%
<1.6%
<0.01%
0.02%
0.4%
<1.6%
14%
351%
68%
<1.4%
<1.6%
74%
<0.1%
<0.3%
<14%
<0.06%

7.5%
<16%
60%
4.1%
125%
0.8%
0.8%
122%
0.5%

<0.2%
5.0%
1.1%
0.01%
0.6%
54%
<0.06%
<4.5%
0.03%
0.8%
7.8%
1.0%
<0.01%
<0.1%
<0.01%
0.01%
0.07%
<0.2%
22%
614%
104%
<2.0%
<2.3%
119%
<0.2%
<0.5%
<2.1%
<0.07%

3.7%

61%
2.8%
106%
0.8%
0.8%
70%
0.4%

<0.1%
3.3%
1.1%
<0.01%
0.4%
44%
<1.1%
<39%
0.03%
0.4%
8.0%
1.0%
<0.01%
<1.3%
<0.01%
0.02%
0.3%
<1.4%
19%
355%
107%
<1.3%
<1.5%
106%
<0.1%
<0.3%
<12%
<0.06%

Note that if the percentage as determined by using the MRL was less than 0.01 percent, then a minimum value is
shown as <0.01% (e.g., if the MRL indicated the value was <0.000001%, for simplicity, it is displayed as
<0.01%). Also, Shading indicates constituent is expected to be greater than 80 percent (orange shading) or exceed
(red shading) the ocean plan objective for that discharge scenario.
b
Calculating flow-weighted averages for toxicity (acute and chronic) and radioactivity (gross beta and gross alpha)
is not appropriate based on the nature of the constituent. These constituents were measured individually for the
secondary effluent and GWR concentrate, and these individual concentrations would comply with the Ocean Plan
objectives.
c
All observed values from all data sources were below the MRL, and the flow-weighted average of the MRLs is
higher than the Ocean Plan objective. No compliance conclusions can be drawn for these constituents.
d
For total chlorine residual, any waste streams containing a free-chlorine residual would be dechlorinated prior to
discharge.

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

17

Addendum to Ocean Plan Compliance Reports

April 2015

Table!A3!!GWR!Project!complete!list!of!predicted!concentrations!of!Ocean!Plan!constituents!at!the!
edge!of!the!ZID!for!updated!scenarios!
Constituent

Units

Objectives for protection of marine aquatic life


Arsenic
ug/L
Cadmium
ug/L
Chromium (Hexavalent)
ug/L
Copper
ug/L
Lead
ug/L
Mercury
ug/L
Nickel
ug/L
Selenium
ug/L
Silver
ug/L
Zinc
ug/L
Cyanide
ug/L
Total Chlorine Residual c
ug/L
Ammonia (as N) - 6-mo median
ug/L
Ammonia (as N) - Daily Max
ug/L
Acute Toxicity a
TUa
Chronic Toxicity a
TUc
Phenolic Compounds (nonug/L

chlorinated)

Ocean
Plan
Objective

Estimated Concentration at Edge of ZID by Discharge Scenario


1

8
1
2
3
2
0.04
5
15
0.7
20
1
2
600
2,400
0.3
1

3.3
0.010
0.025
2.2
0.0066
0.0057
0.11
0.055
<0.17
8.3
0.060

295
398

3.0
0.011
0.046
2.2
0.0073
0.0059
0.12
0.071
<0.16
8.4
0.072

326
439

3.1
0.016
0.064
2.3
0.010
0.0062
0.17
0.10
<0.16
8.6
0.10

465
626

3.2
0.012
0.040
2.2
0.0078
0.0059
0.12
0.070
<0.17
8.4
0.073

346
466

3.2
0.0077
0.023
2.2
0.0051
0.0056
0.083
0.045
<0.17
8.3
0.047

230
309

30

0.56

0.62

0.88

0.66

0.44

<0.14
3.9E-04
6.4E-07
4.8E-04

<0.037
4.3E-04
7.1E-07
5.4E-04

<0.068
6.1E-04
1.0E-06
7.6E-04

<0.10
4.6E-04
7.5E-07
5.7E-04

<0.087
3.0E-04
5.0E-07
3.8E-04

0.073
0.0064
<0.028
<0.028
<0.0035
0.061
<0.047
0.013
<0.034
<0.014
<0.14
<0.089
<0.0035
<0.0034
<0.0034
<0.016
0.0056
<0.0035
<3.4E-04
<0.0035

0.081
0.0071
<0.0024
<0.0024
<9.2E-04
0.079
<0.0029
0.014
<0.0026
<0.0012
<0.012
<0.011
<9.2E-04
<2.6E-04
<1.7E-04
<0.0021
0.0062
<9.2E-04
<4.2E-05
<9.2E-04

0.12
0.010
<0.0071
<0.0071
<0.0017
0.11
<0.010
0.020
<0.0081
<0.0034
<0.034
<0.026
<0.0017
<8.1E-04
<7.0E-04
<0.0049
0.0089
<0.0017
<1.0E-04
<0.0017

0.086
0.0075
<0.017
<0.017
<0.0024
0.079
<0.027
0.015
<0.019
<0.0079
<0.079
<0.053
<0.0024
<0.002
<0.0019
<0.010
0.0066
<0.0024
<2.1E-04
<0.0024

0.057
0.0050
<0.017
<0.017
<0.0022
0.050
<0.028
0.010
<0.020
<0.0081
<0.081
<0.053
<0.0022
<0.002
<0.0020
<0.0095
0.0044
<0.0022
<2.0E-04
<0.0022

0.021
<5.0E-05
<0.0035
<0.13
0.0047
<0.028

0.023
<1.8E-05
<9.2E-04
<0.0036
8.4E-04
<0.0024

0.033
<3.0E-05
<0.0017
<0.023
0.0018
<0.0071

0.024
<3.7E-05
<0.0024
<0.073
0.0030
<0.017

0.016
<3.2E-05
<0.0022
<0.078
0.0029
<0.017

1
Chlorinated Phenolics
ug/L
0.009
Endosulfan
ug/L
0.002
Endrin
ug/L
0.004
HCH (Hexachlorocyclohexane)
ug/L

Radioactivity (Gross Beta) a


pci/L

Radioactivity (Gross Alpha) a


pci/L
Objectives for protection of human health non-carcinogens
220
Acrolein
ug/L
1200
Antimony
ug/L
4.4
Bis (2-chloroethoxy) methane
ug/L
1200
Bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether
ug/L
570
Chlorobenzene
ug/L
190000
Chromium (III)
ug/L
3500
Di-n-butyl phthalate
ug/L
5100
Dichlorobenzenes
ug/L
33000
Diethyl phthalate
ug/L
820000
Dimethyl phthalate
ug/L
220
4,6-dinitro-2-methylphenol
ug/L
4.0
2,4-Dinitrophenol
ug/L
4100
Ethylbenzene
ug/L
15
Fluoranthene
ug/L
58
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
ug/L
4.9
Nitrobenzene
ug/L
2
Thallium
ug/L
85000
Toluene
ug/L
0.0014
Tributyltin
ug/L
540000
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
ug/L
Objectives for protection of human health - carcinogens
0.10
Acrylonitrile
ug/L
0.000022
Aldrin b
ug/L
5.9
Benzene
ug/L
0.000069
Benzidine b
ug/L
0.033
Beryllium
ug/L
0.045
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
ug/L

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

18

Addendum to Ocean Plan Compliance Reports

April 2015

Constituent

Units

Ocean
Plan
Objective

Bis(2-ethyl-hexyl)phthalate
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlordane
Chlorodibromomethane
Chloroform
DDT
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
3,3-Dichlorobenzidine b
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethylene
Dichlorobromomethane
Dichloromethane
1,3-dichloropropene
Dieldrin
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine
Halomethanes
Heptachlor b
Heptachlor Epoxide
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachloroethane
Isophorone
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
N-Nitrosodi-N-Propylamine
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
PAHs
PCBs
TCDD Equivalents
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Toxaphene
Trichloroethylene
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
Vinyl chloride

ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L

3.5
0.90
0.000023
8.6
130
0.00017
18
0.0081
28
0.9
6.2
450
8.9
0.00004
2.6
0.16
130
0.00005
0.00002
0.00021
14
2.5
730
7.3
0.38
2.5
0.0088
0.000019
3.9E-09
2.3
2.0
2.1E-04
27
9.4
0.29
36

0.63
0.0041
6.0E-06
0.020
0.31
1.7E-05
0.013
<0.13
<0.0035
0.0035
0.021
0.0052
0.0046
4.3E-06
<0.013
<0.028
0.012
<7.0E-05
4.8E-07
6.3E-07
7.3E-08
<0.016
<0.0035
6.9E-04
5.2E-04
<0.016
4.3E-04
5.5E-06
1.2E-09
<0.0035
<0.0035
5.8E-05
<0.0035
<0.0035
<0.016
<0.0035

0.70
0.0045
6.6E-06
0.022
0.35
6.2E-05
0.014
<0.0067
<9.2E-04
9.2E-04
0.023
0.0058
0.0050
5.9E-06
<5.2E-04
<0.0024
0.013
<1.8E-05
5.3E-07
7.0E-07
8.1E-08
<0.0012
<9.2E-04
2.7E-04
4.5E-05
<0.0021
4.7E-04
6.1E-06
1.4E-09
<9.2E-04
<9.2E-04
6.4E-05
<9.2E-04
<9.2E-04
<0.0021
<9.2E-04

1.0
0.0064
9.4E-06
0.031
0.50
8.2E-05
0.020
<0.027
<0.0017
0.0017
0.033
0.0082
0.0072
8.2E-06
<0.0026
<0.0071
0.018
<3.4E-05
7.5E-07
1.0E-06
1.2E-07
<0.0038
<0.0017
4.4E-04
1.3E-04
<0.0049
6.8E-04
8.7E-06
2.0E-09
<0.0017
<0.0017
9.1E-05
<0.0017
<0.0017
<0.0049
<0.0017

0.74
0.0048
7.0E-06
0.023
0.37
4.5E-05
0.015
<0.072
<0.0024
0.0024
0.025
0.0061
0.0053
5.7E-06
<0.0074
<0.017
0.014
<4.8E-05
5.6E-07
7.4E-07
8.6E-08
<0.0090
<0.0024
5.2E-04
3.0E-04
<0.010
5.0E-04
6.5E-06
1.5E-09
<0.0024
<0.0024
6.7E-05
<0.0024
<0.0024
<0.010
<0.0024

0.49
0.0032
4.6E-06
0.015
0.24
2.1E-05
0.010
<0.075
<0.0022
0.0022
0.017
0.0041
0.0035
3.5E-06
<0.0079
<0.017
0.0090
<4.4E-05
3.7E-07
4.9E-07
5.7E-08
<0.0092
<0.0022
4.5E-04
3.1E-04
<0.0095
3.3E-04
4.3E-06
9.7E-10
<0.0022
<0.0022
4.5E-05
<0.0022
<0.0022
<0.0095
<0.0022

Estimated Concentration at Edge of ZID by Discharge Scenario

Calculating flow-weighted averages for toxicity (acute and chronic) and radioactivity (gross beta and gross alpha)
is not appropriate based on the nature of these constituents. These constituents were measured individually for the
secondary effluent and RO concentrate, and these individual concentrations would comply with the Ocean Plan
objectives.
b
All observed values from all data sources were below the MRL, and the flow-weighted average of the MRLs is
higher than the Ocean Plan objective. No compliance conclusions can be drawn for these constituents.
c
For total chlorine residual, any waste streams containing a free-chlorine residual would be dechlorinated prior to
discharge.

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

19

Addendum to Ocean Plan Compliance Reports

April 2015

Table!A4!!GWR!Project!complete!list!of!predicted!concentrations!of!Ocean!Plan!constituents!at!the!
edge!of!the!ZID!as!a!percentage!of!the!Ocean!Plan!objective!for!updated!scenarios!a!
Constituent

Units

Ocean
Plan
Objective

Objectives for protection of marine aquatic life


8
Arsenic
ug/L
1
Cadmium
ug/L
2
Chromium (Hexavalent)
ug/L
3
Copper
ug/L
2
Lead
ug/L
0.04
Mercury
ug/L
5
Nickel
ug/L
15
Selenium
ug/L
0.7
Silver
ug/L
20
Zinc
ug/L
1
Cyanide
ug/L
2
Total Chlorine Residual d
ug/L
600
Ammonia (as N) - 6-mo median
ug/L
2,400
Ammonia (as N) - Daily Max
ug/L
0.3
Acute Toxicity b
TUa
1
Chronic Toxicity b
TUc
30
Phenolic Compounds (non-chlorinated)
ug/L
1
Chlorinated Phenolics
ug/L
0.009
Endosulfan
ug/L
0.002
Endrin
ug/L
0.004
HCH (Hexachlorocyclohexane)
ug/L

Radioactivity (Gross Beta) b


pci/L

Radioactivity (Gross Alpha) b


pci/L
Objectives for protection of human health non-carcinogens
220
Acrolein
ug/L
1200
Antimony
ug/L
4.4
Bis (2-chloroethoxy) methane
ug/L
1200
Bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether
ug/L
570
Chlorobenzene
ug/L
190000
Chromium (III)
ug/L
3500
Di-n-butyl phthalate
ug/L
5100
Dichlorobenzenes
ug/L
33000
Diethyl phthalate
ug/L
820000
Dimethyl phthalate
ug/L
220
4,6-dinitro-2-methylphenol
ug/L
4.0
2,4-Dinitrophenol
ug/L
4100
Ethylbenzene
ug/L
15
Fluoranthene
ug/L
58
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
ug/L
4.9
Nitrobenzene
ug/L
2
Thallium
ug/L
85000
Toluene
ug/L
0.0014
Tributyltin
ug/L
540000
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
ug/L
Objectives for protection of human health - carcinogens
0.10
Acrylonitrile
ug/L
0.000022
Aldrin c
ug/L
5.9
Benzene
ug/L
0.000069
Benzidine c
ug/L
0.033
Beryllium
ug/L
0.045
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
ug/L
3.5
Bis(2-ethyl-hexyl)phthalate
ug/L

Estimated Concentration at Edge of ZID by Discharge Scenario


1

41%
1.0%
1.3%
73%
0.3%
14%
2.1%
0.4%
<24%
42%
6.0%

49%
17%

38%
1.1%
2.3%
74%
0.4%
15%
2.4%
0.5%
<23%
42%
7.2%

54%
18%

38%
1.6%
3.2%
78%
0.5%
16%
3.3%
1%
<23%
43%
10%

78%
26%

40%
1.2%
2.0%
75%
0.4%
15%
2.5%
0.5%
<24%
42%
7.3%

58%
19%

40%
0.8%
1.1%
72%
0.3%
14%
1.7%
0.3%
<24%
41%
4.7%

38%
13%

1.9%
<14%
4.3%
0.03%
12%

2.1%
<3.7%
4.8%
0.04%
13%

2.9%
<6.8%
6.8%
0.05%
19%

2.2%
<9.6%
5.1%
0.04%
14%

1.5%
<8.7%
3.4%
0.02%
9%

0.03%
<0.01%
<0.6%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.06%
<2.2%
<0.01%
<0.02%
<0.01%
<0.3%
0.3%
<0.01%
<24%
<0.01%

0.04%
<0.01%
<0.05%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.3%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.04%
0.3%
<0.01%
<3.0%
<0.01%

0.05%
<0.01%
<0.2%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.02%
<0.7%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.1%
0.4%
<0.01%
<7.3%
<0.01%

0.04%
<0.01%
<0.4%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.04%
<1.3%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.2%
0.3%
<0.01%
<15%
<0.01%

0.03%
<0.01%
<0.4%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.04%
<1.3%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.2%
0.2%
<0.01%
<15%
<0.01%

21%

<0.06%

0.4%
<63%
18%

23%

<0.02%

2.5%
<5.4%
20%

33%

<0.03%

3.3%
<16%
28%

24%

<0.04%

1.7%
<37%
21%

16%

<0.04%

0.7%
<38%
14%

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

20

Addendum to Ocean Plan Compliance Reports

April 2015

Constituent

Units

Ocean
Plan
Objective

Carbon tetrachloride
Chlordane
Chlorodibromomethane
Chloroform
DDT
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
3,3-Dichlorobenzidine c
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethylene
Dichlorobromomethane
Dichloromethane
1,3-dichloropropene
Dieldrin
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine
Halomethanes
Heptachlor c
Heptachlor Epoxide
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachloroethane
Isophorone
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
N-Nitrosodi-N-Propylamine
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
PAHs
PCBs
TCDD Equivalents
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Toxaphene
Trichloroethylene
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
Vinyl chloride

ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L

0.90
0.000023
8.6
130
0.00017
18
0.0081
28
0.9
6.2
450
8.9
0.00004
2.6
0.16
130
0.00005
0.00002
0.00021
14
2.5
730
7.3
0.38
2.5
0.0088
0.000019
3.9E-09
2.3
2.0
2.1E-04
27
9.4
0.29
36

0.5%
26%
0.2%
0.2%
10%
0.07%

<0.01%
0.4%
0.3%
<0.01%
0.05%
11%
<0.5%
<18%
<0.01%

2.4%
0.3%
<0.01%
<0.6%
<0.01%
<0.01%
0.1%
<0.6%
4.9%
29%
32%
<0.2%
<0.2%
27%
<0.01%
<0.04%
<5.4%
<0.01%

0.5%
29%
0.3%
0.3%
36%
0.08%

<0.01%
0.1%
0.4%
<0.01%
0.06%
15%
<0.02%
<1.5%
<0.01%
<37%
2.6%
0.3%
<0.01%
<0.05%
<0.01%
<0.01%
0.01%
<0.08%
5.4%
32%
35%
<0.04%
<0.05%
30%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.7%
<0.01%

0.7%
41%
0.4%
0.4%
49%
0.1%

<0.01%
0.2%
0.5%
<0.01%
0.08%
21%
<0.10%
<4.5%
0.01%
<68%
3.8%
0.5%
<0.01%
<0.2%
<0.01%
<0.01%
0.03%
<0.2%
7.7%
46%
50%
<0.07%
<0.08%
43%
<0.01%
<0.02%
<1.7%
<0.01%

0.5%
30%
0.3%
0.3%
26%
0.08%

<0.01%
0.3%
0.4%
<0.01%
0.06%
14%
<0.3%
<10%
0.01%

2.8%
0.4%
<0.01%
<0.4%
<0.01%
<0.01%
0.08%
<0.4%
5.7%
34%
38%
<0.1%
<0.1%
32%
<0.01%
<0.03%
<3.3%
<0.01%

0.4%
20%
0.2%
0.2%
12%
0.06%

<0.01%
0.2%
0.3%
<0.01%
0.04%
8.9%
<0.3%
<11%
<0.01%

1.9%
0.2%
<0.01%
<0.4%
<0.01%
<0.01%
0.08%
<0.4%
3.8%
23%
25%
<0.09%
<0.1%
21%
<0.01%
<0.02%
<3.3%
<0.01%

Estimated Concentration at Edge of ZID by Discharge Scenario

Note that if the percentage as determined by using the MRL was less than 0.01 percent, then a minimum value is
shown as <0.01% (e.g., if the MRL indicated the value was <0.000001%, for simplicity, it is displayed as
<0.01%).
b
Calculating flow-weighted averages for toxicity (acute and chronic) and radioactivity (gross beta and gross alpha)
is not appropriate based on the nature of these constituents. These constituents were measured individually for the
secondary effluent and RO concentrate, and these individual concentrations would comply with the Ocean Plan
objectives.
c
All observed values from all data sources were below the MRL, and the flow-weighted average of the MRLs is
higher than the Ocean Plan objective. No compliance conclusions can be drawn for these constituents.
d
For total chlorine residual, any waste streams containing a free-chlorine residual would be dechlorinated prior to
discharge.

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

21

APPENDIX E1

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories


Peer Review

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

E-1

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

This page intentionally left blank

LBNL-1006421

Peer Review of Groundwater Modeling for the

Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP) April 2015 Draft EIR

Christine Doughty, Preston D. Jordan, and Curtis M. Oldenburg*

*Corresponding author
cmoldenburg@lbl.gov
510-486-7419

Energy Geosciences Division 74-316C


Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Berkeley, CA 94720

October 31, 2016

DISCLAIMER
This document was prepared as an account of work sponsored partially by the United States
Government. While this document is believed to contain correct information, neither the United
States Government nor any agency thereof, nor The Regents of the University of California, nor
any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal
responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus,
product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights.
Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by its trade name,
trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement,
recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or The
Regents of the University of California. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do
not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof or
The Regents of the University of California.
Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory is an equal opportunity employer.

ii

Rev. 2.0

Abstract
The proposed Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP) involves desalinating water
produced from slant wells completed in sand aquifers along the coast of Monterey Bay in
Marina, California. Aquifers in the adjacent Salinas Valley are used heavily for groundwater for
agricultural irrigation, and seawater intrusion has been a longstanding problem in the area. As
part of the CEQA process, a team led by the CPUC carried out groundwater modeling to
determine the impacts of the MPWSP on groundwater in the surrounding aquifers.
Following a change in leadership of the groundwater modeling effort, the CPUC requested
LBNL hydrogeologists to carry out an independent and objective peer review of the original
groundwater modeling that was used to support the Draft EIR published in April 2015.
In our review, we re-created the workflow used by the original modeling team, reviewed
conceptual models of the shallow subsurface in the Marina area, re-ran models using data files
and executable codes provided by the CPUC, and compared the outputs of our modeling results
against those presented in Appendix E2 of the Draft EIR.
We found that the computer simulations carried out by the modeling team can be replicated
using the input and executable codes provided to us. Agreement between the original output and
our re-run results was mostly excellent (agreed exactly or differences were very small).
Differences in simulation results can probably be attributed to machine round-off and
cancellation errors.
We also found that the groundwater model results may not represent the detailed response of the
actual system because the conceptual model used for groundwater modeling of the shallow sands
at Marina neglected to include an aquitard present in the subsurface (the Fort Ord Salinas Valley
Aquitard, or FO-SVA). We recommend that future groundwater modeling include the FO-SVA.
Finally, we found the initial and calibrated hydraulic conductivities in the simulation were higher
by one to two orders of magnitude and the Dune Sand aquifer storativity* was low compared to
values derived from nearby field data. This may be because the lack of FO-SVA in the model
resulted in higher horizontal to vertical conductivity ratios in the aquifers than is typical and
indicated by the field data. We recommend using results from surrounding field data to initialize
the model in those areas.

*Storativity is a measure of the amount of water released by an aquifer for a given drop in
hydraulic head.
iii

Rev. 2.0

This page left intentionally blank.

iv

Rev. 2.0

Table of Contents

1.

Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1

2.

Conclusions ............................................................................................................................ 2

3.

Acknowledgments ................................................................................................................. 3

4.

References .............................................................................................................................. 3

Appendix LBNL-A. Task list and schedule ................................................................................ 4


Appendix LBNL-B. Workflow and Consistency Check ............................................................ 5
Appendix LBNL-C. Groundwater modeling............................................................................ 11
Appendix LBNL-D. Groundwater Conceptual Model ............................................................ 22
Appendix LBNL-E. Additional Appendix E2 Tables .............................. (Separate Document)

Rev. 2.0

List of Figures

Figure B1. Storativity distribution in each layer of the NMGWM, plotted from nm_sce3n_1.lpf.
Compared to Figure 33 of App. E2, these storativity values tend to be lower. ...................... 8
Figure C1. Portion of the summary file for the NMGWM predictive simulations. Each 20-year
time period contains 252 such water budgets. Top: new simulation; bottom: original
simulation.............................................................................................................................. 15
Figure C2. Part of the output of utility program comp2.f, showing the maximum relative
difference of each term in the water budget (dmax) and the maximum relative difference of
model error IN OUT (dmaxm) for each stress period. The overall maximum of all 252
stress periods is shown at the bottom (DMAXALL and DMAXMALL); these are the values
that appear in Table C1. ....................................................................................................... 16
Figure C3. Histograms of relative differences between new and original MODFLOW
simulations for selected cases: (a) nm_sce3n: base case for CEMEX site, (b) nm_sce5f: case
with biggest relative error, (c) nm_sce4rf: rebound case; (d) nm_sce1n: no project case; (e)
nm_sce6sn: Potrero Road case. For each case, relative differences for the three 20-year time
periods are shown separately ................................................................................................ 18
Figure C4. Screen shot of using the DIFF command on the three main output files of MT3DMS.
The new output is in the current directory and the original output is in the parent directory.
The blank line after the command indicates that no differences were found between the
files........................................................................................................................................ 19
Figure C5. Screen shot of using the DIFF command on 4 small output files of SEAWAT. The
new output is in the current directory and the original output is in the parent directory. The
blank line after the command indicates that no differences were found between the files. . 20
Figure D1. The eastern half of Section 1-1 with data gaps regarding continuity of the aquitard
between the Dune Sand and 180-FTE Aquifer indicated. .................................................... 23
Figure D2. Southwestern portion of Section A-A from DEIR Appendix E2, located as shown on
the map, and Section B-B from Kennedy/Jenks Consultants (2004), which is along the
same line. Arrows indicate fine-grained material in the same borings on both sections
interpreted as part of the 180-FTE aquifer in the DEIR and part of the aquitard between the
Dune Sand and 180 Aquifer in Kennedy/Jenks Consultants (2004). The dotted box
indicates coarse-grained material interpreted as the 180/400 Aquitard in the DEIR section.
............................................................................................................................................... 25

vi

Rev. 2.0

List of Tables

Table C1. Maximum relative difference of components of water budget for calibration and
predictive simulations of the NMGWM, shown separately for each 20-year time period. .. 17
Table D1. Comparison of hydraulic conductivities based on textural correlations used in the
NMGWM compared to calibrated values in that model and measured values reported by
Harding Lawson Associates (1995) and Jordan et al. (2005). All values in ft/day. ............. 27
Table D2. Comparison of storativities calibrated by the NMGWM for the Dune Sand (A-)
aquifer compared to those reported by Harding Lawson Associates (1995) and Jordan et al.
(2005). ................................................................................................................................... 28

vii

Rev. 2.0

This page left intentionally blank.

viii

Rev. 2.0

1. Introduction
The proposed Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP) entails construction and
operation of a desalination plant to produce potable water from saline groundwater extracted
from beneath the sea floor near the shoreline. The resulting supply will compensate for reduced
diversions from the Carmel River and reduced extraction from the Seaside Groundwater Basin,
both of which are legally required. The proposed desalination plant would also produce potable
water in excess of that needed to replace the aforementioned reductions. This additional water
would provide a stable supply for existing customers, fire suppression, future development, and
tourism.
The Project was determined to require full environmental analysis in accord with the California
Environmental Quality Act. An analysis was prepared under the auspices of the California Public
Utilities Commission (CPUC) and issued as a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) in
April 2015. Among the potential environmental impacts considered, reduction of groundwater
supplies, declines in groundwater levels resulting from extraction of saline groundwater from
beneath the sea floor near the shoreline, and degradation of groundwater quality were assessed.
The approach to assessing these impacts involved development of conceptual models of the
surface and groundwater hydrology in the area that could potentially be affected by the
groundwater withdrawals associated with the project. This was followed by development of the
quantitative inputs necessary to simulate the subsurface hydrology using groundwater models,
such as description of the hydrostratigraphy and selection of hydraulic parameter values. Using
these as inputs, groundwater modeling of subsurface hydrology without and with the proposed
groundwater extraction was performed to assess the magnitudes of water level drawdown and the
changes in water quality throughout the study area.
Following a change in the leadership of the groundwater modeling effort, the CPUC
commissioned Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) to review the numerical
simulations of the proposed saline groundwater extraction at the CEMEX and Potrero Road sites.
The scope did not include reviewing any of the other results in the DEIR, such as the effect of
the project on groundwater in the Seaside Groundwater Basin.
This report conveys the results of LBNLs review of the proposed saline groundwater extraction
modeling and its effects in a series of Appendices labeled LBNL-A, LBNL-B, LBNL-C, LBNLD, and LBNL-E to distinguish them from other appendices in the work being reviewed. We
present in Appendix LBNL-A the scope of work we carried out as defined by the CPUC. As
shown, the primary focus of our review was the groundwater modeling with an emphasis on
replicating the groundwater modeling results presented in Appendix E2 of the DEIR. In
Appendix LBNL-B we summarize the modeling workflow, and do consistency checks on model
input files. In Appendix LBNL-C we present the results of re-running the groundwater models
and comparing input parameters with values in tables and figures in the DEIR. In Appendix
LBNL-D, we summarize our review of the conceptual model of the local hydrostratigraphy,
groundwater budget, and hydrologic parameters. In total, LBNL reviewed the following aspects
of the overall groundwater modeling effort:
1

Rev. 2.0

Numerical simulations
Hydrostratigraphy
Groundwater budget
Hydrologic parameters, such as hydraulic conductivity
The impact assessments based upon all of the above

The DEIR discusses these analyses in Section 4.4 and Appendices E1 and E2. LBNL reviewed
those parts of these sections that regarded the saline groundwater extraction and its impacts.
Below we present first the results of our summary of the groundwater modeling work flow
reported in Appendix E2, and the comparisons and analysis of the groundwater modeling that we
carried out to confirm the results presented in the DEIR Appendices E1 and E2. The approach
we took was to re-run all of the groundwater models using identical input and executable code
(groundwater modeling software) and compare output files in various ways. This review of
groundwater modeling is followed by our review of the hydrostratigraphy, groundwater budget,
hydrologic parameters, and related impact assessment.
2. Conclusions
Based on this review, LBNL found its simulation results match those in Appendix E2 of the
DEIR. Some of the groundwater modeling outputs are reproduced exactly, while others show
small differences that can be attributed to computer round-off and cancellation errors.
As for our review of the foundation of the groundwater modeling, we find that there are
shortcomings in the hydrostratigraphic model and simulation inputs that could potentially change
the impact assessments. Chief among these was the absence of the Fort Ord-Salinas Valley
Aquitard (FO-SVA), which hydraulically separates the Dune Sand and 180-foot equivalent (180FTE) aquifers from greater than about 2 km east of the proposed extraction site.
The extent of the FO-SVA relative to the proposed slant extraction wells should be
characterized. The numerical simulation of the proposed groundwater extraction should be
performed including this unit. The accuracy with which the simulation results predict the capture
zones, the drawdown distribution, and the percentage of the extracted water that flows from
beneath onshore is particularly sensitive to the position of the western edge of the FO-SVA and
initial water levels in the 180-FTE at this edge.
If there are insufficient data to constrain the position of water levels and the position of the FOSVA, multiple simulations should be conducted to provide a suite of results that in sum bracket
the likely changes resulting from the proposed extraction. This suite of results can be used to
determine the maximum capture area, drawdowns, and extraction from beneath onshore, or to
provide a probability distribution for those values if probability distributions for the inputs can be
established. If the maximum output value approach is utilized, these will not all result from one
simulation out of the suite, but rather from a combination of simulations.
The new simulation should be initialized with hydraulic conductivities measured from field data
collected in the nearby former Fort Ord. In general these hydraulic conductivities are lower than
2

Rev. 2.0

than those previously used to initialize the model and resulting from calibration by the model.
The model should also be initialized with larger storativities in the Dune Sand aquifer based
upon analysis of field data from the nearby former Fort Ord.
3. Acknowledgments
This work was funded by the California Public Utilities Commission through Earth Science
Associates (ESA), San Francisco, CA, and by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory,
University of California, under Department of Energy Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.
4. References
Harding Lawson Associates, 1995. Basewide Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, Fort Ord,
California Volume II: Remedial Investigation - Basewide Hydrogeologic Characterization
Text, Tables, and Plates, prepared for Department of the Army Corps of Engineers.
October 19, 1995
Jordan, P.D., Oldenburg, C.M. and Su, G.W., 2005. Analysis of aquifer response, groundwater
flow, and plume evolution at Site OU 1, Former Fort Ord, California, LBNL, Berkeley,
CA, LBNL-57251.
Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, 2004. Final Report, Hydrostratigraphic Analysis of the Northern
Salinas Valley, prepared for Monterey County Water Resources Agency. May 14, 2014.
LaBolle, E.M., Ahmed, A.A., and Fogg, G.E., Groundwater 41(2), 238-246, March-April, 2003.

Rev. 2.0

Appendix LBNL-A. Task list and schedule


Task 1. Workflow review

Weeks 1-2

Review the North Marina Groundwater Model (NMGWM)/CEMEX


model files received from ESA. Develop a detailed simulation pathway
schematic (i.e., workflow) which includes all pre- and post-processing
steps and the specific software required to complete each step. Resolve
questions and outstanding information needs and finalize the workflow
schematic.
Task 2. Consistency check

Weeks 2-4

Confirm the NMGWM/CEMEX model input files are consistent with


the description in the documentation provided by the CPUC CEQA
Team. For example, confirm grid extent, model cell dimensions, types,
and location of boundary conditions, aquifer parameters, prescribed
stresses (recharge, pumpage, and stream percolation), and water quality
(for solute transport simulations).
Task 3. Groundwater modeling

Weeks 2-8

Run NMGWM/CEMEX models and confirm output is consistent with


results reported by the CPUC CEQA Team. Ensure the models run as
described and that they produce reasonable results.
Task 4. Reporting

Weeks 2-10

Prepare a Draft report documenting the peer-review process and its results
to CPUC CEQA Team. Revise and issue a Final report, incorporating
comments, as appropriate.

Rev. 2.0

Appendix LBNL-B. Workflow and Consistency Check


Task 1: Review the North Marina Groundwater Model (NMGWM)/CEMEX model files received
from ESA. Develop a detailed simulation pathway schematic (i.e., workflow) which includes all
pre- and post-processing steps and the specific software required to complete each step. Resolve
questions and outstanding information needs and finalize the workflow schematic.
Workflow review
We were provided with a CD containing the DEIR and all of its appendices, along with a
portable external hard disk containing 1,151 Gb of datafiles and executables of groundwater
modeling files. We reviewed all of the files.
A workflow is presented below. The only specific software noted are the main simulation
programs: IGSM, MODFLOW, MT3DMS, SEAWAT; and the pre/post-processing package
Groundwater Vista, which is used to develop the NMGWM and Cemex models and to import
initial conditions (IC) from the regional SVIGSM to the NMGWM model. Information on
programs used to present simulation results graphically was not found.
Workflow
1. Review historical data.
2. Collect new borehole data (DEIR, Appendix C).
3. Run SVIGSM using finite element model IGSM (we do not have source or executable;
there is a critical review of model correctness (LaBolle et al., 2003) but we did not
examine that issue.
a. Update and calibrate SVIGSM (Described in DEIR App. E2, App. A; we do not
have files); old calibration period 1949-1994; new calibration period 1949-2011.
i. Recharge and discharge data applied: precipitation, evapotranspiration,
surface water in/out, groundwater pumping
ii. Observations: groundwater levels
iii. Parameters varied: horizontal and vertical permeability, effective porosity
b. Run SVIGSM for all calibration and predictive scenarios to be simulated with
NMGWM to determine boundary conditions (BC) for NMGWM: head at
boundaries, pumping, deep percolation, stream inflow/outflow.
4. Run NMGWM using MODFLOW and MT3DMS (DEIR App. E2).
a. Take parameters, IC, and BC from SVIGSM; assign to NMGWM.
b. Calibrate NMGWM (1980-2011; we have files).
i. Observations : groundwater levels and TDS
ii. Parameters varied: horizontal and vertical permeability, effective porosity,
dispersivity

Rev. 2.0

c. Run 17 predictive scenarios (15 cases cover MPWSP operation for years 20122074; 2 cases cover rebound after MPWSP ceases for years 2075-02137; we have
files)
5. Run CEMEX Model (CM) using SEAWAT
a. Take parameters, IC, and BC from NMGWM; assign to CEMEX model.
b. Calibrate CM against long-term pump test from test slant well (DEIR App. E1)
c. Run two CEMEX predictive scenarios (2012-2074; we have files)
6. Plot and present all results.
Consistency check
Task 2: Confirm the NMGWM/CEMEX model input files are consistent with the description in
the documentation provided by the CPUC CEQA Team. For example, confirm grid extent, model
cell dimensions, types, and location of boundary conditions, aquifer parameters, prescribed
stresses (recharge, pumpage, and stream percolation), and water quality (for solute transport
simulations).
In the notes below Consistent with App. E2 means that every entry was checked this was
only possible for uniform parameter distributions or for control parameters. Consistent with
Figure * in App. E2 means that the values in the files were plotted and the plots compared
visually with those in Appendix E2. Taken from SVIGSM; not checked in detail means that
the SVIGSM results shown graphically in Figures 12-24 in Appendix A of Appendix E2 were
found reasonable, but were not correlated to individual entries in the input files. Similarly,
Taken from NMGWM; not checked in detail means that the NMGWM results shown
graphically in Figures 12-24 in Appendix E2 were found reasonable, but were not correlated to
individual entries in the input files. To verify all individual entries of these input files would
require far more time than was allotted for this review.
MODFLOW input files
NAM name file with file names of all other input files
BAS basic input. For each of 8 model layers, identifies each cell in the 300 by 345
array as being variable head, no flow, or constant head. Provides initial head values
for all cells. Cell identifiers are consistent with Figure 18 of App. E2. Initial head
distributions were plotted and appear reasonable.
DIS discretization information. Provides number of cells as 300 by 345, uniform lateral
discretization: 200 ft by 200 ft; depth distributions of 8 model layers. Bottom
elevation of each layer is consistent with Figure 19 of App. E2.

Rev. 2.0

LPF layer properties. Provides distributions of hydraulic conductivity, vertical


hydraulic conductivity, and primary storage for 8 model layers. Horizontal hydraulic
conductivity values are consistent with Figure 31 of App. E2. Vertical hydraulic
conductivity values are consistent with Figure 32 of App. E2, except for one small
region in the upper left corner of Layer 1 where Figure 32 claims vertical
conductivity is between 0.21 and 0.40, but the file indicates it is 4. Storativity values
are not consistent with Figure 33 of App. E2, but tend to be much lower, as shown in
Figure B1 in this report.
WEL well package. Roughly 90,000 entries for each of 252 stress periods (number of
entries varies by stress period); taken from SVIGSM; not checked in detail.
GHB general head boundary package. 711 entries around the non-ocean perimeter of
NMGWM for each of layers 2-8, for each of 252 stress periods; taken from SVIGSM.
First stress period should match end of calibration (2011). See App. E2, App. A,
Figure 6a: SVIGSM Layer 1 maps to NMGWM layer 4 compares okay; Figure 6b:
SVIGSM Layer 2 maps to NMGWM layer 6 compares okay. Note that boundary
for NMGWM layer 2 has a section in the NE with heads >200 ft, but this corresponds
to a location where no-flow cells exist in layers 2 and 3 (See App. E2, Figure 31), so
these high head values should have no effect. The time variation for boundary
conditions appears reasonable: seasonal variations, plus long-term decrease for first
20-year period (prolonged dry), then long-term recovery for second 20-year period
(prolonged wet).
RCH recharge package. 103,500=300*345 entries (one for each cell in top layer of
model) for each of 252 stress periods; taken from SVIGSM; not checked in detail.
OC output specifications. Specify 252 one-month-long stress periods for each 20-year
simulation. Consistent with App. E2.
PCG preconditioned conjugate-gradient package not mentioned in App. E2.
LMT link to MT3DMS not mentioned in App. E2.

Rev. 2.0

Figure B1. Storativity distribution in each layer of the NMGWM, plotted from nm_sce3n_1.lpf.
Compared to Figure 33 of App. E2, these storativity values tend to be lower.

MT3DMS input files


NAM name file with file names of all other input files
BTN basic transport package. Includes spatial distributions of DELZ, porosity, flag
ICUBUND, and initial concentration. DELZ values are consistent with Figures 20-26
of App. E2, except for layer 2, where the values show much more variability than the
figure. However, this could be because the data were smoothed to create a more
visually pleasing contour plot. Porosity values are consistent with Figure 34 of App.
E2. Initial concentrations are consistent with Figure 35 of App. E2.
ADV- advection flags not mentioned in App. E2.
DSP dispersion information. Uniform dispersivity (20 ft); uniform horizontal
dispersivity ratio (0.1), uniform vertical dispersivity ratio (0.01), zero molecular
diffusion. Consistent with App. E2.
SSM source, sink, mixing. Not checked.
GCG conjugate gradient solver parameters not mentioned in App. E2.
FTL binary output file from MODFLOW not examined.
SEAWAT input files
NAM name file with file names of all other input files

Rev. 2.0

Flow part
BAS basic input. For each layer identifies each cell in the 540 by 540 array as being
variable head, no flow, or constant head. Provides initial head values for all cells. Cell
identifiers and initial heads plotted and found to be consistent with NMGWM.
DIS discretization information. Provides number of cells as 540 by 540, uniform lateral
discretization: 20 ft by 20 ft; depth distributions of 12 model layers. Bottom elevation
of each layer plotted and found to be consistent with NMGWM elevations shown in
Figure 19 of App. E2.
LPF layer properties. Provides distributions of hydraulic conductivity, vertical
hydraulic conductivity, and primary storage for 12 model layers. CEMEX property
distributions of each layer plotted and found to be consistent with NMGWM property
distributions plotted from nm_lpf files.
WEL well package Roughly 188,000 entries for each of 252 stress periods (number of
entries varies by stress period); taken from NMGWM; not checked in detail.
GHB general head boundary package 23,716 entries for each of 252 stress periods;
taken from NMGWM; not checked in detail.
RCH recharge package 291,600=540*540 entries (one for each cell in top layer of
model) for each of 252 stress periods; taken from NMGWM; not checked in detail.
OC output specifications. Specify 252 one-month long stress periods for each 20-year
simulation. Consistent with App. E2.
PCG preconditioned conjugate-gradient package not mentioned in App. E2.
ZONE zone information not mentioned in App. E2.
Transport part
BTN basic transport package. Includes spatial distributions of DELZ, porosity, flag
ICUBUND, and initial concentration. Porosity uniform in all layers except layer 5.
DELZ, porosity, and initial concentration of each layer plotted and found to be
consistent with NMGWM distributions.
ADV advection flags not mentioned in App. E2.
DSP dispersion information. Uniform dispersivity (20 ft); uniform horizontal
dispersivity ratio (0.1), uniform vertical dispersivity ratio (0.01), zero molecular
diffusion. Consistent with App. E2.
SSM source, sink, mixing 155,597 entries for each of 252 stress periods, information
not found in App. E2; not checked in detail.
9

Rev. 2.0

GCG conjugate gradient solver parameters not mentioned in App. E2.


VDF variable density flags not mentioned in App. E2.

10

Rev. 2.0

Appendix LBNL-C. Groundwater modeling


Task 3: Run NMGWM/CEMEX models and confirm output is consistent with results reported by
the CPUC CEQA Team. Ensure the models run as described and that they produce reasonable
results.
In file names below, NM stands for the North Marina Groundwater Model, which uses
MODFLOW and MT3DMS. CEMEX stands for the Cemex Model, which uses SEAWAT.
Executables
MODFLOW: mf2k.exe - Flow model used for NMGWM simulations. Runs only on a 64-bit
Windows computer.
MT3DMS: mt3dms4b.exe Transport model used for NMGWM simulations. Runs on either a
32-bit or 64-bit Windows computer.
SEAWAT: sw_v4x64.exe Combined flow and transport model used for CEMEX simulations.
Runs only on a 64-bit Windows computer when the file msvcr100.dll is present (downloaded
from https://www.dll-files.com/msvcr100.dll.html; a reputable site according to PC Advisor, an
online magazine published by IDG).
Notes on standard executables available for download from official USGS sites.
MODFLOW: The current version of MODFLOW available from water.usgs.gov/ogw/modflow/
is mf2005.exe. It will not read the input files used for mf2k.exe; apparently file naming and
content structure has changed since the mf2k.exe version.
MT3DMS: The current version of MT3DMS available from hydro.geo.ua.edu/mt3d/ is
mt3dms5b.exe. It was used for the second calibration run (nm_cali_2), and produced no
significant differences in the main output file: printout header format is different, and the
convention for counting point sources and sinks is slightly different, but all simulation results are
identical.
SEAWAT: The current version of SEAWAT available from water.usgs.gov/ogw/seawat/ is
sw_v4x64.exe. It is identical to the version provided on the hard drive.
Input files
The files received include input for the NMGWM/CEMEX models in two forms.
1.

Huge self-contained files that contain all input required for the MODFLOW pre-processor
Groundwater Vista for the NMGWM calibration run and one predictive scenario each for
NMGWM and CEMEX. We do not have the Groundwater Vistas program, so we are not
able to use these.
2. Folders that contain all the files for using MODFLOW, MT3DMS, and SEAWAT directly.
These are the files we used.
11

Rev. 2.0

In Folder (0)MPWSP_Model_Files_for_TD of the hard drive, there is one NMGWM


calibration case that includes two simulation periods (1979 2000 and 2000 2011) and 17
NMGWM predictive cases, each of which includes three 20-year-long simulation periods (15
cases cover 2011-2032, 2032-2053, 2053-2074; two rebound cases cover 2075-2096, 20962117, 2117-2137). There are two CEMEX predictive cases, each of which includes three 20year-long simulation periods (2011-2032, 2032-2053, 2053-2074).
Calibration Case
1. NM_CALI
Predictive Cases
North Marina Groundwater Model (NMGWM)
No project
1. NM_SCE1N
2. NM_SCE2F
3. NM_SCE2AF
Project at Cemex Site
4. NM_SCE3N
5. NM_SCE3NCB
6. NM_SCE3NC
7. NM_SCE4F
8. NM_SCE4RF
9. NM_SCE5N
10. NM_SCE5NCB
11. NM_SCE5NC
12. NM-SCE5F
Project at Potrero Rd Site
13. NM_SCE6SN
14. NM_SCE7SF
15. NM_SCE7SRF
16. NM_SCE8SN
17. NM_SCE8SF
Cemex Model
1. CEMEX_SCE4F
2. CEMEX_SCE3N

12

Rev. 2.0

Running the Codes


On the hard drive, each NMGWM simulation period of each case is in a separate folder and
includes 37 files, but these are both input and output files for MODFLOW and MT3DMS. For
MODFLOW, there are 10 required input files and the code produces 2 user-readable output files:
*.GLO and *.LST. MODFLOW also produces a binary file *.FTL that is read by MT3DMS, and
binary files with heads (*.HDS), drawdowns (*.DDN), and cell-by-cell flows (*.CBB) in binary
format, but the binary files were not examined in the present study. For MT3DMS, there are 7
required input files and the simulation produces 3 user-readable output files: MT3D.CNF,
MT3D001.MAS, and *.OUT; and a binary file *.UCN. For each simulation period of the two
CEMEX cases using SEAWAT, there are 16 required input files and the simulation produces 5
user-readable output files: MT3D.CNF, MT3D001.MAS, MT3D001.OBS, *.GLO and *.LST;
and 4 binary files: *.HDS, *.DDN, and *.CBB.
Programs were run by copying the executable into a folder where only the input files for that
executable were present (separate folders for MODFLOW and MT3DMS for each of the three
time periods for each of the 17 NMGWM cases). The programs begin by prompting the user for
the name of the file that lists all the input files and data files required to run the code. These files
must be present in the folder.
The computer used has an Intel Xeon CPU with 2.50 GHz speed. It has a 64-bit operating
system running Windows 7 Professional, and 8 GB RAM. Each 20-year part of the predictive
simulations required about 20 minutes of CPU time for MODFLOW about 35 minutes of CPU
time for MT3DMS. The SEAWAT simulations were significantly slower, with each 20-year time
period requiring about 4 days.
All the MT3DMS and SEAWAT simulations ran successfully. All but one of the MODFLOW
simulations ran successfully. Predictive scenario NM_SCE5N, time period 1, failed to run,
producing an error message when reading the LPF input file. Examination of the LPF file
showed that it was corrupted. Since the LPF file contains layer information that does not vary
between different time periods, the LPF file from NM_SCE5N, time period 2, was copied into
the folder for the time period 1 simulation, which then ran successfully.
Comparison of New and Original Output Files
MODFLOW
The GLO (global) file identifies file names and unit number being assigned, and prints out basic
input data for the simulation. It is small (604 lines) and could be examined directly, using the
Windows DIFF command. Unit number assignments differed between the new simulations and
the original simulations, but this should not affect the actual simulation results in any way. No
other differences were found. All the basic input data for the simulations agree with that reported
in Appendix E2, including number of model layers (8), rows (300), columns (345), and stress
periods (252); lateral dimensions of cells (200 ft by 200 ft); stress period duration 30.4 days (1
month); layers are confined; hydraulic conductivity is horizontally isotropic.
13

Rev. 2.0

The LST (list) file is the main MODFLOW simulation output. It is so big (about 1 GB,
containing about 25 million lines) that it was inconvenient to work with it directly to compare the
new simulation results to the original simulation results. Thus a utility program (readlst2.f) was
created to read the LST file and write the water balance information for each of 252 stress
periods to a summary file that is only 2 MB (about 18,000 lines). Figure C1 shows the portion of
a summary file, showing the volumetric water budget at the end of the first year.
Then a second utility program (comp2.f) read the new and original summary files, and calculated
the difference of all the components of the water budget for each stress period (both cumulative
volumes shown in the left hand column and rates for this time step shown in the right hand
column). To facilitate comparison of different terms, a relative difference was used, defined as
(C1 C2)/max(C1,C2, )
where C1 is a component of the water budget in the original LST file, C2 is the corresponding
component in the new LST file, and =10-5 is included to prevent dividing by zero in case C1
and C2 are both zero. The utility program output the maximum difference for each stress period
(partial example shown in Figure C2) and the maximum difference for the entire simulation.
The latter values are presented in Table C1 for all the NMGWM calibration and predictive runs.
To get a better sense of the significance of the relative differences for the MODFLOW
simulations, histograms of the relative differences for five selected cases are presented in
Figures C3a C3e. It is apparent that most of the relative differences are quite small, with the
histogram peaks in the 10-5 to 10-4 range. Checking the individual MODFLOW water budgets
shows that the larger relative differences only arise when the value of the term itself is quite
small. Such terms are generally storage terms in the rates for this time step column. For
example, for the largest relative difference (0.062), which occurs during stress period 126 in case
nm_sce5f_2, storage in is 1.9155 for the original simulation and 1.7973 for the new
simulation, whereas the total in terms (of which storage in is one component) are 26109390
and 26108476, respectively, with a relative difference of only 3.5E-5. Our conclusion is that
differences in MODFLOW simulation results can probably be attributed to machine round-off
and cancellation errors.
In addition to the components of the water balance, MODFLOW outputs the difference of total
input and total output (IN OUT line in Figure C1). This quantity is a measure of model error
and is orders of magnitude smaller than the individual components making up the water balance,
hence it is subject to numerical errors. Not surprisingly, values of this quantity, also shown in
Table C1 (DMAXM and DMAXMALL), can differ significantly between the original and new
simulations.

14

Rev. 2.0

NM_sce3n_1 new simulation


OUTPUT CONTROL FOR STRESS PERIOD
CUMULATIVE VOLUMES

12

L**3

TIME STEP

RATES FOR THIS TIME STEP

IN:

L**3/T

IN:

STORAGE =

634788032.0000

STORAGE =

250851.6562

CONSTANT HEAD =

2431358464.0000

CONSTANT HEAD =

5508881.0000

WELLS =

658728832.0000

WELLS =

2562273.5000

HEAD DEP BOUNDS =

4960042496.0000

HEAD DEP BOUNDS =

12399316.0000

RECHARGE =

2540330496.0000

RECHARGE =

7270796.5000

TOTAL IN = 11225247744.0000

TOTAL IN =

27992118.0000

OUT:

OUT:

STORAGE =

1837821440.0000

STORAGE =

1033678.8750

CONSTANT HEAD =

540294400.0000

CONSTANT HEAD =

1504761.3750

WELLS =

4650597376.0000

WELLS =

14654779.0000

HEAD DEP BOUNDS =

4112643072.0000

HEAD DEP BOUNDS =

10538483.0000

RECHARGE =

84051560.0000

RECHARGE =

240196.7969

TOTAL OUT = 11225408512.0000

TOTAL OUT =

27971900.0000

IN - OUT =

20218.0000

IN - OUT =

-160768.0000

NM_sce3n_1 original simulation


OUTPUT CONTROL FOR STRESS PERIOD
CUMULATIVE VOLUMES

12

L**3

TIME STEP

RATES FOR THIS TIME STEP

IN:

L**3/T

IN:

STORAGE =

634788096.0000

STORAGE =

250851.9375

CONSTANT HEAD =

2431358464.0000

CONSTANT HEAD =

5508881.0000

WELLS =

658728832.0000

WELLS =

2562273.5000

HEAD DEP BOUNDS =

4960042496.0000

HEAD DEP BOUNDS =

12399316.0000

RECHARGE =

2540330496.0000

RECHARGE =

7270796.5000

TOTAL IN = 11225247744.0000

TOTAL IN =

27992118.0000

OUT:

OUT:

STORAGE =

1837821312.0000

STORAGE =

1033679.3125

CONSTANT HEAD =

540294400.0000

CONSTANT HEAD =

1504761.3750

WELLS =

4650597376.0000

WELLS =

14654779.0000

HEAD DEP BOUNDS =

4112643072.0000

HEAD DEP BOUNDS =

10538483.0000

RECHARGE =

84051560.0000

RECHARGE =

240196.7969

TOTAL OUT = 11225407488.0000

TOTAL OUT =

27971900.0000

IN - OUT =

-159744.0000

IN - OUT =

20218.000

Figure C1. Portion of the summary file for the NMGWM predictive simulations. Each 20-year time
period contains 252 such water budgets. Top: new simulation; bottom: original simulation.

15

Rev. 2.0

NM_sce3n_1
icount=

1 dmax= .1092E-06 dmaxm= .1208E-03

icount=

2 dmax= .2350E-06 dmaxm= .7098E-04

icount=

3 dmax= .2350E-06 dmaxm= .1506E-03

icount=

4 dmax= .2160E-05 dmaxm= .1012E-03

icount=

5 dmax= .1091E-06 dmaxm= .1852E-03

icount=

6 dmax= .8229E-07 dmaxm= .6720E-04

icount=

7 dmax= .9328E-07 dmaxm= .1158E-03

icount=

8 dmax= .2264E-06 dmaxm= .1249E-03

icount=

9 dmax= .2692E-06 dmaxm= .2929E-04

icount=

10 dmax= .8357E-06 dmaxm= .3965E-04

icount=

11 dmax= .9849E-06 dmaxm= .1024E-03

icount=

110 dmax= .4261E-05 dmaxm= .1000E+00

icount=

111 dmax= .2037E-05 dmaxm= .1447E+00

icount=

112 dmax= .2000E-05 dmaxm= .1942E+00

icount=

113 dmax= .3517E-03 dmaxm= .2247E+00

icount=

114 dmax= .9218E-03 dmaxm= .2571E+00

icount=

115 dmax= .3192E-02 dmaxm= .3043E-01

icount=

116 dmax= .5612E-04 dmaxm= .2581E-01

icount=

117 dmax= .2645E-03 dmaxm= .1530E-01

icount=

118 dmax= .6112E-04 dmaxm= .7946E-02

icount=

119 dmax= .2079E-04 dmaxm= .5736E-02

icount=

120 dmax= .1072E-04 dmaxm= .8318E-02

icount=

241 dmax= .6976E-05 dmaxm= .1181E-02

icount=

242 dmax= .5137E-05 dmaxm= .1800E-02

icount=

243 dmax= .7680E-06 dmaxm= .1208E-02

icount=

244 dmax= .7680E-06 dmaxm= .1232E-02

icount=

245 dmax= .7613E-06 dmaxm= .1208E-02

icount=

246 dmax= .7524E-06 dmaxm= .1174E-02

icount=

247 dmax= .7475E-06 dmaxm= .1747E-02

icount=

248 dmax= .7433E-06 dmaxm= .1704E-02

icount=

249 dmax= .1245E-04 dmaxm= .3663E-02

icount=

250 dmax= .7679E-05 dmaxm= .1094E-02

icount=

251 dmax= .8461E-05 dmaxm= .1601E-02

icount=

252 dmax= .9257E-06 dmaxm= .2052E-02

DMAXALL= .3192E-02 DMAXMALL= .1692E+01

Figure C2. Part of the output of utility program comp2.f, showing the maximum relative difference of
each term in the water budget (dmax) and the maximum relative difference of model error IN
OUT (dmaxm) for each stress period. The overall maximum of all 252 stress periods is
shown at the bottom (DMAXALL and DMAXMALL); these are the values that appear in Table
C1.

16

Rev. 2.0

Table C1. Maximum relative difference of components of water budget for calibration and predictive
simulations of the NMGWM, shown separately for each 20-year time period.

Case

Calibration

DMAXALL (water budget


components)

DMAXMALL (model error)

Period 1

Period 2

Period 3

Period 1

Period 2

Period 3

8.8E-5

1.2E-4

0.32

0.13

Prediction - No Project
NM_SCE1N

2.6E-3

9.3E-3

6.9E-3

0.65

0.15

0.55

NM_SCE2F

1.2E-3

5.5E-3

7.3E-4

1.1

2.0

0.20

NM_SCE2AF

1.3E-2

9.8E-3

5.0E-3

0.53

0.22

0.16

Prediction - Project at Cemex Site


NM_SCE3N

3.2E-3

7.8E-3

1.4E-3

1.7

0.15

1.6

NM_SCE3NCB

3.2E-3

4.0E-3

6.5E-4

0.40

0.15

1.0

NM_SCE3NC

3.3E-3

8.1E-3

9.9E-4

0.15

0.15

1.0

NM_SCE4F

8.9e-3

2.5E-2

3.5E-3

1.2

2.0

0.15

NM_SCE4RF

7.9E-3

8.5E-3

3.1E-3

1.3

1.9

0.21

NM_SCE5N

5.7E-3

1.9E-2

5.6E-3

0.93

0.43

1.4

NM_SCE5NCB

3.0E-3

7.2E-3

7.6E-3

1.5

0.47

1.8

NM_SCE5NC

2.9E-3

5.6E-3

5.4E-3

1.0

0.59

1.8

NM-SCE5F

2.7E-3

6.2E-2

4.6E-3

0.85

1.8

1.0

Prediction - Project at Potrero Road Site


NM_SCE6SN

1.4E-4

3.6E-3

6.8E-3

0.039

0.20

0.16

NM_SCE7SF

1.9E-3

4.4E-2

9.1E-3

0.78

1.3

0.16

NM_SCE7SRF

7.4E-3

1.4E-2

1.6E-3

1.7

1.2

0.19

NM_SCE8SN

3.8E-3

5.8E-3

1.2E-2

1.5

1.3

1.6

NM_SCE8SF

5.0E-3

1.3E-2

5.3E-3

0.70

1.8

0.82

17

Rev. 2.0

(a)
nm_sce3n_2
150
100
50
0

Relative Difference

nm_sce3n_3
Frequency

Frequency

Frequency

nm_sce3n_1
150
100
50
0

150
100
50
0

Relative Difference

Relative Difference

(b)
nm_sce5f_2
150
100
50
0

nm_sce5f_3
Frequency

Frequency

Frequency

nm_sce5f_1
150
100
50
0

Relative Difference

150
100
50
0

Relative Difference

Relative Difference

(c)
nm_sce4rf_2

150
100
50
0

150
100
50
0

Relative Difference

nm_sce4rf_3
Frequency

Frequency

Frequency

nm_sce4rf_1

150
100
50
0

Relative Difference

Relative Difference

(d)
nm_sce1n_2
150
100
50
0

nm_sce1n_3
Frequency

Frequency

Frequency

nm_sce1n_1
150
100
50
0

Relative Difference

150
100
50
0

Relative Difference

Relative Difference

(e)
nm_sce6sn_2
150
100
50
0

nm_sce6sn_3
Frequency

Frequency

Frequency

nm_sce6sn_1
150
100
50
0

Relative Difference

Relative Difference

150
100
50
0

Relative Difference

Figure C3. Histograms of relative differences between new and original MODFLOW simulations for
selected cases: (a) nm_sce3n: base case for CEMEX site, (b) nm_sce5f: case with biggest
relative error, (c) nm_sce4rf: rebound case; (d) nm_sce1n: no project case; (e) nm_sce6sn:
Potrero Road case. For each case, relative differences for the three 20-year time periods are
shown separately

18

Rev. 2.0

MT3DMS
The sizes of the three user-readable output files produced by each MT3DMS simulation, *.CNF,
*.MAS, and *.OUT, were identical to the size of the corresponding original output files. The
Windows DIFF command was used to compare the files, and for every time period for every
case for the NMGWM calibration and predictive runs, zero differences were found, indicating
that the results of the new simulations were identical to the results of the original simulations.
Figure C4 shows a screen shot of using the DIFF command after a MT3DMS simulation.

Figure C4. Screen shot of using the DIFF command on the three main output files of MT3DMS. The new
output is in the current directory and the original output is in the parent directory. The blank
line after the command indicates that no differences were found between the files.

MT3DMS also produces a binary file *.UCN, containing dissolved concentration in each cell.
The DIFF command was also used to compare new and original versions of this file for selected
cases, and they were always identical.
SEAWAT
The two SEAWAT simulations are complete. For all three time periods of both cases,
cemex_sce4f and cemex_sce3n, the DIFF command indicated that four small output files were
identical to original versions, as illustrated in Figure C5 for the first time period. The binary files
*.UCN were also identical. The main output files, *.LST, were 5.5 GB each, which is too big for
the DIFF command. These files were broken into 500 MB parts, and each part produced zero
differences when compared to the original files with the DIFF command.

19

Rev. 2.0

Figure C5. Screen shot of using the DIFF command on 4 small output files of SEAWAT. The new output
is in the current directory and the original output is in the parent directory. The blank line
after the command indicates that no differences were found between the files.

Comparison of Water Budget Components to App. E2


In Appendix E2, a series of attached tables show the annual water budgets for each case. To
convert the model results, given as cumulative volumes once per month and illustrated in Figure
C1, to the format of the tables, the following steps were taken.
1. Read only multiples of 12 water balances (12th month = 1st year, 24th month = 2nd year,
36th month = 3rd year, etc.).
2. Convert all quantities in cubic feet to acre-feet by dividing by 43,559.9.
3. Assume the following equivalences between quantities in the MODFLOW output (left
hand side of equation) and Appendix E2 water budget table (right hand side of equation,
with column number labeled)
a. Head Dep Bounds In Head Dep Bounds Out = [1] Northern, Eastern, and
Southern, Model Boundary (Underflow)
b. Recharge In + Wells In = [2]Stream Recharge and Deep Percolation from
Precipitation and Applied Water (Irrigation) + [3] MPWSP with Injection
Returning Basin Water
c. Constant Head In = [4] Ocean Inflow
d. Sum of a, b, c = [5] Total Inflow
e. Wells Out = [6] Non-Project Groundwater Pumping + [7] Marina Coast Water
District Desalination Pumping + [8] MPWSP Project Slant Well Pumping
f. Recharge Out = [9] Aquifer Loss to Streams
20

Rev. 2.0

g. Constant Head Out = [10] Ocean Outflow


h. Sum of e, f, g = [11] Total Outflow
i. Difference of d and h = [12] Change in Groundwater Storage (labeled In
Out)
j. Storage In Storage Out = [12] Alternative means of calculating Change in
Groundwater Storage (labeled Dstorage)
4. Calculate the difference between a through j for each year and the previous year (except
for the first year of each 20-year time period, which is used directly).
The results of steps 1 4 are shown in Appendix LBNL-E for each predictive case. The table
number of the relevant table from DEIR Appendix E2 is shown in parentheses in the table title,
and the column numbers to compare to are shown above the column headers.
The comparisons of the new simulation results to the tables are all reasonable, but the numerical
values are not all identical, which is expected based on the differences between new simulation
results and original simulation results described in Section 4.4.1 above. As a consistency check,
the original simulation results for case nm_sce3n were processed as above. The results are shown
in Appendix LBNL-E just after the new simulation results for case nm_sce3n.
The original-simulation results are not identical, but are very similar, to the new-simulation
results (generally, single digit differences in the final decimal place). The relative differences
between the simulation results and entries in the Appendix E2 tables are generally in the 10-5 to
10-3 range for all entries except column [12]. This increase over the relative differences in the
MODFLOW simulations themselves (most relative differences in the range 10-5 to 10-4, as
illustrated in Figure C3) is due to the fact that the quantities in the water budget tables are all
derived from differences of simulation results (from one year to the next), so relative difference
becomes larger.
An extreme version of this relative difference increase is apparent in column [12], which shows
change in groundwater storage. This quantity is a difference of differences (Total Outflow
Total Inflow, from one year to the next). As the errors of individual terms are added and the
value of the term itself gets smaller, relative difference can grow dramatically. This growth is
illustrated in the tables shown in Appendix LBNL-E, where the change in groundwater storage is
calculated in two different ways: column [12] is the difference of column [5] and column [11],
whereas [alt 12] is calculated directly from STORAGE terms in the MODFLOW water
budgets (Figure C1). The differences between these two columns are indicative of the
cancellation and round-off error occurring within a single numerical simulation. These
differences are comparable to the differences between the new simulation results and those
shown in column [12] in the Appendix E2 tables, indicating that it would be unrealistic to expect
any closer agreement between distinct numerical simulations. Although differences appear large
for small entries, when viewed in the context of the dominant terms in the water budgets, they
are actually quite small.
21

Rev. 2.0

Appendix LBNL-D. Groundwater Conceptual Model


Hydrostratigraphy
Having reported on our groundwater modeling review above, we turn now to a review of the
conceptual model of the hydrostratigraphic units in the vicinity of the CEMEX site. This
hydrostratigraphy is discussed in the section Pressure Area Aquifers and Aquitards from pages
4.4-5 to 4.4-11. With increasing depth from the ground surface in the vicinity of the CEMEX
site, this section describes the Dune Sand Aquifer, the 180-Foot Equivalent Aquifer (180-FTE),
the 180/400-Foot Aquitard, the 400-Foot and 900-Foot Aquifers.
The hydrostratigraphy in the vicinity of the CEMEX site is represented on east-west cross
section 1-1 and north-south section A-A in Appendix E2. The portion of Section 1-1 shown on
Figure D1 indicates there is an aquitard between the Dune Sand and 180-FTE aquifers
approximately two miles east of the site. It is possible this aquitard extends to the CEMEX site as
there are no logs plotted on the section between the interpreted western edge of this aquitard and
the site. There is also a well log plotted at the eastern edge of the CEMEX site (14S/2E-18E1)
that has a 25-foot thick clay at the approximate position of this aquitard.
The eastern edge of this aquitard is shown on Section 1-1 as disconnected from the Salinas
Valley Aquitard (SVA). However no log is plotted between the easternmost well with this
aquitard (14S/2E-21E01) and the westernmost well with the SVA (14S/2E-21F02) to support this
interpretation.

22

Rev. 2.0

West

No data regarding the western


extent of the aquitard between the
Dune Sand and 180-FTE Aquifer

14S/
2E-18E1

No data between the SVA and


Dune Sand/180-FTE Aquifer aquitard
14S/
2E-21E01

14S/
2E-21F02

Figure D1. The eastern half of Section 1-1 with data gaps regarding continuity of the aquitard between the Dune Sand and 180-FTE Aquifer
indicated.

23

Rev. 2.0

The southern portion of Section A-A is in generally the same location as southern portion of
Section B-B of Kennedy/Jenks Consultants (2004), which is referenced in the DEIR, as shown
on Figure D2. Section A-A interprets no aquitard at the contact between the Dune Sand and
180-FTE aquifers. Section B-B does interpret an aquitard between these two aquifers, and
interprets it as continuous with the SVA. The sections plot some of the same lithologic logs in
their southern portions, including those indicated on Figure D2. The portion of these sections
including these wells is shown in Figure D2.
Section B-B interprets ~50 ft of sandy clay and ~20 ft of clay at depths of about 150 ft
encountered in each of these borings, respectively, as separating the Dune Sand from the 180
Aquifer in the terminology of that report (Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, 2004). Section A-A
interprets these materials as within the 180-FTE Aquifer, and the 180/400-Foot Aquitard as
passing through gravel and sand in those borings. The interpretation of Kennedy/Jenks
Consultants (2004) is considerably more credible given the data.

24

Rev. 2.0

Figure D2. Southwestern portion of


Section A-A from DEIR Appendix E2,
located as shown on the map, and
Section B-B from Kennedy/Jenks
Consultants (2004), which is along the
same line. Arrows indicate finegrained material in the same borings
on both sections interpreted as part of
the 180-FTE aquifer in the DEIR and
part of the aquitard between the Dune
Sand and 180 Aquifer in
Kennedy/Jenks Consultants (2004).
The dotted box indicates coarsegrained material interpreted as the
180/400 Aquitard in the DEIR section.

CEMEX
site

South

CEMEX site

South

25

North

North

Rev. 2.0

Beyond the references cited regarding the hydrogeology in the vicinity of the CEMEX site, no
reference is made to reports resulting from remedial investigation of the former Fort Ord Army
Base (the former Base). In particular, Harding Lawson Associates (1995) characterizes the
hydrogeology of the former base.
Harding Lawson Associates (1995) defines an unconfined A-aquifer comprising primarily older
dune sand. This is separated from the underlying 180-foot aquifer by the FO-SVA over most of
the base. Harding Lawson Associates (1995) suggests the western edge of the FO-SVA is
approximately two km east of the proposed slant well site. To the east of this location, the 180foot aquifer is confined. To the west it is in hydraulic connection with the overlying A-aquifer,
and so unconfined. In contrast the western edge of an aquitard in this stratigraphic position is
more than three km east on section 1-1 in Figure D1, and does not appear to be included at all
in the NMGWM, and Kennedy/Jenks Consultants (2004) interpret this aquitard extending to the
CEMEX site and beneath the sea bed beyond.
Harding Lawson Associates (1995) divides the 180-foot aquifer into an Upper and a Lower
portion based upon water level data. It finds the two are hydraulically disconnected by the
intervening Intermediate 180-foot aquitard, and the Lower 180-foot aquifer is hydraulically
connected to the 400-foot aquifer.
The 180-FTE aquifer is confined by the FO-SVA within the area with greater than one foot of
water level drawdown predicted by the numerical simulation, as shown on Figure 4.4-14 in the
DEIR. The absence of the FO-SVA in the numerical model allows areal recharge to the 180-FTE
aquifer by the portion of precipitation that infiltrates past the root zone. This would tend to
decrease the area with at least one foot of drawdown in the 180-FTE aquifer predicted by the
model as compared to reality. However the gradient in the Dune Sand aquifer within a portion of
the predicted drawdown area is toward the west, so a portion of the areal recharge in this area
will still flow toward the proposed extraction wells where the FO-SVA is present, albeit through
the smaller transmissivity of the Dune Sand aquifer alone as compared to that of the combined
Dune Sand and 180-FTE aquifers in the model.
Depending upon how much the gradient in the A-aquifer in the modeled capture area is toward
the west, the location of the capture zone that develops may not be substantially different from
that modeled. However the area with greater than one foot of drawdown in the Dune Sand
aquifer, which is only a portion of the capture zone, may be greater if the 180-FTE aquifer is
confined at the edge of the FO-SVA. In this case, gradients in the Dune Sand aquifer over the
FO-SVA will be greater than modeled and so water levels decline more within the capture zone.
However in the case that the 180-FTE aquifer is unconfined at the edge of the FO-SVA, there
will be no decline in water levels in the overlying Dune Sand aquifer. In this case, the input of
areal recharge to the 180-FTE at the edge of the FO-SVA will not increase in response to
extraction, and so the area of the capture zone in the 180-FTE aquifer will increase.
Consequently the distribution of water level drawdowns due to the proposed extraction will be
different than those predicted by the model. The portion of the total volume of water extracted
that is from beneath onshore is also likely to be different.

26

Rev. 2.0

Hydraulic Parameters
Appendix E2 to the DEIR provides the hydraulic conductivities used in the simulation and
indicates they are the result of textural correlations. Table D1 compares these to hydraulic
conductivities measured in a variety of tests reported in Harding Lawson Associates (1995) and
Jordan et al. (2005).
Table D1. Comparison of hydraulic conductivities based on textural correlations used in the NMGWM
compared to calibrated values in that model and measured values reported by Harding Lawson
Associates (1995) and Jordan et al. (2005). All values in ft/day.

Appendix E21
Aquifer

Horizontal

Harding Lawson Associates (1995)

Vertical

Slug

I4

C5

I4

C5

R6

M7

Dune
Sand
(A-)2

109304
(207)

270

8.1611.87
(10.02)

10.02

6.495.0
(13)

28.1

180FTE
(Upper
180foot)3

71216
(143)

160

0.110.21
(0.16)

0.210.40

0.04311
(25)

12.7

Specific
capacity
R6

M7

Constant
Discharge
R6
1.6-41.1
(3)

30366
(10)

1068

Jordan et al.
(2005)
Horizontal

Vertical

7-10a

1-4b

0.32-44.0
(3)

Calibrated values for the portion of the NMGWM under the former Fort Ord near the CEMEX site
Calibrated hydraulic conductivities from NMGWM layer 2
3
Calibrated hydraulic conductivities from NMGWM layer 4
4
Initial hydraulic conductivity range (and mean) input to the NMGWM model
5
Hydraulic conductivity range calibrated by the NMGWM model to match well hydrographs
6
Range (number of tests in parentheses)
7
Geometric mean
8
Given as 300, but value shown recalculated from individual test results
a
Given in executive summary based on four different data types ranging from near-well to plume (~1 km) scale
b
From natural and engineered recharge transients, rounded to one significant figure
2

Based on the results in Table 2, the vertical and horizontal hydraulic conductivity values for the
Dune Sand and 180-FTE aquifer used to initialize the NMGWM and the resulting hydraulic
conductivities calibrated by the NMGWM to match the well hydrographs appear too large.
Additionally, the greater than two orders of magnitude larger horizontal than vertical hydraulic
conductivity values for the 180-FTE aquifer is more than typical for a single hydrostratigraphic
unit. These large ratios may be needed to compensate for the lack of the FO-SVA in the model. It
may be that the values produced by a model including the FO-SVA are closer to those measured,
particularly using those measured values as a starting point for calibration.
27

Rev. 2.0

Storativity was also calibrated by the NMGWM. Table D2 compares these values to those from
earlier studies.
Table D2. Comparison of storativities calibrated by the NMGWM for the Dune Sand (A-) aquifer
compared to those reported by Harding Lawson Associates (1995) and Jordan et al. (2005).

Appendix E21

Harding Lawson Associates (1995)2

Jordan et al. (2005)3

0.065-0.1

0.0082-0.24 (0.106)

0.20-0.27

Calibrated values for the portion of the NMGWM layer 2 under the former Fort Ord near the CEMEX site
Value in parentheses is the mean
3
Specific yield, which is virtually the same as storativity for an unconfined aquifer
2

Table D2 suggests the storativity values used for the A-aquifer in the model are smaller than the
values based on field data in the other references. Given that this value has a strong effect on the
propagation rate of drawdown in the unconfined Dune Sand aquifer, the NMGWM should also
be run with higher initial storativities to determine how sensitive drawdown is to the value of this
parameter.

28

Rev. 2.0

Appendix LBNL-E. Additional Appendix E2 Tables


(Separate Document)

29

Rev. 2.0

Appendix LBNL-E.
Water budget for case NM_sce1n (App. E2 Table 2)
[1]
[2]+[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]+[7]+[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[alt 12]
Model Year NES Bdry Rech&Wells Ocean In Total In Wells Out Stream Out Ocean Out Total Out In - Out Dstorage
2012
20008.
72254.
36349.
128611.
80571.
2121.
15946.
98639.
29972.
30008.
2013
677.
53003.
21642.
75321.
49338.
2190.
19287.
70815.
4506.
4468.
2014
9629.
71092.
22874.
103594.
80662.
2211.
20694.
103568.
26.
21.
2015
1152.
51871.
21024.
74047.
49305.
2246.
20675.
72226.
1821.
1767.
2016
10785.
70432.
22498.
103715.
80720.
2273.
21453.
104446.
-730.
-715.
2017
2158.
51508.
20763.
74428.
49363.
2277.
21217.
72856.
1572.
1514.
2018
8152.
40008.
22753.
70913.
65886.
2222.
18475.
86583.
-15670.
-15655.
2019
13495.
27246.
30240.
70981.
78155.
1646.
11818.
91619.
-20637.
-20484.
2020
8277.
26321.
34919.
69517.
65753.
1454.
8675.
75883.
-6365.
-6331.
2021
4339.
22824.
37521.
64684.
64340.
1376.
7427.
73142.
-8458.
-8341.
2022
-1505.
39103.
39573.
77171.
65987.
1330.
6729.
74047.
3125.
3177.
2023
-2992.
35598.
39913.
72519.
68616.
1314.
6776.
76707.
-4188.
-4094.
2024
2958.
30518.
44729.
78205.
80184.
1270.
5592.
87047.
-8841.
-8809.
2025
888.
28611.
50257.
79757.
80009.
1222.
4280.
85510.
-5754.
-5612.
2026
-8391.
27018.
51704.
70331.
65753.
1215.
4085.
71053.
-722.
-666.
2027
-11573.
23207.
52646.
64279.
64348.
1216.
3953.
69517.
-5238.
-5140.
2028
-16103.
38693.
53620.
76210.
66261.
1208.
3785.
71255.
4955.
5014.
2029
-16108.
34696.
53084.
71671.
69710.
1205.
3948.
74862.
-3191.
-3058.
2030
-13926.
61499.
52746.
100319.
92178.
1192.
4222.
97593.
2726.
2969.
2031
-24391.
45841.
49524.
70974.
61083.
1189.
4427.
66698.
4275.
4411.
2032
-16664.
67395.
47115.
97846.
87634.
1209.
5246.
94089.
3757.
3941.
2033
-24827.
51331.
43619.
70123.
57857.
1205.
5666.
64728.
5395.
5456.
2034
-18156.
78812.
40211.
100866.
80850.
1272.
7097.
89220.
11646.
11637.
2035
-29056.
78671.
31143.
80757.
48080.
1519.
11424.
61023.
19734.
19730.
2036
-15128.
56974.
26400.
68247.
47275.
1721.
13815.
62811.
5436.
5398.
2037
-554.
77416.
26139.
103001.
80481.
1802.
15984.
98266.
4735.
4706.
2038
-9995.
75918.
20753.
86677.
43969.
2519.
24533.
71021.
15656.
15567.
2039
-458.
59183.
19325.
78050.
47020.
2477.
26041.
75538.
2512.
2491.
2040
5025.
43065.
19837.
67927.
47269.
2390.
23301.
72960.
-5033.
-5169.
2041
14628.
69025.
21810.
105463.
80894.
2369.
22811.
106073.
-610.
-594.
2042
2322.
69442.
18200.
89963.
45032.
3784.
30055.
78872.
11092.
11024.
2043
8670.
54841.
17638.
81148.
47846.
3239.
29914.
80999.
149.
97.
2044
11837.
39349.
18546.
69732.
47507.
2684.
26052.
76243.
-6511.
-6643.
2045
19739.
66601.
20761.
107101.
81190.
2716.
24825.
108731.
-1630.
-1588.
2046
6388.
67857.
17522.
91767.
45589.
4348.
31673.
81610.
10157.
10125.
2047
20901.
65883.
19666.
106450.
81868.
3117.
27943.
112928.
-6478.
-6425.
2048
10940.
46598.
18753.
76291.
49320.
2608.
25677.
77605.
-1314.
-1331.
2049
18321.
67022.
20772.
106115.
81111.
2681.
25010.
108802.
-2687.
-2649.
2050
8192.
48643.
19451.
76286.
49330.
2479.
24034.
75843.
443.
410.
2051
12656.
48916.
21052.
82624.
65674.
2332.
21210.
89216.
-6592.
-6517.
2052
11776.
51184.
22802.
85761.
68723.
2266.
18566.
89554.
-3793.
-3777.
2053
5158.
52707.
22646.
80511.
55994.
2021.
18188.
76203.
4307.
4295.
2054
7446.
47907.
23209.
78562.
65886.
2138.
17393.
85417.
-6855.
-6809.
2055
11292.
28312.
29253.
68857.
79195.
1674.
12426.
93295.
-24438.
-24343.
2056
8373.
26224.
34218.
68815.
65753.
1479.
8972.
76204.
-7389.
-7373.
2057
4828.
22781.
36983.
64592.
64340.
1392.
7620.
73351.
-8759.
-8659.

2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
2066
2067
2068
2069
2070
2071
2072
2073
2074
Average

-874.
-2085.
-16428.
-2282.
-15684.
-7413.
4185.
-6414.
2748.
4489.
4204.
10401.
7610.
10054.
-448.
8577.
-2017.
949.

39109.
35652.
71291.
35111.
74194.
53116.
74781.
73362.
43130.
47716.
46659.
44621.
46538.
37216.
49808.
75281.
55162.
51050.

39101.
39536.
34818.
34370.
29694.
24475.
24751.
19952.
19801.
20272.
19989.
22558.
23576.
27889.
27098.
26057.
22391.
29723.

77335.
73103.
89681.
67200.
88204.
70178.
103717.
86899.
65679.
72477.
70852.
77581.
77724.
75159.
76457.
109915.
75536.
81722.

66101.
69126.
58850.
69060.
48353.
47267.
80547.
44223.
44981.
49342.
44741.
64799.
64443.
77359.
56033.
80921.
49304.
63641.

1345.
1322.
1410.
1466.
1670.
1903.
1967.
2925.
2483.
2410.
2488.
2166.
2023.
1732.
1763.
1863.
2092.
1982.

6883.
6904.
8694.
9050.
12047.
15468.
17554.
25913.
22641.
21549.
22411.
18032.
16453.
13227.
12916.
15605.
18136.
15594.

74329.
77351.
68955.
79576.
62070.
64637.
100069.
73061.
70104.
73301.
69640.
84998.
82919.
92317.
70711.
98390.
69531.
81216.

3006.
-4249.
20726.
-12376.
26133.
5541.
3649.
13839.
-4425.
-824.
1212.
-7417.
-5195.
-17159.
5746.
11526.
6005.
506.

3051.
-4171.
20611.
-12350.
26088.
5487.
3579.
13772.
-4499.
-825.
1117.
-7421.
-5192.
-17126.
5758.
11474.
5926.
519.

Water budget for case NM_sce2f (App. E2 Table 3)


[1]
[2]+[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]+[7]+[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[alt 12]
Model Year NES Bdry Rech&Wells Ocean In Total In Wells Out Stream Out Ocean Out Total Out In - Out Dstorage
2012
6492.
64774.
42327.
113593.
80093.
1792.
10456.
92342.
21252.
21234.
2013
-6340.
50096.
27732.
71488.
53253.
1900.
12470.
67623.
3865.
3839.
2014
1893.
65138.
28366.
95397.
80092.
1874.
13301.
95267.
130.
81.
2015
-5065.
48609.
26695.
70239.
53251.
1957.
13346.
68553.
1685.
1693.
2016
3312.
64314.
27727.
95353.
80114.
1914.
13856.
95885.
-531.
-562.
2017
-3833.
48315.
26185.
70667.
53321.
1986.
13768.
69075.
1592.
1565.
2018
1766.
29953.
29125.
60844.
67151.
1926.
11863.
80940.
-20096.
-20053.
2019
9341.
22375.
39216.
70931.
79363.
1459.
7254.
88076.
-17144.
-17003.
2020
3473.
21790.
44482.
69745.
68333.
1340.
5608.
75282.
-5536.
-5489.
2021
-851.
19315.
47246.
65710.
67014.
1295.
4980.
73289.
-7579.
-7463.
2022
-5780.
32533.
49767.
76520.
68420.
1253.
4477.
74150.
2371.
2468.
2023
-7594.
29382.
50300.
72087.
70747.
1251.
4474.
76472.
-4385.
-4269.
2024
-2585.
24537.
55502.
77455.
81094.
1224.
3788.
86105.
-8651.
-8535.
2025
-4195.
23418.
60858.
80081.
80855.
1213.
3085.
85153.
-5072.
-4844.
2026
-12539.
22361.
62132.
71955.
68333.
1211.
3006.
72550.
-595.
-440.
2027
-16026.
19642.
62827.
66443.
67021.
1211.
2954.
71186.
-4744.
-4539.
2028
-19639.
32060.
64158.
76579.
68694.
1205.
2795.
72694.
3885.
4023.
2029
-20172.
28972.
63853.
72653.
71839.
1201.
2859.
75900.
-3247.
-3063.
2030
-18261.
51774.
64008.
97521.
91672.
1183.
2874.
95729.
1792.
2060.
2031
-27445.
37758.
61395.
71709.
63961.
1188.
3023.
68172.
3537.
3679.
2032
-20999.
55263.
59321.
93585.
87131.
1190.
3298.
91619.
1966.
2195.
2033
-28701.
42325.
56501.
70125.
60759.
1185.
3519.
65464.
4662.
4800.
2034
-23998.
64634.
53118.
93753.
80349.
1199.
4022.
85570.
8183.
8293.
2035
-37016.
71713.
43531.
78228.
52416.
1303.
5915.
59634.
18595.
18639.
2036
-26009.
55537.
37536.
67063.
51501.
1454.
7336.
60291.
6773.
6804.
2037
-10310.
70591.
35546.
95827.
80120.
1525.
8758.
90403.
5425.
5434.
2038
-18132.
71558.
27852.
81279.
48085.
1820.
14155.
64060.
17219.
17197.
2039
-10490.
57296.
25330.
72136.
51336.
1968.
15766.
69070.
3066.
3023.
2040
-6039.
43958.
25718.
63636.
51493.
1981.
14311.
67785.
-4149.
-4249.
2041
4056.
64405.
27455.
95916.
80136.
1850.
14095.
96081.
-165.
-174.
2042
-6109.
63703.
23050.
80645.
48461.
2269.
19259.
69989.
10656.
10592.
2043
-907.
52344.
22332.
73769.
51429.
2221.
19631.
73280.
489.
437.
2044
1890.
40247.
23269.
65405.
51493.
2177.
17229.
70899.
-5494.
-5542.
2045
10017.
61542.
25532.
97090.
80179.
2020.
16309.
98508.
-1418.
-1440.
2046
-1149.
61627.
21796.
82275.
48669.
2571.
21262.
72503.
9772.
9702.
2047
11297.
59929.
24112.
95338.
80483.
2155.
18860.
101498.
-6159.
-6134.
2048
3256.
45070.
23392.
71718.
53251.
2180.
17101.
72532.
-814.
-833.
2049
10263.
61251.
25276.
96791.
80239.
2078.
16759.
99076.
-2285.
-2269.
2050
1723.
46125.
24106.
71954.
53252.
2121.
15963.
71335.
618.
599.
2051
5355.
46178.
25740.
77273.
66621.
2069.
14327.
83017.
-5744.
-5716.
2052
5382.
46476.
27917.
79775.
69599.
1996.
12550.
84145.
-4370.
-4356.
2053
152.
47673.
28540.
76366.
58762.
1790.
11844.
72395.
3970.
4006.
2054
1953.
43235.
28980.
74168.
67147.
1913.
11601.
80662.
-6493.
-6451.
2055
7005.
22772.
36382.
66159.
80042.
1540.
8294.
89875.
-23716.
-23534.
2056
4686.
21653.
42473.
68812.
68333.
1379.
6109.
75821.
-7009.
-6964.
2057
547.
19247.
45618.
65413.
67014.
1321.
5319.
73654.
-8241.
-8105.
2058
-4279.
32549.
48337.
76607.
68531.
1271.
4730.
74532.
2075.
2178.
2059
-6031.
29530.
49083.
72582.
71256.
1266.
4688.
77210.
-4628.
-4494.

2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
2066
2067
2068
2069
2070
2071
2072
2073
2074
Average

-20787.
-6933.
-21528.
-14189.
-3157.
-12403.
-5645.
-3063.
-2976.
2384.
464.
6719.
-6738.
527.
-7728.
-5582.

64044.
30186.
67131.
51289.
68043.
67470.
42953.
45695.
45188.
41547.
36912.
30098.
43799.
67457.
52817.
45876.

44262.
43563.
38613.
32416.
31595.
25414.
25216.
25802.
25275.
28522.
30602.
36958.
36143.
34385.
29689.
37463.

87519.
66816.
84216.
69516.
96482.
80480.
62524.
68434.
67487.
72453.
67977.
73775.
73204.
102368.
74778.
77757.

61067.
71047.
52688.
51494.
80160.
48247.
49456.
53253.
49626.
66620.
66329.
78319.
58935.
80417.
53261.
65772.

1302.
1354.
1480.
1658.
1697.
2054.
2126.
2053.
2105.
1885.
1751.
1512.
1534.
1599.
1798.
1671.

5631.
5918.
7443.
9581.
10934.
16434.
14734.
13921.
14538.
11720.
10359.
7920.
7843.
9166.
11057.
10007.

68000.
78319.
61611.
62733.
92790.
66735.
66316.
69227.
66270.
80225.
78439.
87750.
68312.
91182.
66116.
77450.

19519.
-11503.
22605.
6782.
3692.
13746.
-3793.
-793.
1217.
-7772.
-10462.
-13975.
4892.
11186.
8661.
307.

19444.
-11428.
22613.
6819.
3632.
13701.
-3838.
-779.
1159.
-7730.
-10363.
-13810.
4946.
11149.
8597.
351.

Water budget for case NM_sce2af (App. E2 Table 4)


[1]
[2]+[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]+[7]+[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[alt 12]
Model Year NES Bdry Rech&Wells Ocean In Total In Wells Out Stream Out Ocean Out Total Out In - Out Dstorage
2012
-4302.
51354.
35719.
82771.
26126.
3052.
14932.
44111.
38660.
38540.
2013
-6348.
30306.
22131.
46088.
30454.
2749.
17860.
51063.
-4975.
-5004.
2014
-7038.
48028.
20997.
61986.
23172.
3765.
20179.
47115.
14871.
14742.
2015
-4793.
28700.
20443.
44350.
30491.
3199.
20371.
54061.
-9711.
-9732.
2016
-5376.
45995.
19941.
60560.
20700.
4444.
21874.
47018.
13542.
13398.
2017
-3270.
27593.
19504.
43827.
27491.
3792.
21879.
53163.
-9335.
-9352.
2018
9351.
22401.
25112.
56863.
65854.
2437.
15695.
83986.
-27123.
-27127.
2019
13903.
22123.
35428.
71454.
79209.
1640.
8992.
89841.
-18387.
-18221.
2020
6837.
21578.
40830.
69246.
67700.
1432.
6729.
75860.
-6615.
-6543.
2021
1896.
19141.
44137.
65174.
66733.
1350.
5755.
73839.
-8665.
-8520.
2022
-6397.
31874.
45954.
71430.
61670.
1323.
5293.
68287.
3144.
3274.
2023
-5318.
28209.
47109.
69999.
69322.
1294.
5140.
75756.
-5756.
-5619.
2024
-757.
24293.
52980.
76516.
80443.
1246.
4173.
85863.
-9347.
-9245.
2025
-2667.
23312.
58794.
79439.
80543.
1214.
3312.
85069.
-5629.
-5452.
2026
-11516.
22244.
60401.
71130.
67762.
1211.
3189.
72162.
-1033.
-899.
2027
-15135.
19563.
61436.
65865.
66741.
1211.
3097.
71050.
-5185.
-4994.
2028
-21795.
31609.
61621.
71434.
61938.
1216.
3046.
66200.
5235.
5402.
2029
-19593.
28481.
61744.
70632.
70415.
1202.
3064.
74681.
-4049.
-3863.
2030
-22331.
51243.
59742.
88654.
80108.
1193.
3324.
84625.
4029.
4263.
2031
-28045.
36128.
58054.
66137.
58831.
1197.
3398.
63426.
2711.
2898.
2032
-27701.
52372.
53818.
78489.
68618.
1224.
4030.
73872.
4617.
4797.
2033
-30274.
38371.
52101.
60198.
51488.
1218.
4155.
56862.
3336.
3515.
2034
-33758.
56891.
45863.
68995.
51294.
1339.
5453.
58086.
10909.
10948.
2035
-47482.
69799.
36565.
58883.
15050.
1642.
8599.
25291.
33592.
33473.
2036
-25329.
37031.
28560.
40263.
33358.
1986.
12115.
47460.
-7198.
-7160.
2037
-22347.
56315.
26815.
60783.
26667.
2368.
14035.
43070.
17713.
17642.
2038
-18132.
53725.
21362.
56954.
14791.
3461.
21247.
39499.
17456.
17320.
2039
-10844.
39805.
18557.
47518.
12805.
5090.
24732.
42628.
4890.
4754.
2040
-3952.
25279.
18349.
39676.
12718.
4837.
23785.
41340.
-1663.
-1786.
2041
-994.
42965.
17986.
59957.
21475.
7275.
25655.
54406.
5551.
5410.
2042
-760.
49391.
16060.
64691.
17698.
10495.
31185.
59377.
5314.
5152.
2043
5029.
38760.
15731.
59520.
18210.
10261.
31103.
59573.
-53.
-110.
2044
8372.
24554.
16275.
49200.
16462.
8562.
28300.
53323.
-4123.
-4212.
2045
8154.
42574.
16468.
67197.
24263.
10232.
29002.
63497.
3700.
3620.
2046
5994.
49117.
15099.
70209.
19857.
12619.
33755.
66231.
3978.
3856.
2047
9957.
43228.
15627.
68812.
26109.
11708.
31775.
69591.
-780.
-850.
2048
8684.
26261.
15909.
50854.
16009.
9783.
29382.
55174.
-4320.
-4451.
2049
9205.
42417.
16166.
67787.
24602.
10830.
29789.
65221.
2566.
2467.
2050
7120.
26158.
16210.
49488.
15195.
9172.
28423.
52790.
-3302.
-3423.
2051
15769.
28489.
18484.
62742.
48879.
5922.
24424.
79225.
-16482.
-16345.
2052
15933.
26272.
23421.
65627.
66769.
2752.
17637.
87158.
-21531.
-21448.
2053
-1255.
36905.
23032.
58683.
15584.
2849.
16760.
35193.
23490.
23315.
2054
8269.
22749.
23179.
54197.
57625.
2803.
17352.
77779.
-23582.
-23506.
2055
15126.
21920.
33572.
70618.
79730.
1722.
9850.
91302.
-20684.
-20517.
1480.
7236.
76416.
-7271.
-7203.
2056
8452.
21486.
39207.
69145.
67700.
2057
3408.
19096.
42702.
65206.
66733.
1378.
6121.
74233.
-9026.
-8871.
2058
-5027.
32060.
44516.
71549.
61464.
1356.
5620.
68441.
3108.
3227.
2059
-3733.
28267.
45963.
70498.
69831.
1310.
5394.
76534.
-6036.
-5909.

2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
2066
2067
2068
2069
2070
2071
2072
2073
2074
Average

-36863.
-7335.
-27196.
-14214.
-12025.
-11034.
-4794.
-272.
5974.
12672.
7250.
9197.
-9616.
-14824.
-11287.
-5543.

63196.
22763.
60062.
32146.
51719.
51385.
24043.
26197.
28041.
20459.
27486.
27406.
37973.
56218.
34477.
35397.

36892.
36125.
31364.
24410.
23333.
19278.
18314.
18173.
18998.
25605.
29364.
35414.
33349.
27272.
24593.
31939.

63224.
51553.
64230.
42342.
63027.
59630.
37563.
44098.
53014.
58736.
64100.
72016.
61706.
68666.
47782.
61793.

14212.
66435.
15322.
31800.
26115.
16527.
11334.
15546.
35675.
66628.
58280.
71558.
44138.
30833.
31244.
42735.

1641.
1716.
1937.
2336.
2936.
5229.
4910.
5390.
4348.
2281.
1963.
1657.
1702.
2319.
2406.
3629.

8136.
8852.
11108.
15480.
17335.
24401.
23567.
23638.
22765.
14738.
11414.
8748.
9239.
13469.
15403.
15024.

23988.
77002.
28366.
49617.
46386.
46157.
39812.
44575.
62788.
83646.
71658.
81963.
55079.
46621.
49053.
61388.

39236.
-25449.
35864.
-7274.
16641.
13473.
-2249.
-477.
-9774.
-24910.
-7557.
-9947.
6627.
22045.
-1271.
405.

39083.
-25242.
35735.
-7245.
16556.
13309.
-2446.
-554.
-9759.
-24779.
-7449.
-9735.
6679.
21968.
-1304.
420.

Water budget for case NM_sce3n new simulation (App. E2 Table 5)


[1]
[2]+[3]
[4]
[5] [6]+[7]+[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[alt 12]
Model Year NES Bdry Rech&Wells Ocean In Total In Wells Out Stream Out Ocean Out Total Out In - Out Dstorage
2012
19454.
73440.
55816.
148711.
106763.
1930.
12403.
121096.
27614.
27618.
2013
1377.
53885.
41152.
96414.
75792.
2047.
14517.
92356.
4059.
4002.
2014
10448.
71806.
41960.
124215.
106841.
2008.
15505.
124354.
-139.
-68.
2015
2000.
53180.
40146.
95327.
75761.
2092.
15477.
93329.
1997.
1936.
2016
11512.
71381.
41367.
124259.
106885.
2060.
16114.
125059.
-800.
-805.
2017
3032.
52609.
39774.
95414.
75817.
2115.
15905.
93838.
1577.
1512.
2018
9107.
40312.
42669.
92088.
92109.
2072.
14041.
108222.
-16134.
-16116.
2019
14994.
27245.
52466.
94705.
104380.
1569.
9396.
115345.
-20640.
-20481.
2020
9701.
26327.
57986.
94014.
91859.
1408.
7143.
100411.
-6396.
-6357.
2021
5693.
22818.
60949.
89460.
90447.
1342.
6142.
97931.
-8471.
-8372.
2022
-194.
39119.
63167.
102092.
92093.
1291.
5567.
98952.
3140.
3188.
2023
-1684.
35611.
63442.
97369.
94727.
1284.
5583.
101594.
-4224.
-4127.
2024
4245.
30521.
68495.
103261.
106292.
1247.
4660.
112199.
-8938.
-8902.
2025
2189.
28631.
74376.
105196.
106116.
1217.
3647.
110980.
-5785.
-5628.
2026
-7082.
27031.
75889.
95838.
91859.
1215.
3509.
96583.
-745.
-680.
2027
-10297.
23208.
76912.
89823.
90455.
1216.
3406.
95077.
-5254.
-5134.
2028
-14852.
38672.
77915.
101735.
92367.
1207.
3253.
96827.
4908.
4980.
2029
-14844.
34708.
77336.
97199.
95820.
1203.
3371.
100394.
-3194.
-3064.
2030
-12650.
61458.
76855.
125663.
118287.
1185.
3515.
122987.
2676.
2921.
2031
-23162.
45887.
73664.
96389.
87190.
1187.
3733.
92111.
4278.
4392.
2032
-15462.
67455.
70988.
122982.
113742.
1195.
4261.
119198.
3784.
3962.
2033
-23594.
51283.
67462.
95151.
83974.
1194.
4641.
89809.
5342.
5404.
2034
-17043.
78843.
63645.
125445.
106958.
1240.
5625.
113824.
11621.
11613.
2035
-28651.
79138.
53294.
103781.
74543.
1427.
8571.
84541.
19240.
19253.
2036
-14363.
57787.
47999.
91423.
73859.
1600.
10286.
85745.
5678.
5658.
2037
252.
78277.
46741.
125270.
106711.
1667.
11788.
120166.
5104.
5048.
2038
-9252.
77131.
38745.
106624.
70259.
2146.
17922.
90327.
16297.
16206.
2039
301.
60481.
36861.
97643.
73549.
2209.
19301.
95059.
2584.
2540.
2040
5868.
44417.
38204.
88488.
73849.
2188.
17447.
93484.
-4996.
-5130.
2041
15260.
69981.
40412.
125652.
107046.
2122.
17221.
126389.
-737.
-716.
2042
3234.
70350.
34900.
108484.
71334.
3161.
22566.
97061.
11424.
11359.
2043
9564.
55747.
34445.
99756.
74216.
2627.
22639.
99481.
275.
232.
2044
12716.
40549.
36377.
89642.
74012.
2385.
19834.
96231.
-6589.
-6681.
2045
20317.
67674.
38955.
126946.
107349.
2369.
18992.
128710.
-1764.
-1704.
2046
7249.
68720.
33872.
109841.
71828.
3623.
23978.
99429.
10411.
10356.
2047
21705.
66639.
37160.
125503.
107964.
2658.
21467.
132089.
-6586.
-6557.
2048
11820.
47616.
36803.
96239.
75753.
2371.
19596.
97719.
-1481.
-1500.
2049
19078.
68216.
38952.
126246.
107283.
2352.
19139.
128774.
-2528.
-2474.
2050
9136.
49532.
37889.
96558.
75785.
2272.
18271.
96328.
230.
211.
2051
13431.
49983.
40289.
103703.
91780.
2182.
16316.
110278.
-6575.
-6472.
2052
12566.
51636.
42920.
107121.
94858.
2094.
14330.
111281.
-4160.
-4108.
2053
6022.
53578.
42720.
102321.
82231.
1910.
13851.
97992.
4329.
4316.
2054
8474.
48335.
43450.
100259.
92109.
2007.
13199.
107315.
-7056.
-7014.
2055
12731.
28219.
51162.
92111.
105302.
1597.
9772.
116672.
-24561.
-24463.
2056
9884.
26223.
57134.
93241.
91859.
1428.
7346.
100633.
-7392.
-7374.
2057
6220.
22773.
60288.
89282.
90447.
1357.
6288.
98092.
-8811.
-8710.
2058
472.
39126.
62598.
102196.
92207.
1305.
5687.
99199.
2996.
3040.
-4227.
2059
-718.
35608.
63009.
97899.
95236.
1292.
5672.
102200.
-4301.

2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
2066
2067
2068
2069
2070
2071
2072
2073
2074
Average

-15393.
-941.
-15073.
-6479.
5040.
-5560.
3531.
5300.
4898.
11262.
8631.
11228.
421.
9435.
-1005.
1928.

71620.
34915.
74599.
54110.
75799.
74400.
44412.
48685.
47934.
45186.
47326.
37226.
49923.
75944.
56180.
51610.

57718.
57316.
51646.
45382.
44705.
37430.
38378.
39148.
38597.
42653.
44136.
49533.
48917.
46893.
42386.
50547.

113945.
91289.
111172.
93013.
125543.
106269.
86321.
93133.
91429.
99101.
100093.
97988.
99261.
132273.
97561.
104085.

84958.
95166.
74816.
73851.
106752.
70563.
71458.
75797.
71317.
91258.
90668.
103466.
82149.
107028.
75749.
89887.

1357.
1406.
1567.
1757.
1804.
2460.
2277.
2209.
2264.
2012.
1898.
1643.
1659.
1731.
1956.
1823.

6942.
7221.
9117.
11452.
12919.
19004.
16943.
16092.
16686.
13727.
12537.
10287.
10054.
11772.
13522.
11923.

93257.
103793.
85499.
87060.
121475.
92028.
90678.
94097.
90266.
106998.
105103.
115396.
93862.
120531.
91227.
103634.

20687.
-12504.
25673.
5953.
4069.
14241.
-4357.
-965.
1163.
-7897.
-5010.
-17409.
5399.
11742.
6333.
451.

20576.
-12468.
25634.
5897.
4017.
14137.
-4439.
-926.
1105.
-7873.
-5014.
-17363.
5401.
11701.
6227.
468.

Water budget for case NM_sce3n original simulation (App. E2 Table 5)


[1]
[2]+[3]
[4]
[5] [6]+[7]+[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[alt 12]
Model Year NES Bdry Rech&Wells Ocean In Total In Wells Out Stream Out Ocean Out Total Out In - Out Dstorage
2012
19454.
73440.
55816.
148711.
106763.
1930.
12403.
121096.
27614.
27618.
2013
1377.
53885.
41152.
96414.
75792.
2047.
14517.
92356.
4059.
4002.
2014
10448.
71806.
41960.
124215.
106841.
2008.
15505.
124354.
-139.
-68.
2015
2003.
53180.
40147.
95330.
75761.
2092.
15476.
93329.
2001.
1936.
2016
11512.
71381.
41367.
124259.
106885.
2060.
16114.
125059.
-800.
-805.
2017
3032.
52609.
39774.
95415.
75817.
2115.
15905.
93838.
1577.
1512.
2018
9107.
40312.
42669.
92088.
92109.
2072.
14041.
108222.
-16134.
-16116.
2019
14994.
27245.
52466.
94705.
104380.
1569.
9396.
115345.
-20640.
-20481.
2020
9701.
26327.
57986.
94014.
91859.
1408.
7143.
100411.
-6397.
-6357.
2021
5690.
22818.
60949.
89458.
90447.
1342.
6142.
97932.
-8474.
-8372.
2022
-194.
39119.
63167.
102092.
92093.
1291.
5567.
98952.
3140.
3188.
2023
-1684.
35611.
63442.
97369.
94727.
1284.
5583.
101594.
-4224.
-4127.
2024
4245.
30521.
68495.
103261.
106292.
1247.
4660.
112199.
-8938.
-8903.
2025
2189.
28631.
74376.
105196.
106116.
1217.
3647.
110980.
-5785.
-5628.
2026
-7082.
27031.
75889.
95838.
91859.
1215.
3509.
96583.
-745.
-680.
2027
-10297.
23208.
76912.
89824.
90455.
1216.
3406.
95077.
-5254.
-5134.
2028
-14852.
38672.
77915.
101735.
92367.
1207.
3253.
96827.
4908.
4980.
2029
-14844.
34708.
77336.
97199.
95820.
1203.
3371.
100394.
-3195.
-3064.
2030
-12650.
61458.
76855.
125663.
118287.
1185.
3515.
122987.
2676.
2921.
2031
-23162.
45887.
73664.
96389.
87190.
1187.
3733.
92111.
4278.
4392.
2032
-15462.
67455.
70988.
122982.
113742.
1195.
4261.
119198.
3784.
3962.
2033
-23594.
51283.
67462.
95151.
83974.
1194.
4641.
89809.
5342.
5404.
2034
-17043.
78843.
63645.
125445.
106958.
1240.
5625.
113824.
11621.
11613.
2035
-28650.
79138.
53294.
103781.
74543.
1427.
8571.
84541.
19240.
19253.
2036
-14363.
57787.
47999.
91423.
73859.
1600.
10286.
85745.
5677.
5658.
2037
253.
78277.
46741.
125271.
106711.
1667.
11788.
120166.
5105.
5048.
2038
-9251.
77131.
38745.
106625.
70259.
2146.
17922.
90327.
16297.
16206.
2039
300.
60481.
36861.
97641.
73549.
2209.
19301.
95059.
2582.
2540.
2040
5868.
44417.
38204.
88488.
73849.
2188.
17447.
93484.
-4996.
-5131.
2041
15260.
69981.
40412.
125652.
107046.
2122.
17221.
126389.
-736.
-716.
2042
3234.
70350.
34900.
108484.
71334.
3161.
22566.
97061.
11423.
11360.
2043
9568.
55747.
34446.
99760.
74216.
2627.
22638.
99481.
279.
232.
2044
12716.
40549.
36377.
89642.
74012.
2385.
19834.
96231.
-6589.
-6680.
2045
20319.
67674.
38955.
126948.
107349.
2369.
18992.
128710.
-1762.
-1704.
2046
7248.
68720.
33872.
109840.
71828.
3623.
23978.
99429.
10410.
10357.
2047
21704.
66639.
37160.
125502.
107964.
2658.
21468.
132089.
-6587.
-6557.
2048
11822.
47616.
36803.
96240.
75753.
2371.
19596.
97719.
-1479.
-1500.
2049
19078.
68216.
38952.
126246.
107283.
2352.
19139.
128774.
-2528.
-2474.
2050
9136.
49532.
37889.
96558.
75785.
2272.
18271.
96328.
230.
211.
2051
13431.
49983.
40289.
103703.
91780.
2182.
16316.
110278.
-6575.
-6472.
2052
12566.
51636.
42920.
107121.
94858.
2094.
14330.
111281.
-4160.
-4108.
2053
6023.
53578.
42720.
102321.
82231.
1910.
13851.
97992.
4329.
4316.
2054
8474.
48335.
43450.
100259.
92109.
2007.
13199.
107315.
-7056.
-7014.
2055
12731.
28219.
51162.
92111.
105302.
1597.
9772.
116672.
-24561.
-24463.
2056
9884.
26223.
57134.
93241.
91859.
1428.
7346.
100633.
-7392.
-7374.
2057
6220.
22773.
60288.
89281.
90447.
1357.
6288.
98092.
-8811.
-8710.
2058
472.
39126.
62598.
102196.
92207.
1305.
5687.
99199.
2996.
3040.
-4227.
2059
-718.
35608.
63009.
97899.
95236.
1292.
5672.
102200.
-4301.

2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
2066
2067
2068
2069
2070
2071
2072
2073
2074
Average

-15393.
-941.
-15073.
-6484.
5039.
-5561.
3531.
5300.
4898.
11263.
8629.
11228.
421.
9435.
-1005.
1928.

71620.
34915.
74599.
54110.
75799.
74400.
44412.
48685.
47934.
45186.
47326.
37226.
49923.
75944.
56180.
51610.

57718.
57316.
51646.
45381.
44705.
37430.
38378.
39148.
38597.
42654.
44136.
49533.
48917.
46893.
42386.
50547.

113944.
91289.
111172.
93007.
125542.
106269.
86321.
93133.
91429.
99102.
100091.
97987.
99261.
132273.
97561.
104085.

84958.
95166.
74816.
73851.
106752.
70563.
71458.
75797.
71317.
91258.
90668.
103466.
82149.
107028.
75749.
89887.

1357.
1406.
1567.
1757.
1804.
2460.
2277.
2209.
2264.
2012.
1898.
1643.
1659.
1731.
1956.
1823.

6942.
7221.
9117.
11452.
12919.
19004.
16943.
16092.
16686.
13727.
12537.
10287.
10054.
11772.
13522.
11923.

93257.
103793.
85499.
87060.
121475.
92028.
90678.
94097.
90266.
106997.
105103.
115396.
93862.
120531.
91227.
103634.

20687.
-12504.
25673.
5947.
4068.
14241.
-4357.
-964.
1163.
-7895.
-5012.
-17409.
5399.
11742.
6333.
451.

20576.
-12468.
25634.
5898.
4017.
14137.
-4439.
-926.
1105.
-7873.
-5014.
-17363.
5401.
11701.
6227.
468.

Water budget for case NM_sce3ncb (App. E2 Table 6)


[1]
[2]+[3]
[4]
[5] [6]+[7]+[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[alt 12]
Model Year NES Bdry Rech&Wells Ocean In Total In Wells Out Stream Out Ocean Out Total Out In - Out Dstorage
2012
19169.
74520.
55507.
149196.
106763.
1930.
12488.
121181.
28015.
28019.
2013
923.
54965.
40754.
96643.
75792.
2047.
14664.
92503.
4140.
4083.
2014
9958.
72886.
41562.
124406.
106841.
2008.
15675.
124524.
-118.
-46.
2015
1498.
54260.
39744.
95503.
75761.
2092.
15649.
93502.
2001.
1943.
2016
11007.
72461.
40969.
124437.
106885.
2060.
16294.
125239.
-802.
-804.
2017
2528.
53689.
39374.
95591.
75817.
2115.
16083.
94015.
1576.
1513.
2018
8604.
41392.
42242.
92238.
92109.
2072.
14190.
108371.
-16134.
-16116.
2019
14491.
28325.
51993.
94809.
104380.
1569.
9500.
115449.
-20640.
-20481.
2020
9198.
27407.
57494.
94100.
91859.
1408.
7229.
100496.
-6396.
-6357.
2021
5190.
23898.
60445.
89533.
90447.
1342.
6215.
98005.
-8472.
-8372.
2022
-697.
40199.
62659.
102161.
92093.
1291.
5637.
99021.
3140.
3188.
2023
-2188.
36691.
62935.
97439.
94727.
1284.
5653.
101664.
-4225.
-4127.
2024
3742.
31601.
67973.
103316.
106292.
1247.
4715.
112254.
-8938.
-8903.
2025
1686.
29711.
73838.
105235.
106116.
1217.
3686.
111019.
-5785.
-5628.
2026
-7584.
28111.
75347.
95875.
91859.
1215.
3545.
96619.
-744.
-680.
2027
-10800.
24288.
76369.
89858.
90455.
1216.
3440.
95111.
-5254.
-5134.
2028
-15355.
39752.
77372.
101768.
92367.
1207.
3287.
96861.
4907.
4980.
2029
-15347.
35788.
76794.
97234.
95820.
1203.
3406.
100429.
-3195.
-3064.
2030
-13152.
62538.
76319.
125705.
118287.
1185.
3556.
123028.
2677.
2921.
2031
-23665.
46967.
73128.
96429.
87190.
1187.
3774.
92152.
4278.
4392.
2032
-15964.
68535.
70465.
123036.
113742.
1195.
4315.
119252.
3784.
3962.
2033
-24097.
52363.
66944.
95210.
83974.
1194.
4700.
89868.
5342.
5404.
2034
-17546.
79923.
63141.
125518.
106958.
1240.
5698.
113897.
11621.
11613.
2035
-29154.
80218.
52825.
103890.
74543.
1427.
8679.
84650.
19240.
19253.
2036
-14866.
58867.
47542.
91543.
73859.
1600.
10407.
85866.
5678.
5658.
2037
-251.
79357.
46303.
125410.
106711.
1667.
11928.
120306.
5104.
5048.
2038
-9754.
78211.
38374.
106831.
70259.
2146.
18128.
90534.
16297.
16206.
2039
-199.
61561.
36498.
97860.
73549.
2209.
19515.
95272.
2587.
2540.
2040
5360.
45497.
37817.
88673.
73849.
2188.
17637.
93674.
-5001.
-5129.
2041
14757.
71061.
40021.
125839.
107046.
2122.
17407.
126575.
-737.
-717.
2042
2731.
71430.
34555.
108717.
71334.
3161.
22799.
97293.
11424.
11359.
2043
9061.
56827.
34099.
99988.
74216.
2627.
22870.
99713.
275.
232.
2044
12213.
41629.
36006.
89848.
74012.
2385.
20040.
96437.
-6589.
-6681.
2045
19814.
68754.
38576.
127144.
107349.
2369.
19190.
128908.
-1764.
-1704.
2046
6746.
69800.
33533.
110078.
71828.
3623.
24216.
99667.
10411.
10356.
2047
21202.
67719.
36798.
125719.
107964.
2658.
21683.
132305.
-6586.
-6557.
2048
11317.
48696.
36429.
96441.
75753.
2371.
19799.
97922.
-1481.
-1500.
2049
18575.
69296.
38574.
126445.
107283.
2352.
19338.
128973.
-2528.
-2474.
2050
8633.
50612.
37506.
96751.
75785.
2272.
18465.
96521.
230.
211.
2051
12928.
51063.
39883.
103874.
91780.
2182.
16487.
110449.
-6575.
-6472.
2052
12062.
52716.
42491.
107269.
94858.
2094.
14478.
111430.
-4160.
-4108.
2053
5519.
54658.
42293.
102470.
82231.
1910.
14001.
98142.
4328.
4316.
2054
7971.
49415.
43015.
100400.
92109.
2007.
13341.
107456.
-7056.
-7014.
2055
12228.
29299.
50693.
92219.
105302.
1597.
9880.
116780.
-24561.
-24463.
2056
9381.
27303.
56645.
93329.
91859.
1428.
7434.
100721.
-7392.
-7374.
2057
5717.
23853.
59787.
89358.
90447.
1357.
6364.
98168.
-8810.
-8710.
2058
-31.
40206.
62092.
102267.
92207.
1305.
5758.
99270.
2996.
3040.
-4301.
-4227.
2059
-1221.
36688.
62503.
97971.
95236.
1292.
5744.
102272.

2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
2066
2067
2068
2069
2070
2071
2072
2073
2074
Average

-15895.
-1445.
-15577.
-6988.
4537.
-6064.
3028.
4796.
4395.
10761.
8124.
10726.
-83.
8933.
-1508.
1430.

72700.
35995.
75679.
55190.
76878.
75480.
45492.
49765.
49014.
46266.
48406.
38306.
51003.
77024.
57260.
52690.

57230.
56829.
51179.
44935.
44279.
37066.
37991.
38750.
38206.
42224.
43695.
49070.
48456.
46450.
41961.
50104.

114035.
91378.
111282.
93137.
125695.
106481.
86511.
93312.
91615.
99250.
100226.
98101.
99376.
132407.
97714.
104224.

84958.
95166.
74816.
73851.
106752.
70563.
71458.
75797.
71317.
91258.
90668.
103466.
82149.
107028.
75749.
89887.

1357.
1406.
1567.
1757.
1804.
2460.
2277.
2209.
2264.
2012.
1898.
1643.
1659.
1731.
1956.
1823.

7032.
7311.
9227.
11583.
13071.
19217.
17133.
16272.
16871.
13874.
12673.
10401.
10170.
11906.
13675.
12054.

93347.
103883.
85609.
87191.
121626.
92241.
90867.
94277.
90452.
107145.
105239.
115510.
93978.
120665.
91380.
103765.

20688.
-12504.
25672.
5946.
4069.
14240.
-4357.
-966.
1163.
-7894.
-5013.
-17409.
5398.
11742.
6334.
459.

20576.
-12468.
25634.
5898.
4017.
14137.
-4439.
-926.
1105.
-7873.
-5014.
-17363.
5401.
11701.
6227.
476.

Water budget for case NM_sce3nc (App. E2 Table 7)


[1]
[2]+[3]
[4]
[5] [6]+[7]+[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[alt 12]
Model Year NES Bdry Rech&Wells Ocean In Total In Wells Out Stream Out Ocean Out Total Out In - Out Dstorage
2012
19313.
74520.
55183.
149017.
106763.
1930.
12489.
121182.
27835.
27839.
2013
1156.
54965.
40458.
96579.
75792.
2047.
14645.
92483.
4095.
4039.
2014
10210.
72886.
41274.
124371.
106841.
2008.
15651.
124500.
-130.
-58.
2015
1756.
54260.
39457.
95473.
75761.
2092.
15623.
93476.
1998.
1940.
2016
11266.
72461.
40684.
124411.
106885.
2060.
16269.
125214.
-803.
-805.
2017
2788.
53689.
39088.
95564.
75817.
2115.
16056.
93988.
1576.
1513.
2018
8863.
41392.
41955.
92210.
92109.
2072.
14163.
108344.
-16134.
-16116.
2019
14750.
28325.
51708.
94783.
104380.
1569.
9475.
115424.
-20640.
-20481.
2020
9458.
27407.
57211.
94077.
91859.
1408.
7206.
100473.
-6396.
-6357.
2021
5449.
23898.
60165.
89513.
90447.
1342.
6195.
97984.
-8471.
-8372.
2022
-438.
40199.
62379.
102141.
92093.
1291.
5617.
99001.
3140.
3188.
2023
-1928.
36691.
62656.
97419.
94727.
1284.
5633.
101644.
-4224.
-4127.
2024
4002.
31601.
67698.
103301.
106292.
1247.
4700.
112238.
-8937.
-8902.
2025
1945.
29711.
73568.
105224.
106116.
1217.
3675.
111008.
-5784.
-5628.
2026
-7325.
28111.
75078.
95864.
91859.
1215.
3535.
96609.
-745.
-680.
2027
-10541.
24288.
76100.
89848.
90455.
1216.
3430.
95102.
-5254.
-5134.
2028
-15097.
39752.
77103.
101758.
92367.
1207.
3277.
96851.
4907.
4980.
2029
-15089.
35788.
76525.
97223.
95820.
1203.
3396.
100419.
-3196.
-3064.
2030
-12892.
62538.
76048.
125694.
118287.
1185.
3545.
123017.
2677.
2921.
2031
-23407.
46967.
72857.
96417.
87190.
1187.
3763.
92140.
4277.
4392.
2032
-15706.
68535.
70190.
123020.
113742.
1195.
4300.
119237.
3783.
3962.
2033
-23838.
52363.
66667.
95192.
83974.
1194.
4682.
89850.
5342.
5404.
2034
-17287.
79923.
62861.
125498.
106958.
1240.
5678.
113876.
11621.
11613.
2035
-28894.
80218.
52539.
103863.
74543.
1427.
8653.
84623.
19240.
19253.
2036
-14607.
58867.
47255.
91516.
73859.
1600.
10379.
85838.
5678.
5658.
2037
9.
79357.
46018.
125383.
106711.
1667.
11902.
120279.
5104.
5048.
2038
-9495.
78211.
38093.
106810.
70259.
2146.
18107.
90512.
16297.
16206.
2039
60.
61561.
36216.
97836.
73549.
2209.
19492.
95250.
2586.
2540.
2040
5618.
45497.
37531.
88646.
73849.
2188.
17611.
93648.
-5002.
-5130.
2041
15016.
71061.
39736.
125813.
107046.
2122.
17382.
126550.
-737.
-716.
2042
2990.
71430.
34278.
108699.
71334.
3161.
22781.
97275.
11424.
11359.
2043
9321.
56827.
33820.
99968.
74216.
2627.
22850.
99693.
275.
232.
2044
12472.
41629.
35721.
89822.
74012.
2385.
20015.
96411.
-6590.
-6681.
2045
20074.
68754.
38292.
127120.
107349.
2369.
19165.
128884.
-1764.
-1704.
2046
7005.
69800.
33256.
110062.
71828.
3623.
24199.
99650.
10412.
10356.
2047
21461.
67719.
36517.
125696.
107964.
2658.
21661.
132283.
-6586.
-6557.
2048
11576.
48696.
36143.
96415.
75753.
2371.
19772.
97896.
-1481.
-1500.
2049
18834.
69296.
38289.
126420.
107283.
2352.
19313.
128948.
-2528.
-2474.
2050
8893.
50612.
37219.
96724.
75785.
2272.
18437.
96494.
230.
211.
2051
13187.
51063.
39595.
103846.
91780.
2182.
16458.
110420.
-6575.
-6472.
2052
12322.
52716.
42203.
107241.
94858.
2094.
14449.
111401.
-4160.
-4108.
2053
5779.
54658.
42005.
102441.
82231.
1910.
13972.
98113.
4329.
4316.
2054
8230.
49415.
42728.
100373.
92109.
2007.
13314.
107429.
-7056.
-7014.
2055
12487.
29299.
50408.
92194.
105302.
1597.
9855.
116755.
-24561.
-24463.
2056
9640.
27303.
56363.
93306.
91859.
1428.
7411.
100698.
-7392.
-7374.
2057
5977.
23853.
59507.
89337.
90447.
1357.
6343.
98147.
-8811.
-8710.
2058
228.
40206.
61812.
102246.
92207.
1305.
5738.
99250.
2996.
3040.
-4227.
2059
-961.
36688.
62223.
97951.
95236.
1292.
5723.
102252.
-4301.

2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
2066
2067
2068
2069
2070
2071
2072
2073
2074
Average

-15636.
-1185.
-15317.
-6729.
4796.
-5805.
3288.
5056.
4654.
11018.
8387.
10985.
177.
9192.
-1248.
1687.

72700.
35995.
75679.
55190.
76878.
75480.
45492.
49765.
49014.
46266.
48406.
38306.
51003.
77024.
57260.
52690.

56947.
56546.
50893.
44648.
43994.
36785.
37704.
38463.
37919.
41937.
43408.
48784.
48169.
46164.
41674.
49821.

114010.
91356.
111255.
93109.
125669.
106461.
86483.
93285.
91587.
99221.
100201.
98075.
99349.
132380.
97686.
104198.

84958.
95166.
74816.
73851.
106752.
70563.
71458.
75797.
71317.
91258.
90668.
103466.
82149.
107028.
75749.
89887.

1357.
1406.
1567.
1757.
1804.
2460.
2277.
2209.
2264.
2012.
1898.
1643.
1659.
1731.
1956.
1823.

7008.
7288.
9200.
11556.
13045.
19196.
17105.
16244.
16844.
13847.
12645.
10375.
10143.
11879.
13647.
12032.

93323.
103860.
85583.
87164.
121601.
92220.
90840.
94249.
90425.
107118.
105211.
115484.
93951.
120638.
91352.
103742.

20687.
-12504.
25673.
5946.
4068.
14241.
-4357.
-964.
1163.
-7897.
-5010.
-17409.
5399.
11742.
6334.
455.

20576.
-12468.
25634.
5898.
4017.
14137.
-4439.
-926.
1105.
-7873.
-5014.
-17363.
5401.
11701.
6227.
472.

Water budget for case NM_sce4f (App. E2 Table 8)


[1]
[2]+[3]
[4]
[5] [6]+[7]+[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[alt 12]
Model Year NES Bdry Rech&Wells Ocean In Total In Wells Out Stream Out Ocean Out Total Out In - Out Dstorage
2012
5648.
65506.
63868.
135022.
106324.
1662.
8761.
116747.
18275.
18260.
2013
-5530.
51074.
50057.
95601.
80082.
1767.
10161.
92010.
3591.
3598.
2014
2665.
66063.
50226.
118954.
106323.
1729.
10679.
118731.
222.
181.
2015
-4084.
49538.
48712.
94167.
80082.
1825.
10764.
92671.
1495.
1484.
2016
4118.
65434.
49393.
118945.
106322.
1763.
11100.
119185.
-240.
-307.
2017
-2866.
49182.
48079.
94396.
80151.
1854.
11088.
93093.
1302.
1298.
2018
3001.
30009.
51662.
84672.
93382.
1807.
9746.
104935.
-20263.
-20237.
2019
10861.
22379.
62911.
96151.
105594.
1399.
6243.
113237.
-17086.
-16936.
2020
4846.
21792.
68479.
95117.
94460.
1308.
4903.
100671.
-5554.
-5498.
2021
450.
19316.
71432.
91197.
93122.
1267.
4386.
98776.
-7578.
-7457.
2022
-4487.
32470.
74071.
102054.
94528.
1231.
3962.
99721.
2333.
2429.
2023
-6387.
29419.
74589.
97621.
96855.
1228.
3948.
102030.
-4409.
-4283.
2024
-1281.
24546.
79808.
103073.
107200.
1215.
3365.
111781.
-8708.
-8566.
2025
-2935.
23433.
85337.
105834.
106963.
1213.
2757.
110933.
-5098.
-4870.
2026
-11266.
22371.
86622.
97727.
94460.
1211.
2694.
98365.
-638.
-465.
2027
-14763.
19641.
87397.
92275.
93130.
1211.
2646.
96988.
-4713.
-4529.
2028
-18414.
32044.
88737.
102368.
94802.
1205.
2502.
98509.
3859.
4003.
2029
-18959.
28986.
88403.
98430.
97947.
1201.
2556.
101705.
-3274.
-3074.
2030
-17027.
51757.
88540.
123270.
117780.
1177.
2545.
121502.
1768.
2026.
2031
-26244.
37748.
85939.
97443.
90067.
1188.
2697.
93951.
3492.
3634.
2032
-19848.
55279.
83841.
119272.
113236.
1184.
2907.
117326.
1945.
2175.
2033
-27457.
42357.
81091.
95992.
87092.
1185.
3113.
91390.
4602.
4744.
2034
-22908.
64673.
77577.
119341.
106457.
1184.
3513.
111154.
8188.
8299.
2035
-36002.
71963.
67673.
103634.
78880.
1261.
5020.
85161.
18472.
18516.
2036
-25578.
56190.
61498.
92111.
78088.
1384.
6134.
85607.
6504.
6544.
2037
-9712.
71281.
59003.
120573.
106351.
1437.
7153.
114941.
5632.
5665.
2038
-17336.
72984.
49512.
105159.
74506.
1666.
11012.
87184.
17975.
17945.
2039
-9811.
58873.
46274.
95335.
77924.
1830.
12307.
92061.
3274.
3230.
2040
-5301.
45148.
47240.
87088.
78079.
1848.
11390.
91317.
-4229.
-4317.
2041
4658.
65546.
49028.
119232.
106341.
1707.
11281.
119329.
-97.
-121.
2042
-5330.
65097.
43205.
102973.
74873.
2034.
15073.
91980.
10993.
10913.
2043
-278.
53622.
42411.
95755.
77892.
2010.
15439.
95340.
415.
366.
2044
2688.
41456.
44067.
88210.
78079.
2024.
13717.
93820.
-5610.
-5664.
2045
10901.
62527.
46573.
120001.
106423.
1856.
13106.
121385.
-1384.
-1434.
2046
-339.
62762.
41504.
103926.
75073.
2230.
16745.
94049.
9878.
9813.
2047
11981.
61096.
44475.
117553.
106680.
1959.
15114.
123753.
-6200.
-6184.
2048
4194.
46155.
44440.
94789.
80082.
2038.
13735.
95855.
-1066.
-1094.
2049
10932.
62443.
46260.
119635.
106426.
1896.
13485.
121807.
-2172.
-2139.
2050
2711.
47114.
45445.
95271.
80081.
1986.
12848.
94915.
356.
340.
2051
6287.
46865.
47563.
100715.
92729.
1939.
11667.
106335.
-5620.
-5568.
2052
6064.
46680.
50329.
103073.
95811.
1865.
10384.
108060.
-4988.
-4951.
2053
1364.
48278.
51188.
100830.
84999.
1681.
9812.
96492.
4338.
4373.
2054
2804.
43573.
51581.
97957.
93375.
1785.
9597.
104758.
-6801.
-6743.
2055
8548.
22790.
59806.
91144.
106149.
1470.
7060.
114679.
-23535.
-23353.
2056
6127.
21653.
66300.
94080.
94460.
1344.
5328.
101132.
-7052.
-7002.
2057
1905.
19243.
69673.
90821.
93122.
1293.
4674.
99089.
-8269.
-8135.
2058
-2951.
32526.
72525.
102101.
94640.
1245.
4178.
100062.
2038.
2141.
2059
-4712.
29513.
73282.
98082.
97364.
1240.
4127.
102731.
-4649.
-4527.

2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
2066
2067
2068
2069
2070
2071
2072
2073
2074
Average

-19584.
-5512.
-20618.
-13356.
-2324.
-11596.
-4963.
-2249.
-2153.
3216.
1579.
8265.
-5371.
1149.
-6863.
-4594.

64274.
30134.
67520.
52094.
68770.
68949.
44223.
46759.
46247.
41856.
37267.
30249.
43854.
67766.
53657.
46413.

68281.
67576.
62285.
55684.
54200.
46264.
46703.
47670.
46913.
51067.
53693.
60473.
59747.
57637.
52670.
60293.

112971.
92198.
109187.
94422.
120646.
103618.
85962.
92180.
91007.
96139.
92539.
98986.
98230.
126552.
99464.
102112.

87385.
97262.
79152.
78080.
106391.
74663.
75943.
80082.
76239.
93225.
92554.
104425.
85270.
106524.
80084.
92096.

1264.
1318.
1399.
1548.
1585.
1860.
1994.
1917.
1961.
1766.
1638.
1446.
1464.
1510.
1667.
1577.

4886.
5095.
6288.
7895.
8838.
12741.
11750.
11181.
11593.
9658.
8615.
6748.
6718.
7661.
9070.
8193.

93536.
103676.
86839.
87523.
116814.
89264.
89686.
93179.
89792.
104648.
102807.
112619.
93452.
115695.
90821.
101867.

19435.
-11478.
22348.
6899.
3832.
14354.
-3724.
-999.
1215.
-8509.
-10268.
-13633.
4778.
10858.
8643.
246.

19346.
-11410.
22356.
6893.
3759.
14314.
-3794.
-972.
1134.
-8454.
-10162.
-13464.
4828.
10847.
8627.
292.

Water budget for case NM_sce4rf (App. E2 Table 9)


[1]
[2]+[3]
[4]
[5] [6]+[7]+[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[alt 12]
Model Year NES Bdry Rech&Wells Ocean In Total In Wells Out Stream Out Ocean Out Total Out In - Out Dstorage
2075
-145.
65275.
30921.
96052.
80093.
1763.
11336.
93192.
2860.
2847.
2076
-6734.
50234.
27818.
71318.
53253.
1891.
12413.
67557.
3761.
3743.
2077
1631.
65227.
28439.
95297.
80094.
1866.
13242.
95202.
95.
37.
2078
-5128.
48699.
26736.
70307.
53251.
1954.
13311.
68516.
1791.
1799.
2079
3177.
64365.
27765.
95307.
80107.
1912.
13822.
95840.
-533.
-570.
2080
-3837.
48217.
26208.
70588.
53321.
1984.
13748.
69053.
1535.
1521.
2081
1726.
30125.
29143.
60994.
67151.
1925.
11842.
80918.
-19925.
-19889.
2082
9331.
22369.
39204.
70904.
79363.
1459.
7257.
88079.
-17175.
-17035.
2083
3470.
21788.
44476.
69734.
68333.
1340.
5609.
75283.
-5549.
-5501.
2084
-858.
19315.
47243.
65700.
67014.
1295.
4980.
73289.
-7589.
-7470.
2085
-5755.
32484.
49772.
76501.
68420.
1253.
4477.
74149.
2353.
2448.
2086
-7628.
29395.
50304.
72071.
70747.
1251.
4473.
76471.
-4400.
-4280.
2087
-2580.
24537.
55503.
77460.
81094.
1224.
3788.
86105.
-8645.
-8514.
2088
-4208.
23418.
60868.
80078.
80855.
1213.
3084.
85152.
-5074.
-4847.
2089
-12544.
22361.
62140.
71957.
68333.
1211.
3006.
72550.
-593.
-442.
2090
-16028.
19642.
62833.
66447.
67021.
1211.
2953.
71186.
-4739.
-4538.
2091
-19641.
32058.
64163.
76580.
68694.
1205.
2795.
72694.
3886.
4022.
2092
-20175.
28972.
63858.
72655.
71839.
1201.
2858.
75899.
-3244.
-3063.
2093
-18273.
51771.
64014.
97512.
91672.
1183.
2874.
95728.
1784.
2053.
2094
-27455.
37757.
61404.
71706.
63961.
1188.
3022.
68171.
3535.
3676.
2095
-21005.
55249.
59331.
93574.
87131.
1190.
3297.
91618.
1956.
2191.
2096
-28715.
42329.
56513.
70127.
60759.
1185.
3518.
65462.
4665.
4803.
2097
-23987.
64600.
53130.
93744.
80349.
1199.
4021.
85568.
8175.
8276.
2098
-37055.
71725.
43548.
78219.
52416.
1302.
5910.
59629.
18590.
18635.
2099
-26004.
55529.
37548.
67073.
51501.
1453.
7331.
60286.
6787.
6818.
2100
-10320.
70514.
35568.
95762.
80120.
1525.
8749.
90394.
5368.
5380.
2101
-18065.
71460.
27873.
81268.
48058.
1819.
14136.
64013.
17256.
17234.
2102
-10534.
57265.
25338.
72068.
51336.
1966.
15759.
69060.
3008.
2969.
2103
-5924.
43959.
25718.
63752.
51493.
1981.
14312.
67786.
-4033.
-4129.
2104
3974.
64406.
27467.
95847.
80103.
1846.
14088.
96038.
-190.
-208.
2105
-6110.
63659.
23061.
80610.
48472.
2270.
19246.
69988.
10621.
10554.
2106
-967.
52410.
22336.
73779.
51421.
2219.
19627.
73267.
512.
471.
2107
1859.
40360.
23265.
65484.
51493.
2181.
17237.
70911.
-5427.
-5490.
2108
10141.
61487.
25525.
97153.
80230.
2029.
16322.
98580.
-1426.
-1416.
2109
-1224.
61520.
21814.
82109.
48682.
2571.
21235.
72488.
9622.
9545.
2110
11214.
60005.
24115.
95335.
80507.
2159.
18855.
101522.
-6187.
-6139.
2111
3273.
45130.
23394.
71796.
53251.
2181.
17100.
72532.
-736.
-737.
2112
10267.
61279.
25291.
96838.
80241.
2080.
16738.
99058.
-2220.
-2241.
2113
1648.
46075.
24111.
71834.
53252.
2117.
15959.
71328.
505.
512.
2114
5478.
46057.
25758.
77293.
66619.
2068.
14314.
83001.
-5708.
-5668.
2115
5216.
46460.
27924.
79600.
69592.
1993.
12544.
84129.
-4529.
-4497.
2116
333.
47596.
28578.
76507.
58762.
1788.
11818.
72368.
4139.
4187.
2117
2036.
43009.
29019.
74065.
67147.
1910.
11574.
80631.
-6566.
-6533.
2118
7068.
22688.
36413.
66169.
80042.
1539.
8280.
89861.
-23692.
-23519.
2119
4685.
21654.
42488.
68827.
68333.
1378.
6105.
75816.
-6989.
-6944.
2120
541.
19248.
45631.
65419.
67014.
1321.
5316.
73651.
-8231.
-8100.
2121
-4289.
32550.
48343.
76605.
68531.
1271.
4729.
74531.
2074.
2182.
2122
-6026.
29547.
49082.
72604.
71256.
1265.
4687.
77209.
-4605.
-4466.

2123
2124
2125
2126
2127
2128
2129
2130
2131
2132
2133
2134
2135
2136
2137
Average

-20747.
-6902.
-21448.
-14125.
-3070.
-12537.
-5615.
-3132.
-2868.
2529.
366.
6685.
-6704.
592.
-7842.
-5698.

64040.
30253.
67080.
51093.
68058.
67510.
43098.
45764.
45109.
41470.
37054.
30103.
43800.
67405.
52769.
45879.

44250.
43524.
38583.
32419.
31597.
25415.
25197.
25776.
25269.
28536.
30583.
36923.
36121.
34359.
29678.
37289.

87542.
66875.
84215.
69387.
96586.
80388.
62680.
68408.
67510.
72535.
68003.
73711.
73216.
102356.
74606.
77471.

61067.
71047.
52688.
51494.
80160.
48235.
49456.
53253.
49626.
66620.
66329.
78319.
58935.
80417.
53259.
65772.

1302.
1354.
1481.
1659.
1696.
2054.
2127.
2054.
2105.
1885.
1751.
1512.
1536.
1600.
1798.
1671.

5633.
5927.
7453.
9579.
10928.
16430.
14758.
13945.
14545.
11711.
10367.
7934.
7850.
9178.
11064.
10016.

68003.
78328.
61622.
62732.
92785.
66719.
66342.
69252.
66276.
80216.
78447.
87765.
68321.
91195.
66121.
77458.

19540.
-11454.
22593.
6656.
3801.
13669.
-3661.
-844.
1234.
-7681.
-10444.
-14054.
4895.
11161.
8485.
12.

19463.
-11388.
22601.
6690.
3733.
13628.
-3700.
-828.
1155.
-7654.
-10351.
-13888.
4944.
11125.
8434.
58.

Water budget for case NM_sce5n (App. E2 Table 10)


[1]
[2]+[3]
[4]
[5] [6]+[7]+[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[alt 12]
Model Year NES Bdry Rech&Wells Ocean In Total In Wells Out Stream Out Ocean Out Total Out In - Out Dstorage
2012
20538.
71776.
47101.
139415.
93287.
2182.
13632.
109102.
30314.
30303.
2013
1006.
52358.
32170.
85534.
63043.
2259.
16201.
81503.
4031.
4018.
2014
9824.
70622.
33001.
113448.
93404.
2275.
17261.
112939.
509.
488.
2015
1404.
51346.
31283.
84033.
63043.
2308.
17315.
82666.
1367.
1329.
2016
10750.
70077.
32512.
113339.
93442.
2331.
17917.
113689.
-350.
-313.
2017
2367.
50964.
30944.
84275.
63043.
2338.
17766.
83146.
1129.
1095.
2018
7774.
40680.
33300.
81754.
77352.
2308.
15725.
95385.
-13631.
-13608.
2019
12723.
27169.
41964.
81857.
90605.
1720.
10858.
103183.
-21326.
-21182.
2020
7723.
26296.
47309.
81328.
78102.
1515.
8272.
87889.
-6561.
-6526.
2021
3996.
22841.
50078.
76916.
76688.
1429.
7145.
85262.
-8346.
-8236.
2022
-1894.
39134.
52164.
89404.
78335.
1389.
6529.
86254.
3150.
3197.
2023
-3308.
35612.
52426.
84730.
80968.
1363.
6536.
88867.
-4137.
-4053.
2024
2637.
30525.
57302.
90464.
92533.
1292.
5443.
99268.
-8804.
-8769.
2025
535.
28573.
62892.
92000.
92358.
1228.
4250.
97836.
-5837.
-5678.
2026
-8751.
26990.
64355.
82595.
78102.
1219.
4055.
83376.
-781.
-743.
2027
-11826.
23207.
65334.
76714.
76696.
1218.
3917.
81831.
-5116.
-5004.
2028
-16426.
38726.
66257.
88557.
78610.
1213.
3773.
83595.
4962.
5054.
2029
-16406.
34690.
65695.
83979.
82062.
1208.
3904.
87174.
-3195.
-3048.
2030
-14163.
61462.
65384.
112684.
104777.
1199.
4118.
110093.
2590.
2841.
2031
-24539.
45801.
62281.
83543.
73679.
1192.
4356.
79226.
4316.
4451.
2032
-16825.
67386.
59661.
110222.
100229.
1218.
5054.
106501.
3722.
3907.
2033
-24961.
51313.
56221.
82573.
70453.
1238.
5512.
77203.
5370.
5434.
2034
-18199.
78819.
52495.
113115.
93447.
1322.
6666.
101436.
11679.
11669.
2035
-28537.
78264.
42632.
92360.
60910.
1602.
10116.
72628.
19732.
19742.
2036
-14795.
56588.
37548.
79341.
60075.
1814.
12040.
73929.
5412.
5366.
2037
-333.
77013.
36802.
113481.
93182.
1888.
13664.
108734.
4747.
4690.
2038
-9823.
74965.
29682.
94824.
56795.
2642.
20364.
79801.
15023.
14960.
2039
-293.
58654.
28270.
86631.
59822.
2523.
21641.
83986.
2645.
2575.
2040
5035.
42360.
29414.
76809.
60080.
2453.
19550.
82084.
-5275.
-5365.
2041
14663.
68418.
31584.
114665.
93616.
2446.
19257.
115319.
-654.
-635.
2042
2408.
68969.
26498.
97875.
58023.
3914.
24975.
86912.
10963.
10904.
2043
8717.
54340.
26123.
89180.
60725.
3347.
24894.
88966.
215.
169.
2044
11933.
38836.
27788.
78557.
60380.
2739.
21878.
84997.
-6440.
-6594.
2045
19733.
66294.
30272.
116299.
93992.
2793.
20979.
117765.
-1465.
-1430.
2046
6367.
67279.
25651.
99296.
58542.
4467.
26378.
89388.
9909.
9864.
2047
20973.
65397.
28690.
115059.
94616.
3178.
23552.
121346.
-6286.
-6251.
2048
11074.
45946.
28320.
85340.
63075.
2606.
21549.
87230.
-1890.
-1909.
2049
18354.
66658.
30363.
115376.
93832.
2723.
21009.
117564.
-2188.
-2190.
2050
8355.
47896.
29307.
85558.
63043.
2498.
20148.
85688.
-131.
-153.
2051
12668.
48465.
31482.
92614.
78268.
2398.
17992.
98658.
-6043.
-5955.
2052
11601.
50758.
33668.
96028.
81335.
2317.
15964.
99617.
-3589.
-3583.
2053
4997.
52434.
33340.
90771.
68692.
2115.
15640.
86447.
4324.
4301.
2054
7069.
47612.
33836.
88518.
77351.
2240.
14939.
94530.
-6012.
-5991.
2055
10574.
28383.
40817.
79774.
91544.
1751.
11251.
104547.
-24773.
-24683.
2056
7770.
26206.
46593.
80569.
78102.
1539.
8453.
88095.
-7526.
-7496.
2057
4434.
22804.
49557.
76795.
76688.
1447.
7280.
85414.
-8620.
-8519.
2058
-1299.
39159.
51703.
89563.
78449.
1404.
6643.
86496.
3067.
3102.
1374.
6624.
89475.
-4219.
-4148.
2059
-2420.
35615.
52062.
85256.
81477.

2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
2066
2067
2068
2069
2070
2071
2072
2073
2074
Average

-16622.
-2429.
-15410.
-7205.
4117.
-6250.
3064.
4728.
4158.
10504.
7734.
9701.
-519.
8534.
-1813.
881.

71214.
34972.
73886.
52481.
74282.
72568.
42759.
47114.
46349.
43929.
46403.
37246.
49598.
74798.
54473.
50758.

47092.
46663.
41248.
35381.
35203.
28737.
29731.
30423.
29757.
33413.
34722.
39485.
38894.
37063.
33133.
40716.

101684.
79206.
99725.
80658.
113602.
95056.
75554.
82265.
80264.
87845.
88859.
86432.
87973.
120395.
85793.
92354.

71443.
81656.
61182.
60068.
93283.
57103.
59164.
63043.
57763.
77686.
77138.
89951.
68631.
93517.
63043.
76374.

1491.
1528.
1761.
1997.
2043.
3003.
2507.
2433.
2526.
2231.
2095.
1809.
1853.
1952.
2163.
2041.

8124.
8401.
10642.
13260.
14827.
21378.
18779.
17858.
18574.
15359.
14095.
11713.
11499.
13533.
15358.
13435.

81058.
91585.
73586.
75325.
110153.
81484.
80449.
83334.
78863.
95276.
93328.
103472.
81982.
109002.
80564.
91849.

20625.
-12380.
26139.
5333.
3449.
13572.
-4895.
-1069.
1401.
-7430.
-4469.
-17039.
5991.
11393.
5229.
505.

20517.
-12346.
26084.
5270.
3394.
13508.
-4954.
-1038.
1333.
-7408.
-4474.
-17019.
6002.
11365.
5165.
521.

Water budget for case NM_sce5ncb (App. E2 Table 11)


[1]
[2]+[3]
[4]
[5] [6]+[7]+[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[alt 12]
Model Year NES Bdry Rech&Wells Ocean In Total In Wells Out Stream Out Ocean Out Total Out In - Out Dstorage
2012
20354.
72476.
46914.
139744.
93287.
2182.
13701.
109171.
30574.
30563.
2013
712.
53058.
31940.
85711.
63043.
2259.
16325.
81627.
4084.
4070.
2014
9504.
71322.
32772.
113598.
93404.
2275.
17400.
113079.
520.
502.
2015
1078.
52046.
31054.
84178.
63043.
2308.
17457.
82808.
1369.
1333.
2016
10424.
70777.
32283.
113485.
93442.
2331.
18062.
113834.
-349.
-312.
2017
2041.
51664.
30715.
84420.
63043.
2338.
17911.
83292.
1128.
1095.
2018
7444.
41380.
33052.
81876.
77352.
2308.
15851.
95512.
-13635.
-13607.
2019
12397.
27869.
41675.
81942.
90605.
1720.
10943.
103268.
-21327.
-21182.
2020
7397.
26996.
47001.
81394.
78102.
1515.
8338.
87955.
-6561.
-6526.
2021
3670.
23541.
49764.
76975.
76688.
1429.
7204.
85321.
-8346.
-8236.
2022
-2220.
39834.
51846.
89460.
78335.
1389.
6585.
86310.
3150.
3197.
2023
-3634.
36312.
52109.
84787.
80968.
1363.
6593.
88924.
-4137.
-4053.
2024
2311.
31225.
56974.
90510.
92533.
1292.
5490.
99315.
-8805.
-8769.
2025
208.
29273.
62551.
92032.
92358.
1228.
4283.
97869.
-5837.
-5679.
2026
-9077.
27690.
64011.
82625.
78102.
1219.
4085.
83406.
-781.
-743.
2027
-12152.
23907.
64988.
76742.
76696.
1218.
3945.
81858.
-5116.
-5004.
2028
-16752.
39426.
65911.
88586.
78610.
1213.
3801.
83623.
4963.
5054.
2029
-16732.
35390.
65351.
84008.
82062.
1208.
3933.
87203.
-3195.
-3048.
2030
-14488.
62162.
65046.
112719.
104777.
1199.
4154.
110129.
2590.
2841.
2031
-24866.
46501.
61944.
83578.
73679.
1192.
4392.
79263.
4315.
4451.
2032
-17151.
68086.
59333.
110268.
100229.
1218.
5099.
106546.
3722.
3907.
2033
-25287.
52013.
55897.
82623.
70453.
1238.
5562.
77253.
5370.
5434.
2034
-18525.
79519.
52180.
113175.
93447.
1322.
6726.
101496.
11679.
11669.
2035
-28862.
78964.
42353.
92455.
60910.
1602.
10210.
72722.
19732.
19742.
2036
-15121.
57288.
37276.
79443.
60075.
1814.
12142.
74031.
5412.
5366.
2037
-659.
77713.
36546.
113600.
93182.
1888.
13783.
108853.
4747.
4690.
2038
-10148.
75665.
29470.
94987.
56795.
2642.
20526.
79963.
15023.
14960.
2039
-619.
59354.
28066.
86800.
59822.
2523.
21811.
84156.
2644.
2575.
2040
4703.
43060.
29197.
76959.
60080.
2453.
19708.
82241.
-5282.
-5365.
2041
14336.
69118.
31362.
114816.
93616.
2446.
19409.
115471.
-655.
-636.
2042
2081.
69669.
26304.
98054.
58023.
3914.
25155.
87092.
10962.
10904.
2043
8394.
55040.
25928.
89362.
60725.
3347.
25072.
89144.
218.
169.
2044
11609.
39536.
27576.
78721.
60380.
2739.
22041.
85159.
-6438.
-6594.
2045
19408.
66994.
30054.
116456.
93992.
2793.
21136.
117921.
-1465.
-1430.
2046
6040.
67979.
25462.
99481.
58542.
4467.
26563.
89573.
9909.
9864.
2047
20651.
66097.
28483.
115231.
94616.
3178.
23718.
121512.
-6281.
-6250.
2048
10744.
46646.
28105.
85495.
63075.
2606.
21709.
87390.
-1894.
-1909.
2049
18024.
67358.
30145.
115527.
93832.
2723.
21165.
117720.
-2193.
-2190.
2050
8030.
48596.
29087.
85712.
63043.
2498.
20302.
85842.
-130.
-153.
2051
12341.
49165.
31250.
92756.
78268.
2398.
18134.
98800.
-6044.
-5955.
2052
11274.
51458.
33420.
96153.
81335.
2317.
16090.
99743.
-3590.
-3583.
2053
4671.
53134.
33097.
90902.
68692.
2115.
15771.
86578.
4324.
4301.
2054
6743.
48312.
33582.
88638.
77351.
2240.
15059.
94650.
-6012.
-5990.
2055
10248.
29083.
40532.
79863.
91544.
1751.
11340.
104635.
-24773.
-24683.
2056
7444.
26906.
46286.
80636.
78102.
1539.
8521.
88162.
-7526.
-7496.
2057
4108.
23504.
49244.
76855.
76688.
1447.
7340.
85475.
-8620.
-8519.
2058
-1625.
39859.
51386.
89620.
78449.
1404.
6700.
86553.
3067.
3102.
-4219.
-4148.
2059
-2746.
36315.
51745.
85314.
81477.
1374.
6682.
89532.

2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
2066
2067
2068
2069
2070
2071
2072
2073
2074
Average

-16949.
-2755.
-15736.
-7538.
3793.
-6576.
2741.
4399.
3835.
10182.
7410.
9376.
-845.
8207.
-2139.
558.

71914.
35672.
74586.
53181.
74982.
73268.
43460.
47814.
47049.
44629.
47103.
37946.
50298.
75498.
55173.
51458.

46788.
46359.
40970.
35120.
34958.
28532.
29508.
30195.
29533.
33160.
34460.
39203.
38613.
36805.
32892.
40450.

101753.
79276.
99820.
80763.
113733.
95224.
75709.
82408.
80417.
87971.
88973.
86525.
88066.
120510.
85927.
92466.

71443.
81656.
61182.
60068.
93283.
57103.
59164.
63043.
57763.
77686.
77138.
89951.
68631.
93517.
63043.
76374.

1491.
1528.
1761.
1997.
2043.
3003.
2507.
2433.
2526.
2231.
2095.
1809.
1853.
1952.
2163.
2041.

8194.
8471.
10738.
13374.
14955.
21546.
18930.
18004.
18725.
15480.
14208.
11805.
11592.
13649.
15492.
13541.

81128.
91655.
73681.
75438.
110281.
81652.
80600.
83480.
79013.
95397.
93441.
103564.
82076.
109118.
80697.
91956.

20625.
-12380.
26139.
5325.
3452.
13572.
-4892.
-1072.
1404.
-7425.
-4467.
-17039.
5991.
11393.
5229.
510.

20517.
-12346.
26084.
5270.
3394.
13508.
-4954.
-1037.
1332.
-7409.
-4474.
-17019.
6002.
11365.
5165.
526.

Water budget for case NM_sce5nc (App. E2 Table 12)


[1]
[2]+[3]
[4]
[5] [6]+[7]+[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[alt 12]
Model Year NES Bdry Rech&Wells Ocean In Total In Wells Out Stream Out Ocean Out Total Out In - Out Dstorage
2012
20447.
72476.
46712.
139635.
93287.
2182.
13709.
109179.
30457.
30446.
2013
862.
53058.
31756.
85677.
63043.
2259.
16320.
81622.
4055.
4041.
2014
9668.
71322.
32593.
113583.
93404.
2275.
17393.
113071.
512.
495.
2015
1245.
52046.
30875.
84166.
63043.
2308.
17448.
82799.
1367.
1331.
2016
10596.
70777.
32107.
113480.
93442.
2331.
18053.
113825.
-345.
-312.
2017
2209.
51664.
30537.
84410.
63043.
2338.
17902.
83282.
1128.
1095.
2018
7617.
41380.
32873.
81870.
77352.
2308.
15839.
95499.
-13629.
-13608.
2019
12565.
27869.
41492.
81927.
90605.
1720.
10928.
103254.
-21326.
-21182.
2020
7565.
26996.
46818.
81379.
78102.
1515.
8322.
87940.
-6561.
-6526.
2021
3838.
23541.
49581.
76961.
76688.
1429.
7190.
85307.
-8346.
-8236.
2022
-2052.
39834.
51663.
89446.
78335.
1389.
6571.
86296.
3150.
3197.
2023
-3466.
36312.
51927.
84773.
80968.
1363.
6579.
88910.
-4137.
-4053.
2024
2479.
31225.
56794.
90498.
92533.
1292.
5478.
99303.
-8804.
-8769.
2025
376.
29273.
62374.
92023.
92358.
1228.
4274.
97860.
-5837.
-5678.
2026
-8909.
27690.
63835.
82617.
78102.
1219.
4077.
83398.
-781.
-743.
2027
-11984.
23907.
64812.
76734.
76696.
1218.
3937.
81851.
-5117.
-5004.
2028
-16584.
39426.
65736.
88578.
78610.
1213.
3793.
83616.
4962.
5054.
2029
-16563.
35390.
65175.
84002.
82062.
1208.
3926.
87195.
-3194.
-3048.
2030
-14319.
62162.
64868.
112711.
104777.
1199.
4144.
110119.
2591.
2841.
2031
-24698.
46501.
61765.
83568.
73679.
1192.
4382.
79252.
4316.
4451.
2032
-16982.
68086.
59153.
110256.
100229.
1218.
5087.
106534.
3723.
3907.
2033
-25119.
52013.
55716.
82610.
70453.
1238.
5549.
77240.
5370.
5434.
2034
-18357.
79519.
51999.
113161.
93447.
1322.
6713.
101482.
11679.
11669.
2035
-28695.
78964.
42171.
92441.
60910.
1602.
10196.
72708.
19732.
19742.
2036
-14953.
57288.
37095.
79431.
60075.
1814.
12130.
74018.
5413.
5366.
2037
-491.
77713.
36367.
113589.
93182.
1888.
13772.
108842.
4747.
4690.
2038
-9980.
75665.
29300.
94984.
56795.
2642.
20523.
79961.
15023.
14960.
2039
-452.
59354.
27895.
86797.
59822.
2523.
21809.
84154.
2642.
2575.
2040
4872.
43060.
29022.
76953.
60080.
2453.
19701.
82234.
-5281.
-5365.
2041
14505.
69118.
31186.
114809.
93616.
2446.
19402.
115464.
-655.
-635.
2042
2250.
69669.
26138.
98057.
58023.
3914.
25158.
87095.
10963.
10904.
2043
8562.
55040.
25759.
89362.
60725.
3347.
25072.
89144.
218.
169.
2044
11776.
39536.
27402.
78714.
60380.
2739.
22034.
85153.
-6439.
-6593.
2045
19578.
66994.
29880.
116452.
93992.
2793.
21129.
117914.
-1462.
-1430.
2046
6209.
67979.
25299.
99486.
58542.
4467.
26568.
89577.
9909.
9864.
2047
20814.
66097.
28311.
115223.
94616.
3178.
23716.
121509.
-6287.
-6250.
2048
10914.
46646.
27931.
85491.
63075.
2606.
21702.
87383.
-1892.
-1910.
2049
18190.
67358.
29970.
115518.
93832.
2723.
21159.
117714.
-2196.
-2190.
2050
8197.
48596.
28910.
85703.
63043.
2498.
20294.
85834.
-131.
-153.
2051
12508.
49165.
31071.
92744.
78268.
2398.
18124.
98790.
-6046.
-5954.
2052
11443.
51458.
33240.
96141.
81335.
2317.
16078.
99731.
-3590.
-3583.
2053
4838.
53134.
32916.
90888.
68692.
2115.
15758.
86566.
4323.
4301.
2054
6911.
48312.
33402.
88625.
77351.
2240.
15046.
94637.
-6012.
-5991.
2055
10416.
29083.
40350.
79849.
91544.
1751.
11326.
104621.
-24773.
-24683.
2056
7612.
26906.
46103.
80621.
78102.
1539.
8505.
88147.
-7526.
-7496.
2057
4276.
23504.
49061.
76841.
76688.
1447.
7326.
85461.
-8620.
-8519.
2058
-1457.
39859.
51204.
89606.
78449.
1404.
6686.
86539.
3067.
3102.
2059
-2578.
36315.
51563.
85299.
81477.
1374.
6668.
89518.
-4219.
-4148.

2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
2066
2067
2068
2069
2070
2071
2072
2073
2074
Average

-16781.
-2587.
-15568.
-7363.
3964.
-6408.
2909.
4566.
3997.
10350.
7576.
9544.
-677.
8376.
-1971.
724.

71914.
35672.
74586.
53181.
74982.
73268.
43460.
47814.
47049.
44629.
47103.
37946.
50298.
75498.
55173.
51458.

46604.
46176.
40788.
34940.
34780.
28363.
29332.
30017.
29357.
32980.
34279.
39021.
38430.
36624.
32712.
40272.

101737.
79260.
99806.
80759.
113725.
95222.
75700.
82397.
80402.
87959.
88959.
86512.
88052.
120498.
85915.
92454.

71443.
81656.
61182.
60068.
93283.
57103.
59164.
63043.
57763.
77686.
77138.
89951.
68631.
93517.
63043.
76374.

1491.
1528.
1761.
1997.
2043.
3003.
2507.
2433.
2526.
2231.
2095.
1809.
1853.
1952.
2163.
2041.

8178.
8456.
10724.
13361.
14945.
21546.
18921.
17995.
18716.
15467.
14195.
11791.
11577.
13636.
15480.
13531.

81112.
91640.
73667.
75426.
110271.
81651.
80592.
83471.
79005.
95384.
93428.
103550.
82061.
109106.
80686.
91946.

20625.
-12380.
26139.
5333.
3454.
13571.
-4892.
-1073.
1397.
-7426.
-4469.
-17039.
5991.
11393.
5229.
508.

20517.
-12346.
26084.
5270.
3394.
13508.
-4954.
-1037.
1333.
-7410.
-4474.
-17019.
6002.
11365.
5165.
523.

Water budget for case NM_sce5f (App. E2 Table 13)


[1]
[2]+[3]
[4]
[5] [6]+[7]+[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[alt 12]
Model Year NES Bdry Rech&Wells Ocean In Total In Wells Out Stream Out Ocean Out Total Out In - Out Dstorage
2012
6086.
64922.
54597.
125604.
92449.
1827.
9605.
103881.
21723.
21666.
2013
-6357.
49890.
40620.
84152.
68264.
1909.
11201.
81374.
2778.
2772.
2014
1370.
65063.
40640.
107073.
92449.
1890.
11819.
106158.
915.
851.
2015
-5048.
48598.
39407.
82958.
68264.
1960.
11854.
82078.
880.
894.
2016
2657.
64444.
39873.
106973.
92477.
1927.
12285.
106689.
284.
269.
2017
-3943.
48136.
38801.
82994.
68264.
1988.
12201.
82453.
541.
587.
2018
853.
30040.
41799.
72691.
78276.
1968.
10830.
91075.
-18383.
-18365.
2019
8266.
22329.
52251.
82846.
91473.
1502.
7172.
100147.
-17301.
-17163.
2020
2382.
21774.
57552.
81708.
80338.
1372.
5632.
87341.
-5634.
-5589.
2021
-1755.
19321.
60377.
77943.
79000.
1316.
5001.
85317.
-7374.
-7263.
2022
-6751.
32538.
62840.
88627.
80403.
1278.
4539.
86220.
2407.
2505.
2023
-8518.
29410.
63334.
84226.
82733.
1265.
4514.
88513.
-4288.
-4150.
2024
-3451.
24555.
68433.
89536.
93075.
1232.
3821.
98128.
-8592.
-8508.
2025
-5224.
23408.
73802.
91985.
92839.
1213.
3129.
97181.
-5196.
-4985.
2026
-13589.
22357.
75089.
83858.
80338.
1211.
3048.
84597.
-739.
-628.
2027
-16946.
19656.
75923.
78632.
79008.
1211.
2983.
83202.
-4570.
-4399.
2028
-20734.
32100.
77205.
88572.
80677.
1208.
2829.
84714.
3858.
4006.
2029
-21180.
28966.
76925.
84711.
83826.
1201.
2878.
87905.
-3194.
-3002.
2030
-19211.
51711.
77116.
109616.
103905.
1185.
2888.
107978.
1637.
1906.
2031
-28350.
37617.
74644.
83912.
76187.
1188.
3042.
80416.
3495.
3651.
2032
-21948.
55315.
72474.
105841.
99362.
1192.
3305.
103860.
1982.
2213.
2033
-29449.
42366.
69706.
82623.
73217.
1188.
3533.
77938.
4684.
4805.
2034
-24855.
64752.
66156.
106053.
92582.
1216.
4046.
97845.
8208.
8325.
2035
-37537.
71589.
56668.
90721.
65329.
1342.
5856.
72527.
18194.
18240.
2036
-26316.
55304.
50730.
79717.
64249.
1495.
7092.
72836.
6881.
6913.
2037
-10886.
70590.
48311.
108015.
92476.
1568.
8268.
102312.
5703.
5704.
2038
-18254.
71210.
39835.
92791.
62236.
1832.
12391.
76459.
16332.
16321.
2039
-10630.
57517.
37180.
84066.
65329.
1960.
13644.
80933.
3133.
3107.
2040
-6300.
43901.
37693.
75294.
64244.
2022.
12722.
78988.
-3694.
-3750.
2041
3306.
64107.
39414.
106827.
92500.
1889.
12649.
107039.
-212.
-198.
2042
-6218.
63583.
34281.
91646.
62741.
2244.
16573.
81557.
10088.
10039.
2043
-1083.
52349.
33603.
84869.
65413.
2178.
16840.
84432.
437.
412.
2044
1320.
40301.
34816.
76437.
64244.
2192.
15095.
81531.
-5094.
-5158.
2045
9412.
61414.
37157.
107983.
92611.
2061.
14514.
109186.
-1203.
-1206.
2046
-1391.
61461.
32768.
92838.
62949.
2494.
18300.
83743.
9095.
9029.
2047
10553.
60067.
35352.
105973.
92858.
2168.
16568.
111594.
-5622.
-5572.
2048
3257.
44935.
35445.
83638.
68264.
2169.
14990.
85424.
-1786.
-1816.
2049
9596.
61390.
37039.
108025.
92592.
2089.
14756.
109436.
-1412.
-1416.
2050
1584.
46140.
36381.
84106.
68264.
2118.
14036.
84419.
-313.
-333.
2051
4887.
45944.
38174.
89004.
78859.
2098.
12841.
93798.
-4793.
-4748.
2052
4514.
46738.
40472.
91724.
81941.
2051.
11597.
95589.
-3865.
-3838.
2053
-812.
47394.
41165.
87747.
71124.
1865.
11099.
84088.
3659.
3694.
2054
753.
43226.
41429.
85408.
78270.
1990.
10826.
91087.
-5678.
-5621.
2055
5897.
22659.
49089.
77646.
92026.
1598.
8132.
101756.
-24110.
-23946.
2056
3640.
21636.
55422.
80699.
80338.
1416.
6119.
87873.
-7175.
-7122.
2057
-305.
19253.
58693.
77640.
79000.
1348.
5339.
85687.
-8047.
-7929.
2058
-5204.
32599.
61353.
88749.
80515.
1308.
4799.
86622.
2127.
2226.
2059
-6841.
29537.
62057.
84752.
83243.
1284.
4732.
89258.
-4506.
-4378.

2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
2066
2067
2068
2069
2070
2071
2072
2073
2074
Average

-21447.
-7563.
-21916.
-14489.
-3829.
-12634.
-5474.
-2916.
-3288.
2119.
-554.
5800.
-7413.
-111.
-7735.
-6194.

64019.
30208.
66870.
51122.
68044.
67339.
43225.
45726.
45179.
41718.
37137.
30108.
43751.
67453.
52393.
45848.

57283.
56650.
51558.
45325.
43998.
36995.
37639.
38556.
37526.
41260.
43557.
49898.
49383.
47154.
42864.
50059.

99855.
79296.
96512.
81957.
108212.
91700.
75391.
81366.
79417.
85098.
80140.
85806.
85721.
114497.
87522.
89713.

73510.
83386.
65492.
64245.
92516.
62495.
64766.
68264.
62939.
79354.
78680.
90552.
71398.
92651.
68269.
78564.

1355.
1390.
1532.
1706.
1754.
2060.
2107.
2032.
2107.
1922.
1798.
1556.
1585.
1661.
1816.
1692.

5718.
5869.
7312.
9080.
10089.
14218.
12790.
12153.
12731.
10797.
9762.
7736.
7720.
8843.
10225.
9158.

80582.
90645.
74335.
75032.
104359.
78774.
79662.
82449.
77777.
92073.
90240.
99843.
80703.
103155.
80310.
89415.

19273.
-11349.
22177.
6926.
3853.
12927.
-4272.
-1082.
1640.
-6975.
-10100.
-14037.
5018.
11342.
7212.
299.

19216.
-11276.
22200.
6915.
3791.
12883.
-4355.
-1042.
1560.
-6943.
-9994.
-13872.
5074.
11306.
7193.
345.

Water budget for case NM_sce6sn (App. E2 Table 15)


[1]
[2]+[3]
[4]
[5] [6]+[7]+[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[alt 12]
Model Year NES Bdry Rech&Wells Ocean In Total In Wells Out Stream Out Ocean Out Total Out In - Out Dstorage
2012
24239.
71814.
52243.
148296.
106832.
2173.
13013.
122019.
26277.
26261.
2013
5740.
52434.
38507.
96681.
75798.
2233.
14834.
92865.
3816.
3765.
2014
14830.
70570.
39680.
125080.
106932.
2273.
15937.
125141.
-61.
-44.
2015
6417.
51501.
37771.
95688.
75767.
2294.
15828.
93890.
1799.
1747.
2016
15947.
69936.
39220.
125103.
106996.
2343.
16541.
125880.
-777.
-750.
2017
7445.
50983.
37453.
95882.
75823.
2324.
16257.
94404.
1477.
1423.
2018
13396.
40368.
39890.
93654.
92118.
2266.
14184.
108568.
-14914.
-14868.
2019
18279.
27220.
48495.
93994.
104389.
1663.
8867.
114920.
-20925.
-20780.
2020
13139.
26320.
53952.
93411.
91870.
1468.
6467.
99804.
-6393.
-6366.
2021
9261.
22826.
56961.
89048.
90458.
1383.
5642.
97483.
-8435.
-8313.
2022
3422.
39115.
59133.
101670.
92104.
1342.
5090.
98536.
3134.
3180.
2023
1982.
35584.
59428.
96994.
94737.
1320.
5113.
101170.
-4176.
-4081.
2024
7902.
30516.
64683.
103101.
106302.
1272.
4349.
111924.
-8823.
-8784.
2025
5855.
28599.
70645.
105099.
106127.
1222.
3485.
110834.
-5735.
-5608.
2026
-3435.
27010.
72104.
95678.
91870.
1216.
3312.
96397.
-719.
-669.
2027
-6681.
23206.
73110.
89635.
90466.
1216.
3226.
94908.
-5273.
-5162.
2028
-11191.
38711.
74131.
101651.
92378.
1208.
3097.
96683.
4968.
5030.
2029
-11154.
34692.
73525.
97063.
95831.
1205.
3207.
100243.
-3180.
-3053.
2030
-8986.
61473.
73089.
125576.
118297.
1195.
3349.
122841.
2735.
2977.
2031
-19455.
45826.
69851.
96222.
87201.
1189.
3541.
91930.
4291.
4419.
2032
-11686.
67338.
67142.
122794.
113752.
1212.
4077.
119041.
3753.
3930.
2033
-19856.
51289.
63499.
94933.
83984.
1207.
4383.
89574.
5358.
5432.
2034
-13141.
78801.
59600.
125260.
106969.
1284.
5326.
113578.
11681.
11673.
2035
-23461.
78334.
49128.
104001.
74550.
1542.
8177.
84269.
19732.
19734.
2036
-9621.
56791.
44331.
91501.
73863.
1748.
10447.
86058.
5442.
5397.
2037
4790.
76959.
43746.
125496.
106720.
1839.
12248.
120807.
4689.
4643.
2038
-4581.
75287.
36869.
107576.
70502.
2657.
19188.
92348.
15228.
15160.
2039
4986.
58774.
35352.
99111.
73702.
2575.
20402.
96680.
2432.
2389.
2040
10321.
42561.
36424.
89306.
73863.
2432.
18170.
94466.
-5160.
-5271.
2041
19856.
68616.
38417.
126889.
107160.
2455.
17797.
127412.
-522.
-475.
2042
7698.
69003.
33673.
110373.
71632.
4021.
23861.
99515.
10858.
10807.
2043
14077.
54479.
33178.
101734.
74531.
3460.
23628.
101619.
116.
71.
2044
17169.
39005.
34764.
90938.
74181.
2786.
20433.
97401.
-6463.
-6558.
2045
24953.
66405.
37128.
128485.
107492.
2835.
19468.
129796.
-1311.
-1293.
2046
11612.
67566.
32834.
112012.
72172.
4603.
25266.
102040.
9971.
9914.
2047
26067.
65526.
35548.
127141.
108144.
3266.
22087.
133497.
-6356.
-6306.
2048
16175.
46102.
34875.
97152.
75846.
2700.
20093.
98640.
-1488.
-1495.
2049
23388.
66806.
37025.
127218.
107420.
2792.
19600.
129812.
-2593.
-2534.
2050
13643.
47989.
35794.
97426.
75791.
2538.
18691.
97020.
406.
358.
2051
17817.
48334.
37777.
103929.
91801.
2380.
16305.
110487.
-6558.
-6487.
2052
16884.
50943.
39881.
107709.
94867.
2283.
14165.
111316.
-3607.
-3572.
2053
10334.
52305.
39644.
102284.
82240.
2054.
13760.
98054.
4229.
4210.
2054
12687.
47689.
40599.
100975.
92118.
2176.
13307.
107600.
-6625.
-6572.
2055
16190.
28302.
47607.
92100.
105313.
1692.
9472.
116477.
-24377.
-24305.
2056
13198.
26227.
53256.
92680.
91870.
1492.
6694.
100056.
-7376.
-7360.
2057
9650.
22786.
56444.
88880.
90457.
1399.
5771.
97628.
-8748.
-8640.
2058
3959.
39132.
58705.
101796.
92217.
1356.
5187.
98760.
3036.
3074.
2059
2821.
35599.
59112.
97532.
95246.
1329.
5200.
101775.
-4243.
-4176.

2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
2066
2067
2068
2069
2070
2071
2072
2073
2074
Average

-11438.
2639.
-10209.
-1963.
9485.
-996.
8013.
9821.
9562.
15744.
12979.
15088.
4730.
13761.
3251.
6085.

71156.
35149.
73874.
52672.
74189.
72953.
42492.
47044.
46357.
44124.
46196.
37233.
49686.
74923.
54466.
50796.

53738.
53316.
47658.
42139.
42082.
35886.
36325.
36998.
36658.
40036.
41109.
45991.
44958.
43489.
39431.
47556.

113456.
91105.
111323.
92848.
125755.
107842.
86830.
93862.
92577.
99905.
100284.
98312.
99374.
132174.
97148.
104437.

84969.
95174.
74822.
73855.
106799.
70764.
71446.
75803.
71371.
91264.
90677.
103476.
82159.
107038.
75755.
89938.

1429.
1485.
1694.
1925.
2007.
3099.
2517.
2458.
2548.
2192.
2048.
1758.
1793.
1906.
2129.
2030.

6291.
6770.
8673.
11705.
13429.
20278.
17467.
16542.
17365.
13775.
12442.
10032.
9495.
11745.
13717.
12036.

92689.
103429.
85189.
87485.
122234.
94141.
91430.
94804.
91285.
107230.
105167.
115267.
93447.
120689.
91601.
104004.

20767.
-12324.
26134.
5362.
3521.
13701.
-4600.
-941.
1292.
-7326.
-4883.
-16954.
5927.
11485.
5547.
433.

20647.
-12297.
26092.
5294.
3445.
13605.
-4664.
-929.
1196.
-7318.
-4893.
-16935.
5935.
11435.
5469.
447.

Water budget for case NM_sce7sf (App. E2 Table 16)


[1]
[2]+[3]
[4]
[5] [6]+[7]+[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[alt 12]
Model Year NES Bdry Rech&Wells Ocean In Total In Wells Out Stream Out Ocean Out Total Out In - Out Dstorage
2012
9760.
64722.
58937.
133420.
106333.
1781.
8027.
116142.
17278.
17265.
2013
-1815.
49980.
45885.
94050.
80083.
1879.
8983.
90944.
3106.
3077.
2014
6452.
65130.
46460.
118042.
106344.
1864.
9647.
117855.
187.
127.
2015
-262.
48691.
44807.
93237.
80083.
1935.
9573.
91591.
1646.
1635.
2016
7900.
64175.
45726.
117801.
106350.
1904.
10042.
118297.
-496.
-507.
2017
1027.
48055.
44230.
93312.
80153.
1960.
9854.
91967.
1345.
1336.
2018
6469.
29770.
47711.
83949.
93391.
1911.
8646.
103947.
-19998.
-19968.
2019
13878.
22384.
59058.
95320.
105603.
1448.
5316.
112368.
-17048.
-16911.
2020
7967.
21794.
64850.
94611.
94470.
1333.
4288.
100091.
-5480.
-5429.
2021
3669.
19319.
67806.
90794.
93133.
1290.
3894.
98316.
-7523.
-7411.
2022
-1248.
32524.
70443.
101718.
94539.
1246.
3538.
99323.
2396.
2492.
2023
-3112.
29443.
70941.
97272.
96865.
1245.
3520.
101631.
-4358.
-4233.
2024
1952.
24539.
76387.
102878.
107211.
1219.
3077.
111508.
-8629.
-8518.
2025
352.
23418.
81965.
105735.
106974.
1213.
2594.
110780.
-5045.
-4837.
2026
-7991.
22358.
83229.
97597.
94470.
1211.
2513.
98195.
-597.
-455.
2027
-11547.
19642.
83961.
92056.
93141.
1211.
2470.
96823.
-4767.
-4562.
2028
-15143.
32069.
85337.
102263.
94813.
1205.
2349.
98367.
3896.
4035.
2029
-15682.
28978.
85000.
98297.
97958.
1201.
2392.
101551.
-3254.
-3059.
2030
-13755.
51771.
85147.
123162.
117790.
1182.
2384.
121356.
1806.
2084.
2031
-22918.
37704.
82535.
97320.
90077.
1188.
2528.
93793.
3527.
3667.
2032
-16501.
55311.
80355.
119165.
113248.
1189.
2718.
117154.
2011.
2238.
2033
-24072.
42320.
77525.
95773.
87100.
1185.
2906.
91191.
4582.
4718.
2034
-19429.
64619.
73930.
119120.
106467.
1197.
3254.
110918.
8202.
8322.
2035
-32318.
71691.
63680.
103053.
78886.
1295.
4397.
84579.
18475.
18519.
2036
-21166.
55447.
57584.
91865.
78093.
1442.
5616.
85150.
6715.
6751.
2037
-5668.
70578.
55161.
120070.
106360.
1518.
6664.
114543.
5527.
5539.
2038
-13338.
71275.
45634.
103572.
74549.
1809.
10214.
86572.
17000.
16945.
2039
-5727.
57210.
42871.
94354.
77929.
1952.
11482.
91363.
2991.
2946.
2040
-1197.
44078.
43781.
86663.
78084.
1965.
10580.
90629.
-3967.
-4055.
2041
8728.
64316.
45520.
118564.
106369.
1838.
10400.
118606.
-42.
-41.
2042
-1484.
63610.
39788.
101914.
74949.
2268.
14239.
91456.
10458.
10410.
2043
3743.
52352.
39127.
95222.
78011.
2204.
14542.
94758.
464.
414.
2044
6562.
40238.
40710.
87510.
78084.
2161.
12785.
93029.
-5519.
-5570.
2045
14733.
61457.
43105.
119296.
106483.
2020.
12059.
120563.
-1267.
-1246.
2046
3473.
61466.
38240.
103179.
75175.
2571.
15846.
93592.
9587.
9534.
2047
15775.
60043.
41118.
116936.
106756.
2152.
14037.
122945.
-6010.
-6000.
2048
8100.
44856.
40743.
93699.
80083.
2160.
12527.
94770.
-1071.
-1073.
2049
14883.
61217.
42678.
118778.
106491.
2065.
12326.
120882.
-2104.
-2086.
2050
6535.
46033.
41665.
94234.
80083.
2101.
11602.
93786.
448.
429.
2051
10050.
45944.
43661.
99656.
92744.
2055.
10444.
105243.
-5587.
-5539.
2052
9972.
46676.
46251.
102899.
95843.
1986.
9158.
106987.
-4088.
-4080.
2053
4667.
47449.
46842.
98958.
85007.
1782.
8478.
95267.
3691.
3733.
2054
6607.
43218.
47633.
97459.
93385.
1898.
8509.
103792.
-6333.
-6287.
2055
11554.
22767.
55941.
90262.
106160.
1535.
6246.
113941.
-23679.
-23510.
2056
9225.
21652.
62604.
93482.
94470.
1372.
4654.
100496.
-7015.
-6970.
2057
5043.
19248.
66039.
90330.
93133.
1316.
4126.
98574.
-8244.
-8115.
2058
207.
32582.
68931.
101721.
94651.
1266.
3711.
99627.
2094.
2196.
-4465.
2059
-1506.
29532.
69670.
97695.
97375.
1261.
3668.
102303.
-4608.

2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
2066
2067
2068
2069
2070
2071
2072
2073
2074
Average

-16201.
-2354.
-16903.
-9412.
1465.
-7779.
-977.
1659.
1744.
7195.
5094.
11233.
-2164.
5150.
-2924.
-980.

63985.
30101.
67110.
51217.
68069.
67260.
43170.
45693.
45119.
41531.
37063.
30140.
43771.
67367.
52601.
45839.

64532.
63910.
58220.
51675.
50466.
42618.
42996.
43884.
43245.
47345.
49626.
56550.
55666.
53430.
48381.
56567.

112316.
91657.
108426.
93480.
119999.
102099.
85189.
91236.
90108.
96070.
91783.
97923.
97273.
125946.
98058.
101426.

87393.
97272.
79158.
78085.
106400.
74693.
75949.
80083.
76243.
93229.
92564.
104436.
85278.
106535.
80091.
92114.

1297.
1347.
1473.
1645.
1690.
2038.
2112.
2030.
2087.
1868.
1739.
1506.
1527.
1598.
1781.
1662.

4214.
4526.
5283.
7033.
8052.
11875.
10751.
10108.
10654.
8700.
7600.
5907.
5667.
6551.
7871.
7422.

92905.
103145.
85914.
86763.
116142.
88605.
88812.
92221.
88984.
103796.
101903.
111849.
92472.
114685.
89743.
101198.

19411.
-11488.
22512.
6717.
3856.
13494.
-3623.
-985.
1124.
-7727.
-10120.
-13926.
4801.
11262.
8315.
227.

19327.
-11401.
22520.
6765.
3762.
13448.
-3643.
-962.
1050.
-7686.
-10026.
-13767.
4859.
11217.
8265.
273.

Water budget for case NM_sce7srf (App. E2 Table 17)


[1]
[2]+[3]
[4]
[5] [6]+[7]+[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[alt 12]
Model Year NES Bdry Rech&Wells Ocean In Total In Wells Out Stream Out Ocean Out Total Out In - Out Dstorage
2075
794.
64685.
31218.
96696.
80093.
1795.
10690.
92577.
4119.
4098.
2076
-6462.
50073.
27732.
71342.
53253.
1901.
12411.
67565.
3777.
3763.
2077
1927.
65023.
28391.
95340.
80097.
1872.
13267.
95236.
104.
41.
2078
-5048.
48853.
26665.
70470.
53251.
1958.
13367.
68576.
1894.
1873.
2079
3293.
64271.
27717.
95281.
80106.
1915.
13867.
95888.
-607.
-644.
2080
-3846.
48190.
26179.
70523.
53321.
1987.
13774.
69081.
1441.
1412.
2081
1869.
29786.
29143.
60798.
67153.
1927.
11850.
80929.
-20131.
-20103.
2082
9344.
22383.
39262.
70989.
79363.
1457.
7238.
88059.
-17069.
-16929.
2083
3472.
21792.
44509.
69773.
68333.
1340.
5602.
75275.
-5502.
-5454.
2084
-855.
19317.
47260.
65722.
67014.
1295.
4977.
73285.
-7563.
-7447.
2085
-5774.
32520.
49776.
76523.
68420.
1253.
4476.
74148.
2375.
2471.
2086
-7638.
29422.
50301.
72085.
70747.
1251.
4474.
76471.
-4386.
-4265.
2087
-2577.
24538.
55497.
77458.
81094.
1224.
3789.
86106.
-8648.
-8518.
2088
-4195.
23418.
60864.
80088.
80855.
1213.
3085.
85153.
-5065.
-4844.
2089
-12531.
22361.
62127.
71957.
68333.
1211.
3007.
72551.
-594.
-440.
2090
-16021.
19642.
62824.
66445.
67021.
1211.
2954.
71187.
-4742.
-4537.
2091
-19632.
32062.
64151.
76581.
68694.
1205.
2796.
72695.
3886.
4023.
2092
-20166.
28972.
63845.
72651.
71839.
1201.
2860.
75900.
-3249.
-3065.
2093
-18250.
51763.
64004.
97517.
91671.
1183.
2875.
95728.
1789.
2053.
2094
-27448.
37770.
61393.
71715.
63961.
1188.
3023.
68172.
3543.
3683.
2095
-21009.
55311.
59311.
93613.
87131.
1190.
3299.
91620.
1993.
2219.
2096
-28717.
42331.
56493.
70107.
60759.
1185.
3520.
65464.
4643.
4780.
2097
-23974.
64575.
53111.
93712.
80349.
1199.
4023.
85571.
8141.
8254.
2098
-37018.
71662.
43534.
78177.
52416.
1302.
5914.
59633.
18544.
18586.
2099
-26021.
55560.
37553.
67091.
51501.
1454.
7330.
60285.
6807.
6857.
2100
-10389.
70672.
35547.
95830.
80120.
1524.
8758.
90403.
5428.
5441.
2101
-18106.
71478.
27853.
81224.
48070.
1820.
14156.
64046.
17178.
17157.
2102
-10492.
57227.
25334.
72069.
51336.
1966.
15765.
69067.
3002.
2965.
2103
-5893.
43985.
25714.
63806.
51493.
1979.
14314.
67786.
-3980.
-4038.
2104
4031.
64311.
27466.
95808.
80110.
1846.
14087.
96043.
-235.
-252.
2105
-6106.
63716.
23050.
80660.
48466.
2269.
19258.
69994.
10667.
10600.
2106
-933.
52459.
22325.
73851.
51423.
2220.
19649.
73292.
559.
523.
2107
1855.
40323.
23257.
65435.
51493.
2182.
17247.
70921.
-5486.
-5546.
2108
10065.
61426.
25542.
97034.
80232.
2029.
16303.
98564.
-1530.
-1561.
2109
-1205.
61651.
21806.
82252.
48684.
2575.
21243.
72503.
9750.
9691.
2110
11317.
59904.
24123.
95344.
80505.
2159.
18843.
101507.
-6163.
-6148.
2111
3323.
45062.
23402.
71786.
53251.
2179.
17090.
72519.
-733.
-766.
2112
10231.
61330.
25279.
96840.
80227.
2078.
16751.
99055.
-2215.
-2224.
2113
1551.
46159.
24108.
71818.
53252.
2121.
15965.
71337.
480.
441.
2114
5471.
46096.
25749.
77315.
66619.
2068.
14319.
83006.
-5690.
-5646.
2115
5292.
46490.
27928.
79710.
69561.
1986.
12542.
84089.
-4380.
-4357.
2116
144.
47631.
28561.
76337.
58762.
1789.
11829.
72379.
3958.
3998.
2117
1957.
43192.
28997.
74146.
67147.
1912.
11591.
80650.
-6505.
-6478.
2118
7086.
22695.
36405.
66186.
80042.
1539.
8284.
89865.
-23679.
-23507.
2119
4691.
21654.
42483.
68828.
68333.
1379.
6106.
75818.
-6990.
-6946.
2120
545.
19247.
45624.
65416.
67014.
1321.
5318.
73652.
-8236.
-8100.
2121
-4299.
32576.
48336.
76613.
68531.
1271.
4730.
74532.
2081.
2190.
2122
-6036.
29530.
49081.
72575.
71256.
1266.
4688.
77210.
-4635.
-4496.

2123
2124
2125
2126
2127
2128
2129
2130
2131
2132
2133
2134
2135
2136
2137
Average

-20771.
-6920.
-21513.
-14141.
-3218.
-12507.
-5715.
-3130.
-3045.
2304.
510.
6720.
-6756.
539.
-7801.
-5680.

64014.
30175.
67132.
51273.
68059.
67514.
43120.
45866.
45219.
41323.
37060.
30162.
43794.
67411.
52773.
45873.

44265.
43568.
38611.
32409.
31604.
25405.
25201.
25774.
25252.
28529.
30652.
36961.
36145.
34399.
29707.
37291.

87508.
66824.
84230.
69541.
96445.
80411.
62605.
68509.
67426.
72156.
68222.
73843.
73183.
102348.
74679.
77484.

61067.
71047.
52688.
51494.
80160.
48203.
49456.
53253.
49626.
66620.
66329.
78319.
58935.
80417.
53262.
65771.

1302.
1353.
1480.
1659.
1696.
2043.
2126.
2052.
2106.
1885.
1749.
1511.
1535.
1599.
1798.
1671.

5630.
5917.
7443.
9585.
10925.
16444.
14760.
13950.
14573.
11719.
10331.
7917.
7841.
9159.
11045.
10009.

67999.
78317.
61611.
62737.
92781.
66691.
66343.
69255.
66305.
80224.
78409.
87748.
68311.
91176.
66105.
77451.

19509.
-11493.
22618.
6803.
3664.
13720.
-3737.
-746.
1120.
-8068.
-10187.
-13905.
4871.
11172.
8574.
33.

19431.
-11421.
22634.
6846.
3603.
13691.
-3791.
-735.
1047.
-8035.
-10094.
-13743.
4923.
11124.
8542.
77.

Water budget for case NM_sce8sn (App. E2 Table 18)


[1]
[2]+[3]
[4]
[5] [6]+[7]+[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[alt 12]
Model Year NES Bdry Rech&Wells Ocean In Total In Wells Out Stream Out Ocean Out Total Out In - Out Dstorage
2012
22919.
71251.
44893.
139063.
93392.
2352.
13877.
109621.
29442.
29422.
2013
3425.
51477.
30591.
85493.
63083.
2399.
16278.
81760.
3733.
3704.
2014
12280.
70084.
31590.
113955.
93487.
2468.
17370.
113325.
629.
623.
2015
3770.
50605.
29829.
84205.
63083.
2455.
17410.
82948.
1257.
1224.
2016
13274.
69490.
31124.
113888.
93560.
2549.
18043.
114151.
-263.
-249.
2017
4844.
50079.
29533.
84456.
63084.
2487.
17868.
83439.
1017.
987.
2018
10302.
40545.
31476.
82323.
77422.
2447.
15585.
95455.
-13131.
-13114.
2019
14715.
27182.
39146.
81043.
90665.
1778.
9947.
102389.
-21346.
-21227.
2020
9729.
26293.
44315.
80337.
78164.
1563.
7170.
86897.
-6560.
-6525.
2021
5997.
22842.
47310.
76149.
76751.
1462.
6253.
84466.
-8317.
-8191.
2022
124.
39157.
49337.
88619.
78399.
1422.
5624.
85445.
3173.
3219.
2023
-1222.
35521.
49640.
83940.
81030.
1394.
5663.
88088.
-4148.
-4069.
2024
4706.
30545.
54701.
89952.
92596.
1310.
4799.
98705.
-8753.
-8719.
2025
2605.
28558.
60501.
91665.
92418.
1236.
3831.
97485.
-5821.
-5667.
2026
-6650.
26982.
61961.
82293.
78164.
1225.
3648.
83037.
-744.
-714.
2027
-9749.
23198.
62948.
76398.
76759.
1219.
3554.
81532.
-5134.
-5006.
2028
-14314.
38742.
63863.
88291.
78673.
1215.
3414.
83302.
4989.
5076.
2029
-14256.
34681.
63264.
83688.
82124.
1211.
3533.
86868.
-3180.
-3039.
2030
-11972.
61420.
62828.
112277.
104830.
1208.
3683.
109720.
2556.
2784.
2031
-22327.
45753.
59725.
83152.
73738.
1194.
3899.
78831.
4321.
4458.
2032
-14625.
67487.
56971.
109833.
100284.
1232.
4499.
106015.
3818.
3993.
2033
-22791.
51270.
53518.
81997.
70510.
1259.
4857.
76625.
5371.
5454.
2034
-16047.
78778.
49670.
112401.
93502.
1358.
5908.
100767.
11634.
11671.
2035
-25658.
77873.
39832.
92047.
60965.
1676.
9383.
72023.
20024.
20034.
2036
-12188.
55903.
35327.
79042.
60130.
1911.
11855.
73897.
5145.
5101.
2037
2272.
76208.
34991.
113471.
93242.
2004.
13674.
108921.
4550.
4515.
2038
-7244.
74087.
28833.
95676.
56943.
2997.
21206.
81146.
14531.
14462.
2039
2346.
57802.
27473.
87621.
60038.
2865.
22369.
85272.
2349.
2315.
2040
7736.
41430.
28376.
77542.
60144.
2643.
19937.
82724.
-5183.
-5298.
2041
17325.
67617.
30319.
115261.
93741.
2697.
19425.
115862.
-601.
-562.
2042
5021.
68353.
26013.
99388.
58210.
4456.
25890.
88556.
10832.
10750.
2043
11210.
53884.
25537.
90630.
60934.
3984.
25611.
90529.
101.
64.
2044
14439.
38139.
26890.
79468.
60533.
3074.
22226.
85834.
-6366.
-6521.
2045
22319.
65667.
29095.
117082.
94128.
3133.
21161.
118422.
-1341.
-1295.
2046
8835.
66930.
25225.
100990.
58794.
5106.
27337.
91236.
9754.
9685.
2047
23430.
64629.
27717.
115776.
94781.
3588.
23843.
122212.
-6435.
-6379.
2048
13687.
45289.
27207.
86182.
63133.
2894.
21786.
87813.
-1631.
-1651.
2049
20785.
66141.
29136.
116063.
93997.
3036.
21191.
118224.
-2161.
-2110.
2050
10925.
47070.
28047.
86042.
63085.
2705.
20359.
86149.
-107.
-100.
2051
15004.
47787.
29804.
92595.
78332.
2559.
17794.
98685.
-6090.
-6019.
2052
14184.
50217.
31617.
96018.
81381.
2447.
15572.
99399.
-3381.
-3362.
2053
7456.
51707.
31359.
90522.
68751.
2223.
15341.
86316.
4206.
4178.
2054
9460.
47150.
32054.
88664.
77423.
2364.
14720.
94507.
-5843.
-5813.
2055
12610.
28338.
38403.
79350.
91604.
1811.
10535.
103950.
-24600.
-24520.
2056
9672.
26207.
43782.
79661.
78164.
1588.
7391.
87142.
-7482.
-7455.
2057
6404.
22806.
46850.
76060.
76751.
1481.
6381.
84612.
-8553.
-8443.
2058
716.
39150.
48909.
88776.
78512.
1435.
5724.
85671.
3105.
3132.
2059
-374.
35575.
49305.
84506.
81539.
1405.
5752.
88696.
-4191.
-4120.

2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
2066
2067
2068
2069
2070
2071
2072
2073
2074
Average

-14278.
-276.
-12639.
-4774.
6747.
-3792.
5595.
7361.
6793.
12963.
10231.
12015.
2021.
10889.
710.
3249.

70877.
35083.
73359.
51784.
73502.
71959.
41607.
46453.
45423.
43403.
45742.
37195.
49368.
74178.
53385.
50337.

44122.
43780.
38490.
33436.
33584.
28004.
28580.
29189.
28702.
31681.
32734.
37023.
36099.
34763.
31302.
38767.

100720.
78588.
99210.
80447.
113832.
96171.
75782.
83003.
80918.
88047.
88707.
86234.
87488.
119831.
85396.
92353.

71501.
81714.
61237.
60123.
93366.
57278.
59236.
63083.
57838.
77738.
77194.
90014.
68689.
93572.
63083.
76455.

1546.
1583.
1838.
2096.
2179.
3455.
2690.
2607.
2753.
2359.
2199.
1891.
1935.
2069.
2284.
2191.

7077.
7547.
9890.
13175.
14895.
22237.
18993.
18034.
18975.
15153.
13737.
11079.
10685.
13161.
15254.
13223.

80124.
90844.
72965.
75395.
110439.
82969.
80919.
83724.
79567.
95249.
93129.
102983.
81310.
108803.
80621.
91868.

20596.
-12256.
26245.
5051.
3393.
13202.
-5137.
-721.
1351.
-7203.
-4422.
-16749.
6179.
11028.
4775.
484.

20488.
-12226.
26191.
4971.
3315.
13112.
-5203.
-687.
1252.
-7194.
-4431.
-16739.
6182.
11037.
4736.
500.

Water budget for case NM_sce8sf (App. E2 Table 19)


[1]
[2]+[3]
[4]
[5] [6]+[7]+[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[alt 12]
Model Year NES Bdry Rech&Wells Ocean In Total In Wells Out Stream Out Ocean Out Total Out In - Out Dstorage
2012
8487.
64576.
51091.
124155.
92513.
1916.
8694.
103123.
21032.
20967.
2013
-3921.
49164.
37531.
82774.
68290.
1983.
9946.
80220.
2554.
2570.
2014
3743.
64421.
37784.
105948.
92529.
1995.
10631.
105156.
792.
760.
2015
-2590.
47995.
36443.
81849.
68290.
2036.
10606.
80932.
916.
945.
2016
5194.
63544.
37069.
105806.
92535.
2032.
11077.
105644.
162.
118.
2017
-1528.
47590.
35879.
81940.
68291.
2064.
10943.
81299.
641.
687.
2018
3066.
29799.
38684.
71549.
78353.
2045.
9499.
89897.
-18348.
-18318.
2019
10168.
22329.
49199.
81697.
91539.
1540.
5890.
98969.
-17273.
-17135.
2020
4369.
21772.
54811.
80952.
80405.
1390.
4724.
86518.
-5567.
-5523.
2021
200.
19323.
57829.
77352.
79067.
1331.
4283.
84681.
-7329.
-7218.
2022
-4772.
32546.
60323.
88097.
80471.
1299.
3888.
85657.
2440.
2537.
2023
-6523.
29415.
60805.
83697.
82801.
1281.
3870.
87952.
-4255.
-4112.
2024
-1455.
24555.
66077.
89176.
93143.
1242.
3375.
97760.
-8584.
-8495.
2025
-3098.
23375.
71603.
91881.
92907.
1214.
2849.
96969.
-5089.
-4909.
2026
-11431.
22326.
72811.
83706.
80405.
1211.
2770.
84385.
-679.
-554.
2027
-14759.
19645.
73593.
78479.
79075.
1211.
2722.
83009.
-4529.
-4343.
2028
-18406.
32097.
74823.
88514.
80745.
1207.
2595.
84547.
3966.
4093.
2029
-18907.
28974.
74484.
84551.
83893.
1201.
2637.
87731.
-3180.
-2992.
2030
-16843.
51785.
74533.
109475.
103970.
1188.
2621.
107778.
1697.
1973.
2031
-25863.
37611.
72036.
83784.
76252.
1188.
2791.
80231.
3553.
3704.
2032
-19475.
55378.
69763.
105666.
99427.
1197.
2987.
103612.
2054.
2283.
2033
-27016.
42301.
67089.
82374.
73278.
1192.
3213.
77684.
4690.
4819.
2034
-22384.
64650.
63396.
105662.
92647.
1234.
3592.
97473.
8189.
8307.
2035
-34945.
71298.
53466.
89819.
65383.
1379.
4899.
71661.
18158.
18210.
2036
-23361.
54974.
47644.
79257.
64305.
1554.
6274.
72133.
7124.
7163.
2037
-8207.
70076.
45248.
107118.
92540.
1645.
7432.
101616.
5501.
5504.
2038
-15518.
70181.
36931.
91594.
62307.
1945.
11509.
75761.
15833.
15797.
2039
-7913.
56350.
34539.
82976.
65374.
2063.
12772.
80210.
2766.
2747.
2040
-3469.
43000.
35061.
74592.
64300.
2107.
11813.
78220.
-3628.
-3686.
2041
6146.
63137.
36685.
105968.
92567.
1996.
11563.
106126.
-159.
-170.
2042
-3615.
62647.
31819.
90852.
62842.
2455.
15674.
80971.
9881.
9808.
2043
1479.
51481.
31230.
84191.
65539.
2358.
15950.
83846.
344.
327.
2044
3897.
39443.
32415.
75755.
64300.
2324.
14116.
80740.
-4984.
-5063.
2045
11924.
60565.
34546.
107035.
92707.
2188.
13356.
108251.
-1216.
-1234.
2046
1046.
60751.
30382.
92179.
63045.
2799.
17367.
83212.
8968.
8925.
2047
13022.
59369.
32837.
105229.
92963.
2323.
15442.
110728.
-5499.
-5496.
2048
5655.
44119.
32750.
82525.
68290.
2280.
13799.
84370.
-1845.
-1873.
2049
12117.
60739.
34341.
107197.
92664.
2215.
13539.
108417.
-1220.
-1242.
2050
4078.
45292.
33591.
82961.
68290.
2210.
12800.
83301.
-340.
-324.
2051
7202.
45341.
35210.
87753.
78918.
2184.
11530.
92633.
-4880.
-4835.
2052
7086.
46504.
37324.
90914.
82013.
2135.
10166.
94314.
-3400.
-3388.
2053
1617.
46707.
37829.
86152.
71184.
1930.
9578.
82693.
3460.
3473.
2054
3185.
42876.
38404.
84466.
78347.
2067.
9476.
89890.
-5424.
-5388.
2055
7705.
22663.
46136.
76503.
92093.
1642.
6953.
100689.
-24186.
-24023.
2056
5543.
21633.
52654.
79830.
80405.
1441.
5129.
86975.
-7145.
-7095.
2057
1681.
19259.
56061.
77001.
79067.
1367.
4546.
84980.
-7979.
-7864.
2058
-3210.
32604.
58758.
88152.
80583.
1332.
4085.
86000.
2151.
2254.
2059
-4825.
29503.
59470.
84148.
83310.
1300.
4040.
88650.
-4502.
-4370.

2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
2066
2067
2068
2069
2070
2071
2072
2073
2074
Average

-19240.
63880.
54311.
98951.
73571.
1385.
4688.
79644.
-5498.
30207.
53831.
78540.
83449.
1417.
5001.
89867.
-19412.
66760.
48230.
95578.
65548.
1591.
5971.
73110.
-11923.
50690.
42179.
80946.
64301.
1782.
7946.
74029.
-1386.
67386.
41063.
107062.
92579.
1838.
9011.
103429.
-10232.
66194.
34345.
90307.
62537.
2205.
13253.
77995.
-3048.
42431.
35007.
74390.
64788.
2191.
11738.
78717.
-444.
45091.
35807.
80454.
68290.
2112.
11007.
81409.
-875.
44505.
34897.
78526.
62985.
2204.
11713.
76902.
4783.
41187.
38402.
84371.
79409.
1992.
9586.
90988.
1718.
36905.
40431.
79054.
78741.
1868.
8469.
89078.
7662.
30113.
46828.
84603.
90616.
1603.
6530.
98749.
-5249.
43687.
46070.
84508.
71457.
1639.
6328.
79424.
2414.
67227.
43709.
113349.
92716.
1737.
7368.
101821.
-5353.
51669.
39521.
85836.
68303.
1892.
8835.
79030.
-3833.
45454.
47264.
88885.
78626.
1760.
8214.
88600.

19307.
-11327.
22468.
6917.
3633.
12312.
-4327.
-955.
1624.
-6617.
-10024.
-14146.
5084.
11529.
6806.
284.

19238.
-11263.
22480.
6896.
3570.
12292.
-4367.
-937.
1543.
-6581.
-9926.
-13979.
5144.
11491.
6784.
329.

APPENDIX E2

Draft North Marina Groundwater Model


Review, Revision, and Implementation for
Future Slant Well Pumping Scenarios

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

E2-1

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

This page intentionally left blank

North Marina Groundwater Model Review,


Revision, and Implementation for
Slant Well Pumping Scenarios
November 23, 2016
Report and Appendices

Prepared by:
HydroFocus, Inc.
2827 Spafford Street
Davis, CA 95618
(530) 759-2484

Executive Summary
California American Water (CalAm) is proposing construction of extraction wells for the Monterey
Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP). Two sites are being considered for a subsurface ocean
water intake system, the CEMEX and Potrero Road sites (Figure E-1). This Technical Memorandum
describes our review and revision of the North Marina Groundwater Model.1 We used the revised
model (NMGWM2016) to calculate changes in groundwater levels (drawdown) and delineate the
area where drawdown (cone of depression) is 1-foot or greater in response to proposed pumping.
The NMGWM2016 is an application of the U.S. Geological Survey Finite Difference Groundwater Flow
Model (MODFLOW).2 The NMGWM2016 is bounded on the west by the Pacific Ocean, and the inland
model boundaries are bounded by adjacent portions of the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin
(Figure E-1). Four model layers represent the primary water-bearing zones.
NMGWM2016 revisions included additional water level calibration points in the CEMEX and Fort Ord
areas, layer elevation modifications based on new geologic information, and aquifer properties
estimated from test slant well3 pumping monitoring data. Additionally, aquifer parameter zones
were added and refined to include the former Fort Ord area A-Aquifer and Fort Ord Salinas Valley
Aquitard (FO-SVA) to better represent groundwater conditions south of the Salinas River and
improve model performance in that part of the model.
We evaluated NMGWM2016 performance by comparing model-calculated and measured water level
data from the period October 1979 through September 2011. In general, the patterns of the water
levels are similar, and the model generally captures measured trends. The relative error calculated
from the standard deviation of the model errors and range of measured water levels in the model
meets calibration criteria and ensures that model errors are only a small part of the overall model
response. This provides confidence that the model calculations are reliable estimates of the
groundwater response to pumping. Moreover, analysis of model residuals (the difference between
model-calculated and measured water levels) indicates a general lack of model bias. However,
model performance was less favorable in some model layers, and a bias between model-calculated
water levels and model errors was identified for wells in Model Layer 4. The model discrepancies
are attributed to (1) MODFLOW limitations for simulating steep vertical gradients and perched
conditions in localized areas of Model Layer 2 in the Fort Ord Area, (2) errors in the specified initial
water levels for Model Layer 2 in the Fort Ord Area, (3) errors in the specified boundary condition
water levels along the southern head-dependent flux boundaries, and (4) errors in the timing and

Geoscience Support Services, Inc., 2015, Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Groundwater Modeling and
Analysis DRAFT, prepared for California American Water and Environmental Science Associates, April 17, 2015.
2
U.S. Geological Survey, 2000, MODFLOW-2000, The U.S. Geological Survey Modular Ground-Water
Model User Guide to Modularization Concepts and the Ground-Water Flow Process, Open-File Report
00-92.
3
Slant wells are proposed for the CEMEX and Potrero Road sites. A conceptual diagram of an example slant well
which is installed at a low angle relative to the horizontal is shown in Figure 1.1.
North Marina Groundwater Model Review, Revision, E-1
and Implementation for Slant Well Pumping Scenarios

HydroFocus, Inc.
November 23, 2016

magnitude of specified recharge and pumping. Most of these deficiencies were removed from the
modeling analysis by utilizing the superposition approach.
The reliability of the NMGWM2016 for simulating drawdown from slant well pumping was assessed
using test slant well pumping data reported by Geoscience.4 There is generally good agreement
between the timing of drawdown and recovery, and at all locations model performance improved
after the revision (Figure E-2). These improvements resulted from adjustments to the water
transmitting and storage properties in the coastal parameter zones and modifying the conceptual
geologic framework represented by the model in the Fort Ord Area.
Model scenarios were developed to estimate future groundwater level changes (drawdown) due to
slant well pumping and assess the uncertainty in calculated drawdown in relation to model
assumptions and input. Pumping and recovery scenarios were defined for the CEMEX and Potrero
Road sites, and the 63-year pumping and 63-year recovery scenarios were simulated using monthly
stress periods. Due to the complex nature of simulating recharge and discharge processes in the
Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin, and the identified problems with specified initial water levels,
boundary conditions, and background recharge and pumping, we applied the theory of
superposition5 to remove these deficiencies and isolate the calculated groundwater level changes
(drawdown) resulting solely from proposed slant well pumping. The principal advantage of
superposition is that it isolates the effect of the one stress (slant well pumping) from all other
stresses operating in a basin (background recharge and pumping). The NMGWM2016 was thus
converted to a superposition model and utilized to calculate drawdown under the following
assumed conditions.

Two well configurations and pumping rates (8 wells pumping and 2 wells on rotating standby
collectively pumping at 24.1 MGD; and, 5 wells pumping and 2 wells on rotating standby
collectively pumping at 15.5 MGD).6
Two sea levels (2012 and projected 2073 sea levels).
Some portion of the pumped water could be returned to the Basin. Four return water
percentages were assumed (0%, 3%, 6%, and 12% of total pumping). The return water is used
to replace Castroville Community Services District (CCSD) Well No. 3 pumping from Model
Layer 6, and pumping from Model Layer 6 by irrigators within the Castroville Seawater
Intrusion Project (CSIP) area (Model Layer 6 represents the 400-FT Aquifer). For the lower
production rate (15.5 MGD), 4,260 acre-feet per year of additional water is assumed delivered
to the CSIP area from the Pure Water Monterey Groundwater Replenishment Project (GWR).

Geoscience Support Services Inc., 2016, DRAFT Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Monitoring
Hydrogeologic Investigation Technical Memorandum (TM2) Well Completion Report and CEMEX Model Update,
prepared for California American Water, July 15, 2016.
5
The theory of superposition states that solutions to the parts of a complex problem can be added to solve the
composite problem. Superposition can therefore be utilized to isolate the effect of one stress from all other
stresses operating in a basin.
6
Future operations schedule provided by Brian Villalobos, Geoscience Support Services, Inc., written
communication, May 3, 2016.
North Marina Groundwater Model Review, Revision, E-2
and Implementation for Slant Well Pumping Scenarios

HydroFocus, Inc.
November 23, 2016

Thirty four scenarios were developed to calculate drawdown and assess its sensitivity to model
input and model assumptions. Model results are reported in maps that show the area where
calculated drawdown (the cone of depression) is 1-foot or greater.
Based on an analysis of variations in model outputs with varying model inputs (sensitivity
analysis), the most likely sources of uncertainty in the NMGWM2016 are associated with modeled sea
level rise, specified hydraulic conductivity values, and assumed project operations including
pumping rates and the relative contributions of groundwater from Model Layer 2 and Model Layer
4 to total slant well pumping. We therefore included two sea levels (2012 and 2073), variable
hydraulic conductivity values, and different assumed model layer contributions to total slant well
production to characterize the sensitivity of the model-calculated cone of depression. Modelcalculated drawdown at the CEMEX site (24.1 MGD) is mapped in Figure E-3, and the modelcalculated drawdown for 15.5 MGD is mapped in Figure E-4; the shaded areas in these figures
represent the uncertainty in the model-calculated cone of depression due to simulated variations in
the above factors. For 2012 sea level conditions, the maximum distance from the well field to the
1-foot drawdown contour was about 15,000 feet in Model Layer 2, and about 20,000 feet in Model
Layer 4. Due to uncertainty in sea level rise, hydraulic conductivity, and pumping layer allocation
distribution, the estimated distances ranged from less than 10,000 feet to 24,000 feet in Model
Layer 2, and 12,000 to 24,000 feet in Model Layer 4. At the lower pumping rate (15.5 MGD), these
distances range from about 6,000 feet to more than 17,000 feet in Model Layer 2, and almost 6,000
feet to 19,000 feet in Model Layer 4.
Similar drawdown maps for 24.1 MGD and 15.5 MGD pumping at the Potrero Road site are
provided in Figure E-5 and Figure E-6, respectively. The maximum estimated distances from the
well field to the 1-foot drawdown contour ranged from about 19,000 to 27,000 feet, and 16,000 to
almost 25,000 feet in Model Layer 2 as a result of uncertainty in sea level rise, hydraulic
conductivity, and pumping layer allocation distribution for the 24.1 and 15.5 MGD pumping rates,
respectively.
Groundwater capture zone boundaries were delineated using NMGWM2016 steady-state flow
condition results and particle tracking using the MODFLOW computer code post-processer
MODPATH.7 For slant well pumping at the CEMEX site, the general size of the capture zone is
greater in Model Layer 2 than Model Layer 4, and decreases with increasing simulated inland
gradient (Figure E-7). Results are similar at the Potrero Road site, but there is no ocean water
capture zone in Model Layer 4 because the slant wells would be screened only in Model Layer 2
(Figure E-8). These model results are consistent with the primary source of recharge to the wells
being ocean water.
Slant well pumping effects on the inland movement of saltwater were assessed using the
NMGWM2016 and particle tracking with the MODPATH code. Particles were placed along the edge of
the inferred 2013 seawater intrusion front in Model Layer 4 and Model Layer 6 (the 180-FT Aquifer

Pollock DW, 2012, User Guide for MODPATH Version 6 A Particle-Tracking Model for MODFLOW, U.S.
Geological Survey Techniques and Methods 6-A41.

North Marina Groundwater Model Review, Revision, E-3


and Implementation for Slant Well Pumping Scenarios

HydroFocus, Inc.
November 23, 2016

and 400-FT Aquifer reported by MCWRA).8 Results show that slant well pumping at the CEMEX site
slows continued saltwater intrusion in the southern portion of Model Layer 4; slant well pumping
at the CEMEX site has little to no effect on saltwater intrusion in the Model Layer 6. At the Potrero
Road site, slant well pumping slows continued saltwater intrusion in the northern portion of Model
Layers 4 and 6.

Monterey County Water Resources Agency, 2014, Historic Seawater Intrusion Map. Pressure 180-Foot Aquifer
500 mg/L Chloride Areas. ; Monterey County Water Resources Agency, 2014, Historic Seawater Intrusion Map.
Pressure 400-Foot Aquifer 500 mg/L Chloride Areas.
North Marina Groundwater Model Review, Revision, E-4
and Implementation for Slant Well Pumping Scenarios

HydroFocus, Inc.
November 23, 2016

EXPLANATION
NMGWM Boundary

I
0

Miles

Potrero Road site

Tem

bla

der
o
Slo

l
Sa

ug
h

ina
s
Ri
ve

CEMEX site

Former
Fort Ord
Area

North Marina Groundwater Model (NMGWM)


boundaries and relevant features.
PROJECT: 5073

DATE: 11/15/2016

Figure
E-1

MW-1S
5/26/2015

7/15/2015

Date
9/3/2015

10/23/2015

12/12/2015

1/31/2016

4/6/2015
-1.0

5/26/2015

Date
9/3/2015

7/15/2015

10/23/2015

12/12/2015

4/6/2015
-1.0

1/31/2016

5/26/2015

7/15/2015

Date
9/3/2015

MW-4M
10/23/2015

12/12/2015

1/31/2016

4/6/2015
-1.0

0.0

0.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

2.0

2.0

2.0

2.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0

4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0

Drawdown, feet

0.0

1.0

Drawdown, feet

0.0

Drawdown, feet

Drawdown, feet

4/6/2015
-1.0

MW-1M

MW-4S

4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0

5/26/2015

9.0

9.0

9.0

10.0

10.0

10.0

10.0

11.0

11.0

11.0

11.0

P otrero
Roa d
Site

CEMEX
Site

CEMEX
Site

MW-3S
1/31/2016

4/6/2015
-1.0

5/26/2015

7/15/2015

Date
9/3/2015

10/23/2015

12/12/2015

4/6/2015
-1.0

1/31/2016

5/26/2015

7/15/2015

Date
9/3/2015

MW-7M
10/23/2015

12/12/2015

1/31/2016

4/6/2015
-1.0
0.0

1.0

1.0

2.0

2.0

2.0

2.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0

4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0

4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0

Drawdown, feet

0.0

1.0

Drawdown, feet

0.0

1.0

Drawdown, feet

Drawdown, feet

MW-3M

MW-7S

0.0

7.0

9.0

9.0

9.0

9.0

10.0

10.0

10.0

10.0

11.0

11.0

11.0

11.0

CEMEXMonitoring
Oth er

Hydrograph:

NMGWM

Consta ntHea d Mod elCell

CEMEX

2016

Ac tiv eMod elCell

NMGWM

I
na c tiv eMod elCell

Mea sured *

8.0

Notes:
*m ea sured v a lues a red etrend ed

2015

Mod eled Hyd ra ulic Cond uc tiv ityZone

Geosc ienc e(
2016)

Sourc e:
Geosc ienc eSupportServ ic es I
nc .
,2016,
DRAFTMontereyP enisula
Wa ter SupplyP rojec tMonitoring WellCom pletion Reporta nd CEMEXMod el
Upd a te,
prepa red for Ca lifornia Am eric a n Wa ter,July15,2016.

Mea sured v s.m od elc a lc ula ted d ra wd own in CEMEXm onitoring wells d uring testsla ntwellpum ping .
P ROJ
ECT:5073

DATE:1
1/
15/
2016

Date
9/3/2015

6.0

8.0

NMGWM Bound a ry

7/15/2015

5.0

8.0

EXPLANATION

5/26/2015

4.0

8.0

Wells

1/31/2016

Model Layer 4

P otrero
Roa d
Site

12/12/2015

12/12/2015

8.0

Model Layer 2

10/23/2015

10/23/2015

7.0

9.0

Date
9/3/2015

1/31/2016

6.0

8.0

7/15/2015

12/12/2015

5.0

8.0

5/26/2015

10/23/2015

4.0

8.0

4/6/2015
-1.0

Date
9/3/2015

7/15/2015

I
4

Miles

Fig ure
E2

Model Layer 2

Model Layer 4

Potrero
Road
Site

Potrero
Road
Site

CEMEX
Site
1

CEMEX
Site

Model Layer 6

Model Layer 8

Potrero
Road
Site

CEMEX
Site

Potrero
Road
Site

CEMEX
Site

EXPLANATION
River Model Cell
Active Model Cell
Constant Head
Model Cell

Groundwater Level Decrease


(Drawdown) Contour (ft)
for CEMEX Site 24.1 MGD,
44/56 Layer 2/Layer 4 distribution,
2012 sea level, no return water

NMGWM Boundary

Only +/- 1 foot drawdown contours are shown.


Contours not shown where groundwater level
change is less than 1 foot.

Modeled Hydraulic
Conductivity Zone

Possible extent of 1 ft drawdown


based on sensitivity tests

Inactive Model Cell

Slant Well

Wells
CEMEX Monitoring
Other

Uncertainty in calculated drawdown from slant well


pumping at CEMEX site due to projected sea level rise,
layer distribution, and hydraulic conductivity; 24.1 MGD.

PROJECT: 5073

DATE: 8/19/2016

Miles

Figure
E-3

Model Layer 2

Model Layer 4

Potrero
Road
Site

Potrero
Road
Site

CEMEX
Site

CEMEX
Site
1

Model Layer 6

Model Layer 8

Potrero
Road
Site

Potrero
Road
Site

CEMEX
Site

CEMEX
Site

Layer only effected by the minimum anisotropy


sensitivity run.

EXPLANATION
River Model Cell
Active Model Cell
Constant Head
Model Cell

Groundwater Level Decrease


(Drawdown) Contour (ft)
for CEMEX Site 15.5 MGD,
44/56 Layer 2/Layer 4 distribution,
2012 sea level, no return water

NMGWM Boundary

Only +/- 1 foot drawdown contours are shown.


Contours not shown where groundwater level
change is less than 1 foot.

Modeled Hydraulic
Conductivity Zone

Possible extent of 1 ft drawdown


based on sensitivity tests

Inactive Model Cell

Slant Well

Wells
CEMEX Monitoring
Other

Uncertainty in calculated drawdown from slant well


pumping at CEMEX site due to projected sea level rise,
layer distribution, and hydraulic conductivity; 15.5 MGD.

PROJECT: 5073

DATE: 8/19/2016

Miles

Figure
E-4

Model Layer 2

Model Layer 4
Potrero
Road
Site

Potrero
Road
Site

CEMEX
Site

CEMEX
Site

Model Layer 6
Potrero
Road
Site

Model Layer 8
Potrero
Road
Site

CEMEX
Site

CEMEX
Site

EXPLANATION
River Model Cell
Active Model Cell
Constant Head
Model Cell

Groundwater Level Decrease


(Drawdown) Contour (ft)
for Potrero Road Site 24.1 MGD,
2012 sea level, no return water

NMGWM Boundary

Only +/- 1 foot drawdown contours are shown.


Contours not shown where groundwater level
change is less than 1 foot.

Modeled Hydraulic
Conductivity Zone

Possible extent of 1 ft drawdown


based on sensitivity tests

Inactive Model Cell

Slant Well

Wells
CEMEX Monitoring
Other

Uncertainty in calculated drawdown from slant well pumping


at Potrero Road site due to projected sea level rise
and hydraulic conductivity; 24.1 MGD.

PROJECT: 5073

DATE: 8/12/2016

Miles

Figure
E-5

Model Layer 2

Model Layer 4

Potrero
Road
Site

Potrero
Road
Site

CEMEX
Site

CEMEX
Site

Model Layer 6

Model Layer 8

Potrero
Road
Site

Potrero
Road
Site

CEMEX
Site

CEMEX
Site

EXPLANATION
River Model Cell
Active Model Cell
Constant Head
Model Cell

Groundwater Level Decrease


(Drawdown) Contour (ft)
for Potrero Road Site 15.5 MGD,
2012 sea level, no return water

NMGWM Boundary

Only +/- 1 foot drawdown contours are shown.


Contours not shown where groundwater level
change is less than 1 foot.

Modeled Hydraulic
Conductivity Zone

Possible extent of 1 ft drawdown


based on sensitivity tests

Inactive Model Cell

Slant Well

Wells
CEMEX Monitoring
Other

Uncertainty in calculated drawdown from slant well pumping


at Potrero Road site due to projected sea level rise
and hydraulic conductivity; 15.5 MGD.

PROJECT: 5073

DATE: 8/19/2016

Miles

Figure
E-6

CEMEX 24.1 MGD:

CEMEX 15.5 MGD:


Model Layer 2

Model Layer 2

Potrero
Road
Site

Potrero
Road
Site

CEMEX
Site

CEMEX
Site

Model Layer 4

Model Layer 4

Potrero
Road
Site

Potrero
Road
Site

CEMEX
Site

CEMEX
Site

EXPLANATION
River Model Cell

CEMEX Monitoring Well

Active Model Cell

Slant Well

Particle Tracking Ocean Capture Zones

Ocean Capture Zone, porosity = 0.1, avg gradient = 0.0004

Constant Head
Model Cell

Ocean Capture Zone, porosity = 0.1, avg gradient = 0.0007

Inactive Model Cell

Ocean Capture Zone, porosity = 0.1, avg gradient = 0.0011

NMGWM Boundary
Modeled Hydraulic
Conductivity Zone

Miles
NMGWM2016 calculated ocean capture zone with variable regional gradients,
63 years of slant well pumping (24.1 and 15.5 MGD),
44/56 Layer 2/Layer 4 distribution, 2012 sea level, CEMEX site.

PROJECT: 5073

DATE: 11/15/2016

Figure
E-7

Potrero Road 24.1 MGD:

Potrero Road 15.5 MGD:


Model Layer 2

Model Layer 2
Potrero
Road
Site

Potrero
Road
Site

CEMEX
Site

CEMEX
Site

Model Layer 4

Model Layer 4

Potrero
Road
Site

Potrero
Road
Site

CEMEX
Site

CEMEX
Site

No Extraction Wells in Model Layer 4 at Potrero Road Site

EXPLANATION
River Model Cell

CEMEX Monitoring Well

Active Model Cell

Slant Well

Particle Tracking Ocean Capture Zones

Ocean Capture Zone, porosity = 0.1, avg gradient = 0.0004

Constant Head
Model Cell

Ocean Capture Zone, porosity = 0.1, avg gradient = 0.0007

Inactive Model Cell

Ocean Capture Zone, porosity = 0.1, avg gradient = 0.0011

NMGWM Boundary
Modeled Hydraulic
Conductivity Zone

2
Miles

NMGWM2016 calculated ocean capture zone with variable regional gradients,


63 years of slant well pumping (24.1 and 15.5 MGD),
2012 sea level, Potrero Road site.

PROJECT: 5073

DATE: 8/30/2016

Figure
E-8

Table of Contents
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................................ E-1
1.0 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................................... 7
2.0 NMGWM2015 Review ........................................................................................................................................................ 8
2.1 Conceptual Hydrogeology........................................................................................................................................ 8
2.2 Model Construction .................................................................................................................................................. 11
2.3 Assessment of Model Inputs and Outputs....................................................................................................... 12
3.0 NMGWM2015 Revisions (NMGWM2016) ................................................................................................................... 13
3.1 Monitoring Wells Added South of Salinas River ........................................................................................... 16
3.2 Test Slant Well Pumping ........................................................................................................................................ 16
3.3 Aquifer Parameter Zones ....................................................................................................................................... 17
4.0 NMGWM2016 Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................... 18
4.1 History Matching Assessment .............................................................................................................................. 19
4.2 Test Slant Well Pumping ........................................................................................................................................ 24
4.3 Factors that Influence Model Calculations...................................................................................................... 25
5.0 Projected Drawdown from Slant Well Pumpage............................................................................................... 27
5.1 Well Configuration and Pumping Rates ........................................................................................................... 28
5.2 Water Level Changes Calculated with Superposition................................................................................. 32
5.3 Modifications to the NMGWM2016 ....................................................................................................................... 33
5.4 CEMEX Site Results ................................................................................................................................................... 37
5.5 Potrero Road Site Results ...................................................................................................................................... 39
6.0 Uncertainty ....................................................................................................................................................................... 41
7.0 Summary............................................................................................................................................................................ 42

List of Tables
Table 2.1

NMGWM and associated hydro-geologic descriptors

Table 3.1

Modifications implemented in NMGWM2016

Table 5.1

Allocation of Pumping between Model Layer 2 and Model Layer 4

Table 5.2

MPWSP Matrix of Modeling Runs and Assumptions

Table 5.3

Comparison between calculated gradients at the CEMEX site

North Marina Groundwater Model Review, Revision,


and Implementation for Slant Well Pumping Scenarios

HydroFocus, Inc.
November 23, 2016

List of Figures
Figure 1.1

Example low-angle horizontal slant well diagram.

Figure 1.2

North Marina Groundwater Model (NMGWM) boundaries and relevant features.

Figure 2.1

Conceptual hydrogeologic section in the NMGWM area.

Figure 2.2

SVIGSM and NMGWM grid boundaries.

Figure 2.3

NMGWM2016 boundary conditions.

Figure 3.1

Monitoring well clusters added to model areas south of the Salinas River (former
Fort Ord Area) for historical model run, 1979-2011.

Figure 3.2a

NMGWM2016 section lines.

Figure 3.2b

Section A-A, NMGWM2016.

Figure 3.2c

Section B-B, NMGWM2016.

Figure 3.2d

Section C-C, NMGWM2016.

Figure 3.2e

Section D-D, NMGWM2016.

Figure 3.2f

Section E-E, NMGWM2016.

Figure 3.3a

Horizontal hydraulic conductivity parameter zones, NMGWM2016.

Figure 3.3b

Vertical hydraulic conductivity parameter zones, NMGWM2016.

Figure 3.3c

Specific storage parameter zones, NMGWM2016.

Figure 3.3d

Sources for parameter values.

Figure 3.4a

Horizontal hydraulic conductivity parameter zones and values, NMGWM2016.

Figure 3.4b

Vertical hydraulic conductivity parameter zones and values, NMGWM2016.

Figure 3.4c

Specific storage parameter zones and values, NMGWM2016.

Figure 4.1

Measured and NMGWM2016 calculated water levels, History Matching Run (19792011) for (a) Model Layer 2 and Model Layer 4; (b) Model Layer 6 and Model Layer
8.

Figure 4.2

September 2011 model-calculated water levels (NMGWM2015 and NMGWM2016) and


observed 2015 water levels measured in CEMEX monitoring wells

Figure 4.3a

Measured vs. NMGWM2016 calculated water levels and residuals.

Figure 4.3b

Measured vs. NMGWM2016 calculated water levels and residuals, Model Layers 2-8.

Figure 4.3c

Comparison between SVIGSM and NMGWM2016 calculated water levels and


residuals, Model Layer 4.

North Marina Groundwater Model Review, Revision,


and Implementation for Slant Well Pumping Scenarios

HydroFocus, Inc.
November 23, 2016

Figure 4.3d

Relationships between measured water levels, NMGWM2016 calculated water levels,


and water level residuals. Well 02J01, Model Layer 4/180-FT Aquifer.

Figure 4.4

Geographic distribution of residuals by NMGWM2016 model layer.

Figure 4.5

NMGWM2016 calculated average annual volumetric water budget, 1979-2011.

Figure 4.6

Measured vs. model-calculated drawdown in CEMEX monitoring wells during test


slant well pumping.

Figure 5.1

NMGWM2016 constant head cells activated for 2073 sea level rise.

Figure 5.2

Annual NMGWM2016 calculated drawdown from slant well pumping (24.1 MGD),
44/56 Layer 2/Layer 4 distribution, 2012 sea level, with no return water, CEMEX
site.

Figure 5.3a

NMGWM2016 calculated drawdown 63 years of slant well pumping (24.1 MGD),


44/56 Layer 2/Layer 4 distribution, 2012 sea level, with variable return water,
CEMEX site.

Figure 5.3b

NMGWM2016 calculated drawdown 63 years of slant well pumping (24.1 MGD),


44/56 Layer 2/Layer 4 distribution, 2073 sea level, with variable return water,
CEMEX site.

Figure 5.4a

NMGWM2016 calculated drawdown 63 years of slant well pumping (15.5 MGD),


44/56 Layer 2/Layer 4 distribution, 2012 sea level, with variable return water,
CEMEX site.

Figure 5.4b

NMGWM2016 calculated drawdown 63 years of slant well pumping (15.5 MGD),


44/56 Layer 2/Layer 4 distribution, 2073 sea level, with variable return water,
CEMEX site.

Figure 5.5

NMGWM2016 calculated recovery hydrographs post-CEMEX site, 2073 sea level.

Figure 5.6

NMGWM2016 calculated ocean capture zone with variable regional gradients, 63


years of slant well pumping (24.1 and 15.5 MGD), 44/56 Layer 2/Layer 4
distribution, 2012 sea level, CEMEX site.

Figure 5.7

NMGWM2016 particle tracking changes at mapped saltwater intrusion front after 63


years of slant well pumping (24.1 MGD), 44/56 Layer 2/Layer 4 distribution, 2012
sea level, with no return water, CEMEX site.

Figure 5.8

Annual NMGWM2016 calculated drawdown from slant well pumping (24.1 MGD),
2012 sea level, with no return water, Potrero Road site.

Figure 5.9a

NMGWM2016 calculated drawdown 63 years of slant well pumping (24.1 MGD), 2012
sea level, with variable return water, Potrero Road site.

Figure 5.9b

NMGWM2016 calculated drawdown 63 years of slant well pumping (24.1 MGD), 2073
sea level, with variable return water, Potrero Road site.

Figure 5.10a

NMGWM2016 calculated drawdown 63 years of slant well pumping (15.5 MGD), 2012
sea level, with variable return water, Potrero Road site.

North Marina Groundwater Model Review, Revision,


and Implementation for Slant Well Pumping Scenarios

HydroFocus, Inc.
November 23, 2016

Figure 5.10b

NMGWM2016 calculated drawdown 63 years of slant well pumping (15.5 MGD), 2073
sea level, with variable return water, Potrero Road site.

Figure 5.11

NMGWM2016 calculated recovery hydrographs post-Potrero Road site, 2073 sea


level.

Figure 5.12

NMGWM2016 calculated ocean capture zone with variable regional gradients, 63


years of slant well pumping (24.1 and 15.5 MGD), 2012 sea level, Potrero Road site.

Figure 5.13

NMGWM2016 particle tracking changes at mapped saltwater intrusion front after 63


years of slant well pumping (24.1 MGD), 2012 sea level, with no return water,
Potrero Road site.

Figure 6.1

Alternative NMGWM2016 hydraulic conductivity values employed to simulated


maximum and minimum anisotropy (ratio of horizontal to vertical hydraulic
conductivity).

Figure 6.2

Sensitivity of calculated drawdown to hydraulic conductivity after 63 years of slant


well pumping (24.1 MGD), 44/56 Layer 2/Layer 4 distribution, 2012 sea level, with
no return water, CEMEX site.

Figure 6.3

Uncertainty in calculated drawdown from slant well pumping at CEMEX Site due to
projected sea level rise, aquifer distribution, and hydraulic conductivity (a) 24.1
MGD, and (b) 15.5 MGD.

Figure 6.4

Uncertainty in calculated drawdown from slant well pumping at Potrero Road Site
due to projected sea level rise and hydraulic conductivity (a) 24.1 MGD, and (b) 15.5
MGD.

List of Attachments
Attachment 1 Example Superposition Model
Attachment 2 Simple Expanded Test Model

North Marina Groundwater Model Review, Revision,


and Implementation for Slant Well Pumping Scenarios

HydroFocus, Inc.
November 23, 2016

1.0 Introduction
California American Water (CalAm) proposes the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project
(MPWSP). The MPWSP would employ low angle horizontal extraction wells, herein referred to as
slant wells (Figure 1.1) to construct a subsurface ocean water intake system at one of two sites
the CEMEX or Potrero Road sites. Figure 1.2 shows the locations of the CEMEX and Potrero Road
sites within the general area encompassed by the North Marina Groundwater Model (NMGWM)
discussed below.
The NMGWM was developed in 2008 to evaluate proposed groundwater extraction projects for the
Monterey Peninsula area.9 The NMGWM was updated in 2015 (herein referred to as
NMGWM2015).10 This Technical Memorandum describes our review and refinement of the
NMGWM2015. The refinements were based on new information and improved the reliability of
model-calculated water-level changes (drawdown) in response to slant well pumping. Specifically,
this Technical Memorandum reports results on the following tasks.

Review NMGWM2015 to confirm reported hydraulic properties (horizontal and vertical hydraulic
conductivity and specific storage), specified stresses (recharge and pumping), boundary
conditions, and model-calculated groundwater levels and fluxes. (Section 2.0)
Update NMGWM2015 using new information from borehole, monitoring well, and slant well
pumping test data11 (herein referred to as NMGWM2016). (Section 3.0)
Evaluate the NMGWM2016 by assessing history matching results (October 1979 through
September 2011) and slant well pumping test results (April 2015 through January 2016).
(Section 4.0)
Employ NMGWM2016 to calculate drawdown from proposed slant well pumping at two sites
(CEMEX and Potrero Road), two pumping rates (24.1 and 15.5 million gallons per day [MGD]),
and a range of assumed return flows (0% to 12% of total slant well pumping). (Section 5.0)
Characterize sensitivity of NMGWM2016 results to model assumptions and parameter values.
(Section 6.0)

Geoscience Support Services, Inc., 2008, North Marina Groundwater Model Evaluation of Proposed Projects,
prepared for California American Water.
10
Geoscience Support Services, Inc., 2015, Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Groundwater Modeling and
Analysis DRAFT, prepared for California American Water and Environmental Science Associates, April 17, 2015.
11
Geoscience Support Services Inc., 2016, DRAFT Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic
Investigation Technical Memorandum (TM2) Monitoring Well Completion Report and CEMEX Model Update,
prepared for California American Water, July 15, 2016.
North Marina Groundwater Model Review, Revision,
and Implementation for Slant Well Pumping Scenarios

HydroFocus, Inc.
November 23, 2016

2.0 NMGWM2015 Review


2.1 Conceptual Hydrogeology
Geologic Framework
The northern Salinas Valley and adjacent areas are underlain by groundwater bearing zones
(herein referred to as aquifers) that are classified as unconfined (water table aquifer), semi
confined, and confined.12 Confining layers (herein referred to as aquitards) are sufficiently
permeable to transmit water vertically to or from the confined aquifer, but not permeable enough
to laterally transmit water like an aquifer. Researchers however have concluded that subsurface
three-dimensional heterogeneity and inter-fingering of fine- and coarse-grained deposits within
Salinas Valley aquitards influence subsurface flow,13 and therefore the aquitards in the northern
Salinas Valley are an important component for modeling hydrogeologic conditions.14
Figure 2.1 presents a conceptual hydrogeologic representation of the depth distribution of aquifers
and aquitards in the NMGWM area and the corresponding model layering (the hydrogeologic
framework). Table 2.1 summarizes the various aquifers and aquitards which have been
represented in the layering of the NMGWM and discussed further below.

12

The terms confined and semi-confined refer to the depth distribution of water levels in wells screened in
different aquifers. In a confined aquifer, groundwater is under sufficient pressure such that the water level in a
well screened solely in the confined aquifer rises above the elevation of the top of the aquifer. Semi-confined
aquifers are intermediate between confined and unconfined aquifers. The extent of confinement is due to the
heterogeneous nature of the subsurface fine-grained layers which causes spatially varying degrees of confinement.
13
Fogg GE, LaBolle EM, Weissman GS, 1999, Groundwater Vulnerability Assessment: Hydrogeologic Perspective
and Example from Salinas Valley in Assessment of Non-Point Source Pollution in the Vadose Zone (eds Corwin DL,
Loague K, Ellswork TR), American Geophysical Union, Geophysical Monograph 108.
14
Montgomery Watson, 1994, Salinas River Basin Water Resources Management Plan Task 1.09 Salinas Valley
Groundwater Flow and Quality Model Report.
North Marina Groundwater Model Review, Revision,
and Implementation for Slant Well Pumping Scenarios

HydroFocus, Inc.
November 23, 2016

Table 2.1
NMGWM and associated hydro-geologic descriptors
Water-Bearing
NMGWM Layer
Hydro-geologic Descriptor
Zone
1

--

First

Second

5
6

Third

7
8

Fourth

Ocean
Dune Sand Aquifer
A-Aquifer
Perched Aquifer
Perched A Aquifer
35-ft Aquifer
-2 ft Aquifer
Salinas Valley Aquitard (SVA)
Fort Ord Salinas Valley Aquitard (FO-SVA)
Aquitard Transition Zone
180-FT Aquifer
180-FT Equivalent Aquifer (180-FTE)
Upper & Lower 180-FT Aquifer
Pressure 180-Foot Aquifer
180/400-FT Aquitard
Pressure 180/400-FT Aquitard
400-FT Aquifer
Pressure 400-Foot Aquifer
400/900-FT Aquitard
Pressure 400-Foot/Deep Aquitard
900-FT Aquifer
Deep Aquifer
Pressure Deep Aquifer

In the NMGWM area, the uppermost stratum represented by Model Layer 2 is the shallow aquifer.
The names and characteristics of this upper water-bearing zone are variable throughout the
NMGWM. For example, the Dune Sand Aquifer is present beneath the CEMEX site and consists of
younger and older dune sand geologic units.15 The A-Aquifer located beneath the former Fort Ord
Area contains older dune sand deposits and overlies the Fort Ord-Salinas Valley Aquitard (FOSVA).16 The Perched A Aquifer located in the Salinas Valley floor area is composed of flood plain
and valley basin deposits and overlies the Salinas Valley Aquitard (SVA).17 These and other shallow
aquifers are collectively represented by Model Layer 2.
The SVA and FO-SVA are composed of clay layers that, where present, reportedly confine
underlying aquifers (for example, the 180-FT Aquifer).18 The SVA underlies most of the northern
Salinas Valley floor deposits and the FO-SVA is present beneath most of the former Fort Ord Area.
The available information indicates that the FO-SVA thins towards the coast and is absent beneath
15

Ibid. [10]
Harding Lawson Associates, 1994, Draft Final Basewide Hydrogeologic Characterization Fort Ord, California
Volume I Text and Plates, A Report Prepared for U.S. Department of the Army Corps of Engineers Sacramento
District, June 10, 1994.
17
Ibid. [11]
18
Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, 2004, Final Report Hydrostratigraphic Analysis of the Northern Salinas Valley,
prepared for Monterey County Water Resources Agency, May 14, 2004.
16

North Marina Groundwater Model Review, Revision,


and Implementation for Slant Well Pumping Scenarios

HydroFocus, Inc.
November 23, 2016

the younger dune sand deposits;19 at the CEMEX site, borehole logs for the younger dune sand
deposits confirm this clay layer is absent, however thin clay layers are reported in borehole logs
further inland indicating transition zones can exist between the aquitards and where they are
absent near the coast.20 The transition zones provide variable hydraulic connections between the
overlying shallow aquifers and deeper aquifers21 (see Figure 2.1). These aquitards and transition
zones are collectively represented by Model Layer 3, and their water transmitting properties are
variable throughout the NMGWM area.
Model Layer 4 represents aquifers underlying Model Layer 3 which includes the 180-FT Aquifer.
The 180-FT Aquifer is composed of valley fill material including older alluvium and alluvial fan
deposits22 and is confined by the overlying SVA.23 In the former Fort Ord Area, the 180-FT Aquifer is
characterized as having Upper and Lower zones where gravels and sands corresponding to
lower valley terrace deposits are separated by a thin intermediate confining clay unit, and the
Upper 180-FT aquifer is confined by the overlying FO-SVA, where present.24 The terrace deposits
underlying the CEMEX site have been referenced as the 180-FT Equivalent (180-FTE) Aquifer.25
The 180/400-FT Aquitard, represented by Model Layer 5, underlies the 180-FT aquifers (Model
Layer 4) and overlies the 400-FT Aquifer.26 The 400-FT Aquifer is composed of the Aromas Sands,
which are eolian (wind-blown) and fluvial sands.27 The 400/900-FT Aquitard separates the 400-FT
Aquifer from deeper aquifers (the 900-FT Aquifer)28; the 400/900-FT Aquitard is represented by
Model Layer 7 and the 900-FT Aquifer is represented by Model Layer 8. The 900-FT Aquifer is
composed of Paso Robles Formation deposits, and is part of a deep aquifer system.29
Recharge and Discharge
Recharge to the Salinas Valley is primarily from deep percolation of rainfall and applied irrigation,
surface water infiltration, and subsurface boundary inflows.30 Water quality in the shallow aquifer
19

Ibid. [16]
Borehole logs from MW-1, MW-3, and MW-4 do not contain clay, however the borehole log from MW-7 does
contain a thin clay layer, as shown in Figure 4 Ibid. [11]
21
Ibid. [16] and ibid. [20]
22
Greene HG, 1970, Geology of the Southern Monterey Bay and its Relationship to the Ground Water Basin and
Salt Water Intrusion, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 70-141.
23
Ibid. [18]
24
Harding ESE, 2001, Final Report Hydrogeologic Investigation of the Salinas Valley Basin in the Vicinity of Fort Ord
and Marina Salinas Valley, California, prepared for Monterey County Water Resources Agency, April 12, 2001
25
Ibid. [10]
26
Hall P, 1992, Selected Geological Cross Sections in the Salinas Valley Using GEOBASE, Earthware of California.
Prepared for Monterey County Water Resources Agency Basin Management Plan, May 1992.
27
Johnson MJ, 1983, Ground Water in North Monterey County, California, 1980, U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 83-4023.
28
Ibid. [18]
29
Hanson RT, Everett RR, Newhouse MW, Crawford SM, Pimentel MI, Smith GA, Geohydrology of a Deep-Aquifer
System Monitoring-Well Site at Marina, Monterey County, California, U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources
Investigations Report 02-4003.
30
Brown and Caldwell, 2015, State of the Salinas River Groundwater Basin, Prepared for Monterey County
Resource Management Agency Salinas, CA, January 16, 2015.
20

North Marina Groundwater Model Review, Revision,


10
and Implementation for Slant Well Pumping Scenarios

HydroFocus, Inc.
November 23, 2016

is poor and therefore groundwater pumped from the shallow aquifer is not typically used for
irrigation or drinking. 31 Groundwater is pumped primarily from the 180-FT and 400-FT Aquifers,32
and pumping currently exceeds recharge. The groundwater pumping has caused ocean water to
flow inland. Monterey County Water Resources Agency (MCWRA) has mapped the inland
movement of the seawater intrusion interface since 194433 and has estimated that 374,000 acrefeet of seawater intrusion occurred from 1970 to 1992 (average annual intrusion rate of 17,000
AF/yr).34

2.2 Model Construction


The NMGWM was first constructed in 2008 to simulate monthly groundwater conditions in the area
shown in Figure 1.2. The NMGWM incorporated horizontal and vertical hydraulic conductivity,
specific storage, monthly pumping, and monthly recharge from the Monterey County Water
Resource Agencys Salinas Valley Integrated Ground and Surface Water Model (SVIGSM).35 The
SVIGSM represents the entire Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin; whereas, the NMGWM represents
only a 149 square mile portion of the over 650 square mile SVIGSM area. The NMGWM includes
part of the Pacific Ocean and about seven miles of the inland area southeast of the coastline (Figure
2.2).
The NMGWM employs the U.S. Geological Survey Finite Difference Groundwater Flow Model
(MODFLOW),36 and its rectangular finite-difference grid is comprised of square 200-ft by 200-ft
model cells oriented along 300 rows and 345 columns. The grid is rotated 16 degrees clockwise
from horizontal and approximately parallels the coastline. In the vertical direction, the NMGWM is
comprised of eight-layers of variable thicknesses that are intended to represent aquifers and
aquitards as summarized above and shown in Table 2.1. Four of the eight model layers (Layers 2,
4, 6, and 8) represent the primary water-bearing zones, Model Layer 1 is used exclusively to
represent the ocean, and Model Layers 3, 5, and 7 represent the primary aquitards.
The NMGWM is bounded on the west by the Pacific Ocean, and inland the model is bounded by
adjacent portions of the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin (Figure 2.3). The ocean boundary is
represented using specified water levels equal to sea level.37 The specified water levels are referred
to as constant head boundaries because they allow the model to simulate unlimited water flow in
31

Ibid. [18] and ibid. [24]


Ibid [30].
33
Monterey County Water Resources Agency, 2014, Historic Seawater Intrusion Map. Pressure 180-Foot Aquifer
500 mg/L Chloride Areas. ; Monterey County Water Resources Agency, 2014, Historic Seawater Intrusion Map.
Pressure 400-Foot Aquifer 500 mg/L Chloride Areas.
34
Ibid [30].
35
Montgomery Watson, 1997, Salinas Valley Integrated Ground Water and Surface Model
Update, Final Report, May 1997.
36
U.S. Geological Survey, 2000, MODFLOW-2000, The U.S. Geological Survey Modular Ground-Water
Model User Guide to Modularization Concepts and the Ground-Water Flow Process, Open-File Report
00-92.
37
The water levels represent hydraulic potential, or hydraulic head, and are corrected for density differences
between the high saline, denser ocean water relative to the less saline, less dense inland groundwater. These
corrected water levels are referred to as equivalent freshwater heads.
32

North Marina Groundwater Model Review, Revision,


11
and Implementation for Slant Well Pumping Scenarios

HydroFocus, Inc.
November 23, 2016

or out of these cells to maintain constant water levels throughout the simulation. The movement of
groundwater across the inland NMGWM boundaries is represented by head-dependent flow
boundaries (denoted as general-head boundaries in Figure 2.3). Head-dependent flow boundaries
allow for water flow in or out of the model in proportion to the model-calculated water level at the
boundary, a specified monthly water level external to the model boundary, and the specified
subsurface water-transmitting properties. The specified external water levels at the NMGWM headdependent flow boundaries were extrapolated from the distribution of monthly model-calculated
water levels from the SVIGSM.
The spatial distribution of model inputs for monthly pumping, recharge, and stream losses and
gains (Salinas River and Tembladero Slough) were extracted from the SVIGSM and applied to the
NMGWM. Groundwater pumping is spatially distributed within the SVIGSM by individual model
elements based on total pumping for model subregions. The total pumping for agricultural and
urban portions of the model subregions was based on records collected, maintained, and reported
annually by MCWRA,38 and then distributed between SVIGSM elements.39 Groundwater recharge for
the SVIGSM was estimated from climate, land-use, and surface water supply data and also
distributed by model element.40 The timing and magnitude of the adjusted pumping, recharge, and
simulated stream losses and gains were extracted from the SVIGSM and then distributed among
NMGWM cells representing the corresponding elements and surface water features.41

2.3 Assessment of Model Inputs and Outputs


In September 2015, we received the most recent version of the NMGWM (herein referred to as
NMGWM2015). Additionally, in November 2015 we requested and received Microsoft Excel
spreadsheets utilized to prepare head-dependent flow boundary water levels, pumping rates,
recharge rates, and stream losses and gains from SVIGSM output for input to the NMGWM2015. We
compared modeled pumping, recharge, and stream infiltration with the corresponding SVIGSM
output and found that the values agreed.
We ran the model (NMGWM2015) and confirmed the model results were the same as reported. The
model-calculated water levels at observation well locations were extracted, compared to the
information reported for model-calculated and measured water levels, and found to agree with two
exceptions.42 The two exceptions were data associated with wells 14S/3E-6R1 and 14S/2E-14L01.
In the NMGWM2015 data set, the water level measurement dates reported for well 14S/3E-6R1 were
11-days off, and well 14S/2E-14L01 was designated as representing Model Layer 6 in the
NMGWM2015 but was identified by MCWRA as representing the 180-FT Aquifer (Model Layer 4). We
38

Monterey County Water Resources Agency, 2014, Annual Groundwater Summary Reports,
http://www.mcwra.co.monterey.ca.us/.
39
Luhdorff and Scalmanini Consulting Engineers (LSCE), 2015, Hydrologic Modeling of the Monterey Peninsula
Water Supply Project Using the Salinas Valley Integrated Ground and Surface Water Model.
40
Ibid. [39]
41
Ibid. [10]
42
Figure 37, Comparison of Measured Versus Model-Calculated Groundwater Elevations Transient Model
Calibration (Water Years 1980-2011), Appendix E2, Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Groundwater
Modeling and Analysis, Geoscience Support Services, April 17, 2015.
North Marina Groundwater Model Review, Revision,
12
and Implementation for Slant Well Pumping Scenarios

HydroFocus, Inc.
November 23, 2016

corrected the measurement dates for 14S/3E-6R1, and learned that the water levels in 14S/2E14L01 are similar to Model Layer 6 wells and were therefore assigned to Layer 6 to be consistent
with SVIGSM.43 We therefore did not change the layer designation of 14S/2E-14L01.
We extracted, mapped, and reviewed model input values for horizontal and vertical hydraulic
conductivity and storativity44 from NMGWM2015 input files for comparison with values reported on
maps.45 The horizontal hydraulic conductivity values in the NMGWM2015 agreed with the reported
maps,46 and the mapped vertical hydraulic conductivity values also agreed with reported maps47
with two exceptions. In Model Layer 1, there was a zone in the northwest part of the model where
the reported map showed vertical hydraulic conductivity ranging from 0.21-0.40 feet per day (ft/d),
but the model value was 4.0 ft/d. Because all active Model Layer 1 cells are constant-head cells that
represent the ocean, the effect of the difference in conductivity values was insignificant. The second
exception is related to mapped areas which show a range in vertical hydraulic conductivity values
whereas the actual model input were constant values. The difference represents a mapping
discrepancy, and had no influence on reported model results. The modeled storativity values are
within the reported map ranges48 with the following exceptions. In Model Layers 3, 4, and 5 the
minimum modeled storativity values (0.000003, 0.000002, and 0.000002, respectively) are below
the minimum reported values (0.000010, 0.000100, and 0.000010, respectively). In Model Layer 5,
the maximum modeled storativity value (0.000800) is above the maximum reported value
(0.000100). These differences also represent reporting discrepancies and had no influence on
model results.

3.0 NMGWM2015 Revisions (NMGWM2016)


Table 3.1 summarizes modifications to the NMGWM2015 to improve overall model functionality and
its correspondence with the conceptual model described in Section 2.1 above (herein referred to as
the NMGWM2016). Details on key modifications are summarized in the sections that follow Table
3.1. These include additional data from wells located south of the Salinas River, incorporating
results from analysis of test slant well monitoring data, and refinements to model parameter zones
utilized to represent the spatial distribution of water-transmitting and storage properties in the
model.

43

Johnson Yeh, Geoscience Support Services Inc., written communication, January 14, 2016.
MODFLOW utilizes specific storage, and for this comparison storativity was calculated from modeled specific
storage (Ss) multiplied by layer thickness.
45
Ibid [10].
46
Figure 31, Horizontal Hydraulic Conductivity of the NMGWM, in Appendix E2, Monterey Peninsula Water Supply
Project Groundwater Modeling and Analysis, Geoscience Support Services, April 17, 2015.
47
Figure 32, Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity of the NMGWM, in Appendix E2, Monterey Peninsula Water Supply
Project Groundwater Modeling and Analysis, Geoscience Support Services, April 17, 2015.
48
Figure 33, Storativity of the NMGWM, in Appendix E2, Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Groundwater
Modeling and Analysis, Geoscience Support Services, April 17, 2015.
44

North Marina Groundwater Model Review, Revision,


13
and Implementation for Slant Well Pumping Scenarios

HydroFocus, Inc.
November 23, 2016

Table 3.1
Modifications implemented in NMGWM2016
NMGWM2015

NMGWM2016

Objective

General model file structure and program


Simulation period split into parts
Model files combined into a
to reduce file size, and model run
single simulation period, and
using Groundwater Vistas project
input files modified to run with
files. Groundwater Vistas is a
MODFLOW 2000 executable
proprietary graphical user
freely available from the USGS.
interface.
Layer Type

Simplified post-processing and


eliminated the need for
proprietary software; this
increases accessibility to
interested parties.

Layer 1 layer type set to


convertible (can be confined or
unconfined).

Layer 1 is effectively a
boundary condition, and
represents the ocean as a freesurface water body (See Figure
3.2b).

Layer 1 layer type set to confined


Layer Elevations

Layer 1 specified with a uniform


1-ft thickness.

In model areas that represent


the Pacific Ocean, Layer 1 has
variable thickness and the top
elevation set equal to mean sea
level (0 feet).

In 72 Layer 1 ocean model cells


located along the coast, the
bottom of Layer 1 was above the
specified constant head.

Layer 1 bottom elevations


were modified to a value of 1.0
feet below mean sea level.

In 26 inland cells along the coast,


the Layer 1 bottom elevation
(corresponding with land surface
elevation) was below sea level.
Aquifer bottom elevations were
not updated with revised cross
sections
Layer 2 bottom elevations in Fort
Ord area equal to mean sea level
(0 feet).

Layer 1 bottom elevation set to


the average bottom elevation
of adjacent inland cells and sea
level.
Modified aquifer bottom
elevations based on updated
cross sections and point
elevation data49
Layer 2 bottom elevation in
Fort Ord area modified to
correspond with top elevation
of FO-SVA.

Improved physical
representation of the ocean by
specifying the top of Layer 1
equivalent to the upper-most
surface at mean sea level, and
the bottom of the layer
equivalent to the ocean bottom,
thereby representing the entire
water column above the ocean
bottom.
Prevented model cells with
convertible layer type (confined
or unconfined) from starting
out dry causing the model
simulation to abort.
Improved representation of
land surface for
implementation of effects of sea
level rise.
Represent most up-to-date
geologic sections based on new
borehole data.
Represent A-Aquifer and
underlying FO-SVA, which was
missing from the NMGWM2015.

Active Model Cells (IBOUND array)

49

Johnson Yeh, Geoscience Support Services, Inc., written communication, March 4, 2016, shapefile of bottom
elevation control points.
North Marina Groundwater Model Review, Revision,
14
and Implementation for Slant Well Pumping Scenarios

HydroFocus, Inc.
November 23, 2016

Table 3.1
Modifications implemented in NMGWM2016
NMGWM2015
CEMEX dredge pond not
represented.
Model cells representing ocean
were inactive in parts of Layers 16.
Initial Heads
CEMEX dredge pond not
represented.
Model cells representing ocean
were inactive in parts of Layers 16.

NMGWM2016
Represented dredge pond
identified on aerial
photograph50 as constant head
cells in Layer 1.
Activated all cells where ocean
exists and specified as constant
head cells.
Specified initial heads equal to
mean sea level in activated
cells representing the dredge
pond
Specified initial heads in newly
activated constant head cells in
Layers 1-6 to equal equivalent
freshwater heads.

Head-Dependent (GHB) Flow Boundaries


GHB and constant head cells
overlapped at ocean/land
Removed two (2) overlapping
interface causing discrepancies in
GHB and constant head cells.
model-calculated water budget
terms.
Aquifer Properties
Modified LPF file to use
MODFLOW parameter feature,
and moved the calibrated
Aquifer property arrays specified aquifer property arrays to the
in MODFLOWs layer properties
multiplier array (MULT file).
file (LPF file).
The parameter values are
specified in the LPF and SEN
files accordingly to MODFLOW
2000 conventions.
Aquifer properties
Specified high values of
Layer 1
specified the same as
horizontal and vertical
Layer 2.
conductivity and a specific yield
Inactive cells in parts of
of 1.0.
Layer 1-6
ocean
Split Model Layer 2 into
multiple zones: dune sand
(coastal); dune sand (inland);
Only one parameter zone
transition zone; and older dune
Layer 2
representing Model Layer
sand. Updated horizontal and
2 near CEMEX site.
vertical conductivity values
based on reported analysis of
test slant well pumping.

Objective
Represent effect of dredge
pond.
Represent ocean water column
overlying Layers 7 and 8.

Specify initial heads in newly


activated cells.

Correct for overlapping


boundary conditions and
resolve problems with water
budget terms.

Utilize MODFLOW 2000 to


efficiently quantify model
sensitivity to aquifer
properties.

Minimize resistance to flow to


mimic surface water body and
simulate presence of ocean
water.
Represent updated conceptual
model and revised aquifer
parameters; improve
agreement between measured
and model-calculated water
level drawdown.

50

Aerial photograph from: World Imagery - Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus
DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community
North Marina Groundwater Model Review, Revision,
15
and Implementation for Slant Well Pumping Scenarios

HydroFocus, Inc.
November 23, 2016

Table 3.1
Modifications implemented in NMGWM2016
NMGWM2015

Layer 3

No aquitard in Fort Ord


area south of Salinas
River.

Layer 4

One parameter zone to


represent Model Layer 4
near CEMEX site.

NMGWM2016

Objective

Added Fort Ord Salinas Valley


Aquitard and transition zone.
Adjusted horizontal and vertical
conductivity values based on
reported aquifer tests and
modeling studies to improve
comparisons between
measured and model-calculated
water levels.
Split Model Layer 4 into two
zones and updated horizontal
and vertical conductivity values
based on test slant well
pumping analysis.

Calibration data

Calibration targets implemented


within Groundwater Vistas.

Implemented in MODFLOW
Head Observation (HOB) file.

Added measured water level


data from 6 well cluster sites
located in the Fort Ord area

Extract model-calculated water


levels at specified model
locations (for example,
monitoring wells) without need
for proprietary software; HOB
file used by MODFLOW to
calculate model sensitivity to
input values.
Add data to model areas where
data was lacking and improve
overall model assessment.

3.1 Monitoring Wells Added South of Salinas River


We assessed model-calculated water levels south of the Salinas River using measured data from six
well cluster sites in the Ford Ord Area (Figure 3.1). The well cluster sites have monitoring wells
screened in different model layers. Five sites have monitoring wells screened within Model Layer 2
and Model Layer 4, , and one site has monitoring wells screened within Model Layer 2, Model Layer
4, and Model Layer 6. We included the historical water level data reported for these wells51 in our
comparisons between model-calculated and measured water levels.

3.2 Test Slant Well Pumping


As part of another study, monitoring data collected during test slant well pumping was analyzed to
re-calibrate a local model of the CEMEX area (the CEMEX groundwater model).52 The measured
water level data was first de-trended, and the model then re-calibrated to the resulting drawdown
51

Historical water level elevation data extracted from yearly Annual Report of Quarterly Monitoring, Groundwater
Monitoring Program Sites 2 and 12, OU2, OUCTP, and OU1 Off-Site Former Fort Ord, California. Available online at:
http://fortordcleanup.com/
52
Ibid. [11]
North Marina Groundwater Model Review, Revision,
16
and Implementation for Slant Well Pumping Scenarios

HydroFocus, Inc.
November 23, 2016

data.53 The CEMEX model has more model layers than the NMGWM, where CEMEX model layers 2
through 5 and model layers 6 through 8 correspond to NMGWM Model Layers 2 and 4, respectively.
As part of that re-calibration effort CEMEX model layers 2 through 5 were split into two subareas
which generally correspond to mapped deposits of dune sand and older dune sand deposits. The
horizontal and vertical hydraulic conductivity values in these two new subareas were increased
during re-calibration relative to the values specified in the NMGWM2015. The same general area of
CEMEX model layers 6 through 8 were also split into approximately inland and offshore subareas.
Relative to the NMGWM2015, the horizontal hydraulic conductivity was decreased in the offshore
subarea, but was increased in the inland subarea; the vertical conductivity was increased in both
offshore and inland subareas. Specific storage values were generally increased in CEMEX model
layers 2 through 8. These aquifer parameter changes in the CEMEX groundwater model were
incorporated into the equivalent areas and model layers of the NMGWM2016.

3.3 Aquifer Parameter Zones


The spatial distribution of hydraulic conductivity (horizontal and vertical) and storage properties is
represented in the NMGWM by parameter zones. Select NMGWM2015 parameter zones were
modified and their parameter values updated to reflect information from the Fort Ord Area studies,
updated geologic sections from new borehole and monitoring well data, and the slant well pumping
test results described above.
South of the Salinas River, the NMGWM2015 parameter zones were modified to represent reported
hydrogeologic conditions in the Fort Ord Area. We modified the western extent of the FO-SVA
delineated by Harding ESE54 based on the clay identified between the A-Aquifer and 180-FTE
Aquifer in reported cross-sections.55 The eastern boundary of the FO-SVA was delineated at the
elevation difference between the upper dune sand and terrace deposits and the lower valley
deposits. We noted that clay deposits corresponding to the FO-SVA transition and thin towards the
coast, and published water level elevation maps show the horizontal water level gradients increase
in this transition zone.56 We therefore added a parameter zone west of the FO-SVA to represent the
transition zone.
NMGWM layers were adjusted using information from reported geologic sections to re-contour the
bottom of Model Layers 2, 4 and 6. In the CEMEX area, the average thickness of Model Layer 2
decreased by about 14 feet, Model Layer 4 increased in average thickness by almost 16 feet, Model
53

Measured water level data collected from CEMEX monitoring wells during test slant well pumping were detrended. This removed the effect of background recharge and pumping which result in the measured regional
hydraulic gradient and temporal water level trends. To remove these trends (de-trend the measured water-level
data), Geoscience Support Services, Inc. subtracted the measured water levels in wells near the test slant well from
measured regional trends in more distant wells to isolate the water-level changes (drawdown) due solely to slant
well pumping. The drawdown was then analyzed using the local CEMEX model.
54
Ibid. [24]
55
Ibid. [11]
56
Figure 4-1 in Ahtna Engineering Services, 2013, Final Annual Report of Quarterly Monitoring October 2011
through September 2012 Groundwater Monitoring Program Sites 2 and 12, OU2, OUCTP and OU1 Off-Site Former
Fort Ord, California. Prepared for Department of the Army U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, June 21, 2013.
North Marina Groundwater Model Review, Revision,
17
and Implementation for Slant Well Pumping Scenarios

HydroFocus, Inc.
November 23, 2016

Layer 6 increased in average thickness by almost 22 feet, and Model Layer 8 decreased in average
thickness by about 23 feet. There was no change in the thicknesses of Model Layer 3, Model Layer 5,
and Model Layer 7. Additionally, the bottom of Model Layer 2 was modified to better correspond
with the reported top elevation of the FO-SVA.57 Figure 3.2 shows model section lines
approximately aligned with the previously reported section lines58 (Figure 3.2a), and the
corresponding layering and parameter zones utilized in the NMGWM2016 (Figures 3.2b-f).
Figure 3.3 shows the NMGWM2016 parameter zones utilized to represent spatial variations in
geologic materials and water-bearing properties, and compares the values specified for each zone
to values from other hydrogeological and modeling studies (see Figure 3.3d for a listing of other
data sources). Figure 3.4 shows the NMGWM2016 specified values for horizontal hydraulic
conductivity (Figure 3.4a), vertical hydraulic conductivity (Figure 3.4b), and specific storage
(Figure 3.4c). In Figure 3.3a, most (76%) of the NMGWM2016 horizontal conductivity values are
within the range of previous studies with the exception of two zones representing the older dune
sand deposits where the modeled values are noticeably greater (KH13+KH15 and KH17+KH19).
The model-specified values for these older dune sand parameter zones reflect new information
developed from analysis of the slant well pumping test data collected from an observation well
located in the older dune sand deposits.59 Fewer (45%) vertical NMGWM2016 hydraulic conductivity
parameter zones agree with previous studies (Figure 3.3b), but the number of previous studies are
typically limited to only one study (the SVIGSM values) leaving considerable uncertainty in the
likely range of values. In Figure 3.3c, most of the specific storage values agree with values from
previous studies.

4.0 NMGWM2016 Evaluation


We conducted a performance assessment of the NMGWM2016 to support its use for calculating water
level changes in response to slant well pumping. We considered an acceptable model as one
constructed using an accepted computer code60 and reasonable parameter values relative to our
understanding of the hydrogeology and groundwater flow system. Moreover, the model-calculated
water levels and groundwater volumetric budget terms should reasonably agree with the
conceptual understanding of the groundwater system. For example, the model-calculated
groundwater-flow direction should be inland where documented saltwater intrusion is occurring.
Model-calculated water levels should also show the expected seasonal variability and longer-term

57

Based on FO-SVA top elevations reported in Harding Lawson Associates, 1994, "Draft Final Basewide
HydroGeologic Characterization Fort Ord, California. Volume I - Text and Plates." A Report Prepared for U.S.
Department of the Army Corps of Engineers, June 10, 1994.; Harding Lawson Associates, 1999, "Draft Final OU 2
Plume Delineation Investigation Report Fort Ord, California." Prepared for United States Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers, February 11, 1999. ; HydroGeoLogic, Inc., 2006, "Final 100% Engineering Design Report Volume
2 of 3 Groundwater Modeling and Design Analysis Operable Unit 1 Fritzsche Army Airfield Fire Drill Area Former
Fort Ord, California." Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Sacramento District, June 15, 2006. ; and Ibid. [10]
58
Figures 4, 5, and 6 in Ibid. [10]
59
Ibid. [11]
60
2016
The NMGWM
employs the numerical mathematical model MODFLOW, which is widely accepted and used
and has been verified to produce numerically stable solutions.
North Marina Groundwater Model Review, Revision,
18
and Implementation for Slant Well Pumping Scenarios

HydroFocus, Inc.
November 23, 2016

trends identified by measured water levels. Finally, the volumetric water budget should be
consistent with flux terms determined independently of the model (for example, water
consumption and recharge based on climate data, water use, and so forth).
When models are utilized to project the outcome from altered hydrologic conditions, for example
projecting the decline in water levels due to a planned pumping increase, a valid analysis will meet
acceptable measures of numerical accuracy61 and will consider how inaccurate the resulting
projection might be due to uncertainty in model assumptions and model input. A valid analysis
therefore considers the sensitivity of model-calculated water levels to model uncertainty, and
includes information for planners to assess how the uncertainty may affect their decisions based on
model results.

4.1 History Matching Assessment


History matching refers to the process of comparing model-calculated water levels with their
corresponding measured values. The NMGWM2016 history matching assessment was conducted
using measured water level data reported from October 1979 through September 2011. The
difference between model-calculated and measured water levels is model error (referred to as
residuals), and ideally residuals are small and randomly distributed both spatially and with time.
The relative error (RE) is defined as the standard deviation of the residuals (referred to as the rootmean-square error, or RMSE)62 divided by the range in measured water levels (the total change in
measured water levels across the model domain). When the RE is small, model-calculated water
levels are primarily influenced by modeled hydraulic conductivity, storage properties, and stresses
(for example, recharge and pumping) and much less influenced by model error.63 ESI
Environmental, Inc. recommends a RE of less than 10% to 15% as sufficiently small model error
and indicative of a reliable calibration.64
Anderson and Woessner65 recommend additional tests to assess model performance and reliability:
1. Time-series plots of measured and model-calculated water levels (hydrographs) are compared
to assess agreement between the magnitude, timing, and longer term trends.
2. A scatterplot of measured water levels against model-calculated water levels to assess the
correspondence between measured and modeled water levels. The points should plot along a

61

Numerical accuracy refers to acceptable mass balance errors and water level closure criterion. All the slant well
simulations we report had mass balance errors of 0.01% or less, and all converged for the pre-specified water level
closure criterion of 0.0001 feet.
62
The Root Mean Square Error (RMSE), which is the square root of the average of the squared residuals (the
standard deviation), represents the average error or uncertainty in modeled water levels. The RMSE can be
calculated globally for calibration points in the model domain, or individually for each observation point.
63
Anderson M.P. and W.W. Woessner, 1992, Applied Groundwater Modeling.
64
ESI Environmental, Inc., 2004. Guide to Using Groundwater Vistas.
65
Ibid. [63].
North Marina Groundwater Model Review, Revision,
19
and Implementation for Slant Well Pumping Scenarios

HydroFocus, Inc.
November 23, 2016

straight line with a slope of one, thus indicating that measured and model-calculated water
levels agree.
3. A histogram of residuals to assess whether model errors are approximately randomly
distributed.
4. Maps of residuals to reveal potentially poorly performing portions of the model.
The above tests can be applied to the entire model or selected parts of a model (for example,
individual model layers). Variability in model performance is not unusual or unexpected, but their
analysis can reveal model bias. Bias occurs when model errors tend to be mostly positive or mostly
negative, and as a result model objectivity is limited because the model is inclined to over- or
under-calculate water levels. Ultimately the decision of model acceptability is based on the weight
of one or more of the above test results and their relevance for meeting modeling objectives (in this
situation, concluding that the model acceptably projects the magnitude and distribution of the
water level change due to coastal slant well pumping).66
Seasonal Water-Levels and Long-Term Variations
Time-series graphs can be used to assess whether the magnitude in model-calculated water levels
is reasonable, and whether seasonal and longer term hydrologic variability is reproduced by the
model. Time-series graphs of measured and model-calculated water levels are plotted in Figure
4.1. In general, model-calculated water levels mostly agree with measured water levels, and the
model generally captures the measured trends presented in the hydrographs. The greatest
discrepancies are in several Model Layer 2 wells in the Fort Ord Area, two Model Layer 4 wells in
the Fort Ord Area, and late periods of the Model Layer 8 wells.
Shallow groundwater in the Fort Ord Area is influenced by the relatively low transmissivity of the
aquifer and low vertical conductivity of the FO-SVA. Water levels in wells screened above the FOSVA (MW-OU2-07-A, MW-OU2-29-A, MW-BW-31-A, and MW-BW-01-A) are noticeably higher than
wells where the FO-SVA is less continuous or becomes absent (MW-BW-11-A and MW-2-15-18OU).
The modeled water levels clearly start too low, but as the simulation proceeds the agreement
improves between model-calculated and measured water levels. We attribute these discrepancies
to deficiencies in the prescribed initial water levels which originated from the SVIGSM.
The poorest performance in the Fort Ord Area occurs at MW-OU2-29-A where model-calculated
water levels are consistently about 60-feet lower than measured. Measured water levels indicate
that the vertical gradient between Model Layer 2 and Model Layer 4 at this location is greater than
one (1.0). These large vertical gradients are indicative of limited vertical hydraulic connectivity
66

Anderson and Woessner (1992) also recommend comparisons between contour maps of measured and modelcalculated water levels. However, the available field data was insufficient to prepare reliable historical contour
maps for the NMGWM area. Furthermore, contoured data can contain its own errors as a result of data
uncertainty and contouring errors. The comparison of measured and model-calculated water levels was therefore
not conducted as part of this model assessment.
North Marina Groundwater Model Review, Revision,
20
and Implementation for Slant Well Pumping Scenarios

HydroFocus, Inc.
November 23, 2016

between the two aquifers represented by the model layers, and the likely presence of an
unsaturated interval between them that is not reproduced by the groundwater-flow model
(groundwater in the uppermost water-bearing zone is likely perched).67 Errors at this model
location are attributed to limitations in MODFLOW and its inability to simulate steep vertical
gradients and perched conditions. This limitation appears to be localized, and model performance
is relatively acceptable in other portions of the Fort Ord Area where the vertical gradients are less
steep.
The agreement between seasonal and long-term water levels in Model Layer 4, Model Layer 6, and
Model Layer 8 is generally superior to the comparisons to Model Layer 2 wells, but there are
exceptions. The model-calculated water levels at two Model Layer 4 wells are noticeably greater
than measured (wells MW-OU2-29-180 and MW-BW-O2-180), and likely represent deficiencies in
specified water levels for the southern head-dependent flux boundary. In Model Layer 8, the modelcalculated water levels show greater seasonal variability than measured water levels. In 1998, the
Castroville Seawater Intrusion Project (CSIP) reduced irrigation-related pumping by replacing
groundwater use with recycled water. The model-calculated water levels after 1998 are generally
lower and the seasonal highs and lows more pronounced than measured, indicating that modeled
pumping may be greater than actually occurs in this portion of the NMGWM2016 area. The
discrepancies in Model Layer 8 well water levels therefore may indicate deficiencies in the
prescribed stresses (recharge and pumping) which originated from the SVIGSM.
As a final test of long-term trends, we compared September 2011 model-calculated water levels
from the NMGWM2015 and NMGWM2016 with measured water levels from recently constructed
monitoring wells near the CEMEX site (measured water levels from June through October, 2015).68
This comparison is limited because monitoring well construction occurred during December 2014
through July 2015, several years after the end of the history matching data set (September 2011).
Model-calculated water levels therefore do not reflect recharge and pumping changes that occurred
after September 2011. Figure 4.2 shows generally good agreement between September 2011
model-calculated water levels and measured 2015 water levels. This suggests that model results
are reasonable in areas where measured data were lacking for model construction and calibration,
and that in this portion of the model domain annual hydrologic conditions have not likely changed
substantially. The exceptions are monitoring wells MW-5S and MW-6M. Monitoring well MW-5S is
perforated in the shallowest water-bearing zone, and including the FO-SVA as part of the update to
NMGWM2016 substantially improved model performance at the location of this monitoring well. The
model-calculated water levels at monitoring well MW-6M are almost identical for both the
NMGWM2015 and NMGWM2016, and are almost 20-feet greater than the corresponding measured
value. The measured water level from monitoring well MW-6M is similar to measured and modelcalculated water levels for Model Layer 6 which represents the 400-FT Aquifer, and may indicate

67

When the vertical gradient between two aquifers exceeds one (e.g., a vertical gradient between aquifers
represented by Model Layer 2 and Model Layer 4) the gradient exceeds natural drainage by gravity. Vertical
gradients that exceed the limit of natural drainage can indicate the condition where the two aquifers are separated
by an unsaturated zone (perched groundwater conditions).
68
Ibid. [11]
North Marina Groundwater Model Review, Revision,
21
and Implementation for Slant Well Pumping Scenarios

HydroFocus, Inc.
November 23, 2016

the well is erroneously assigned to Model Layer 4. These errors therefore are probably not
indicative of a model deficiency.69
Scatterplots and Histograms
Figure 4.3 shows the relationship between model-calculated and measured water levels. Ideally,
points should fall on the 45-degree line (slope equal to 1.0) indicating model-calculated and
measured values are identical. Plots were constructed for the entire model (All Model Layers in
Figure 4.3a) and the relationships were quantified using linear regression. The strength of the
linear relationships was determined by calculating the correlation coefficient (r).70 In general, most
model-calculated and measured water levels approach a diagonal line and linear regression
indicates a slope approaching 1.0 (0.6). The RMSE reported in Figure 4.3a (12.4 feet) divided by
the range in measured water levels over the entire model domain (196 feet) is about 6%, and
substantially less than 10% to 15%, indicating that the relative error (RE) acceptably meets the
calibration criteria. The low RE indicates that the residuals (model errors) are only a small part of
the overall model response to the prescribed changes in recharge and pumping.
Figure 4.3b provides individual plots for Model Layers 2, 4, 6, and 8. In general, most modelcalculated and measured water levels approach diagonal lines and linear regression indicates
slopes approaching 1.0 (0.5 to 0.8). The strongest relationship (greatest correlation coefficient) is in
Model Layer 6 and Model Layer 8 (r = 0.8), and weakest relationship is in Model Layer 2 (r = 0.6).
The RE is 14% or less in Model Layers 4, 6 and 8, indicating that the calibration criteria is met in
these layers, but the RE is 30% and exceeds the calibration criteria in Model Layer 2. Measured
water level data for Model Layer 2 is limited to monitoring wells constructed in the Fort Ord Area,
and relatively large residuals occur during early portions of the historical run likely owing to errors
in the specified initial conditions derived from the SVIGSM (Figure 4.1a). Additionally, large
residuals are calculated for model results at one location (OU2-29-A) because groundwater is likely
perched above the underlying aquifers. The limited geographic distribution of observation sites (all
Model Layer 2 observation sites are located south of the Salinas River), errors in the initial water
levels specified for Model Layer 2, and the modeling limitations for reliably simulating localized
perched conditions reduce model performance in Model Layer 2.
Histograms of the residuals are also plotted in Figure 4.3. Ideally, there should be both positive and
negative residuals, random in sign and magnitude across the model grid, and normally distributed
with a mean value of zero. Visually, most of the residuals conform to the expected pattern and fall
within a fairly narrow range that is close to zero, and the number of positive and negative residuals
appear to be about the same (Figure 4.3a). Quantitatively, the calculated average of the residuals is
close to zero (0.6 foot). The distributions of residuals are plotted by model layer in Figure 4.3b, and
indicate they are likely not random in Model Layer 2 and Model Layer 8. In Model Layer 2, negative
residuals are primarily due to the errors in prescribed initial water levels derived from the SVIGSM,
69

Geoscience updated the classification of well MW-6 in their TM2 (ibid [11]); both MW-6M and MW-6D are
interpreted as being screened in the Valley Fill deposits (180-FT Aquifer, Model Layer 4).
70
The correlation coefficient (r) is a statistical measure of the strength of the relationship between the total
variations in the model-calculated water levels and the measured water levels (or with the residuals).
North Marina Groundwater Model Review, Revision,
22
and Implementation for Slant Well Pumping Scenarios

HydroFocus, Inc.
November 23, 2016

and as a result large residuals occur at the beginning of the simulation. In Model Layer 8, the
reduction in pumping owing to CSIP project start-up is not adequately represented, and suggests
that the modeled pumping from the SVIGSM may be too great.
In Model Layer 4, the histogram of residuals appear approximately random but there is a
correlation between residuals and model-calculated water levels (r = 0.4). The positive correlation
indicates that residuals tend to become more positive as the model-calculated water levels increase,
which is evidence of simulation bias. There is no correlation between residuals and modelcalculated water levels in Layers 2, 6 and 8 (r = 0), indicating the lack of bias in those layers. We
obtained SVIGSM-calculated water levels71 to investigate possible causes for the bias identified in
Figure 4.3b.72
The NMGWM2016-calculated water levels for Model Layer 4 and the SVIGSM-calculated water levels
for the 180-FT Aquifer represented by the SVIGSM are compared in Figure 4.3c and show both
models exhibit bias. Linear regression indicates generally good agreement between modelcalculated and measured water levels (results from both models plot near diagonal lines and have
slopes equal to 0.8), but the residuals in both models tend to become more positive as the modelcalculated water levels increase (r values of 0.3 and 0.4). Hence, the bias identified in the
NMGWM2016 is likely inherited from the SVIGSM.
Figure 4.3d provides a close inspection of the timing of water level changes and magnitude of the
residuals in an example well represented by Model Layer 4 (02J01). Model-calculated and
measured water levels show seasonal highs and lows, however during the beginning years of the
simulation the modeled seasonal decline occurs about one- to two-months earlier than the
measured decline and as a result their differences produce relatively large residuals. Later in the
simulation period, the agreement in the timing of seasonal highs and lows improves and results in
smaller residuals. Figure 4.3d reveals that the declining residuals with increasing time in Model
Layer 4 are therefore likely the consequence of errors in the timing and magnitude of specified
recharge and pumping (in other words, the bias in Model Layer 4 is attributed to deficiencies in the
prescribed stresses). The timing and magnitude of recharge and pumping in the SVIGSM and
NMGWM2016 are identical, and therefore both exhibit the same bias.
Residual Maps
The spatial distribution of residuals can identify potential geographic areas where the model may
be a relatively poor representation of measured conditions. Ideally, the spatial distribution would
be random (in the NMGWM2016, the signs of the median residuals are positive and negative and
distributed randomly across the model), the absolute value of the medians are variable (in the
NMGWM2016, some residuals are relatively high and others are relatively low), and no clustering
exists (for example, in the NMGWM2016 the sign and magnitude of residuals do not group within
particular model subareas).
71

Nick Watterson, LSCE, written communication, January 19, 2016.


LSCE, Hydrologic Modeling of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Using the Salinas Valley Integrated
Ground and Surface Water Model, March 2015.
72

North Marina Groundwater Model Review, Revision,


23
and Implementation for Slant Well Pumping Scenarios

HydroFocus, Inc.
November 23, 2016

The spatial distribution of residuals is mapped in Figure 4.4 and show that they are fairly random,
and all model layers have positive and negative values. The observation well locations appear most
limited in Model Layer 2 and Model Layer 8. In Model Layer 2, the measured water levels are
limited to monitoring wells located in the Fort Ord Area, and the greatest residuals occur at three
locations (median residuals that range from -9 feet to -67 feet). These three Model Layer 2 wells
were identified previously as problematic and likely representative of deficiencies in prescribed
initial conditions and localized perched groundwater conditions (see Section Seasonal WaterLevels and Long-Term Variations above). In Model Layer 8, the observation wells are limted to
locations near the coastline, and while the median residuals are fairly small (median residuals that
range from 0 to -5 feet) the standard deviations are uniformly large at all wells. The large standard
deviations are indicative of deficiencies in the magnitude and timing of pumping prescribed for
Model Layer 8.
Volumetric Budget
The computer code ZONEBUDGET73 was used to extract model simulated volumetric fluxes.
Monthly fluxes are summarized and reported in Figure 4.5 as average annual water budget
components for 1979-2011. The water budget components represent the net inflow and outflow of
water within the boundaries and at the edges of the NMGWM2016. Groundwater pumping averaged
over 66,000 acre-feet per year (AF/yr), and exceeded water table recharge by almost 27,000 AF/yr.
An almost equal amount of recharge (22,600 AF/yr) flows into the model from the ocean, which is
consistent with observed sea water intrusion that has been degrading groundwater quality in the
basin for decades.

4.2 Test Slant Well Pumping


Model reliability for simulating drawdown from slant well pumping was assessed using test slant
well pumping data.74 The drawdown and drawdown recovery determined from measured water
levels during and after cessation of test slant well pumping are plotted with the corresponding
model-calculated drawdown in Figure 4.6. Additionally, the model-calculated drawdown from the
NMGWM2015 and from a smaller focus area model (the CEMEX model)75 is plotted in Figure 4.6.
Comparison of the NMGWM2016 and NMGWM2015 results provide insight into performance changes
as a result of our revisions, and comparisons with the CEMEX model results provide insight into
scale effects on NMGWM performance (both the NMGWM2016 and NMGWM2015 employ a uniform
200-ft by 200-ft model cell grid, whereas the CEMEX model employs a uniform 20-ft by 20-ft model
cell grid).
There is generally good agreement between the model-calculated and measured timing of
drawdown and recovery, and at all locations the performance of the NMGWM2016 shows
73

Harbaugh AW, 1990, A computer program for calculating subregional water budgets using results from the U.S.
Geological Survey modular three-dimensional ground-water flow model, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report
90-392, 46 p.
74
Ibid. [11]
75
Ibid. [11]
North Marina Groundwater Model Review, Revision,
24
and Implementation for Slant Well Pumping Scenarios

HydroFocus, Inc.
November 23, 2016

improvement relative to the NMGWM2015. The improvement is the result of adjustments to the
water transmitting and storage properties in the coastal parameter zones, as evident by
comparisons at monitoring wells MW-1, MW-3, and MW-4, and modifying the model parameter
zones in the Fort Ord Area, as evident by comparisons at monitoring well MW-7S. Specifically,
Figure 4.6 shows that drawdown was not observed in MW-7S, but the NMGWM2015 calculated
declining water levels. The model-calculated water levels showed no drawdown after revising the
conceptual framework in this part of the NMGWM2016. 76
The measured drawdown is greater than NMGWM2016-calculated water levels at monitoring wells
located nearest the pumping well screens (MW-1S and MW-1M), and the comparison generally
improves for monitoring wells located at increasing distances inland from the pumping well. The
differences are due in part to the size of the square finite-difference model cells relative to the
lengths and locations of the modeled monitoring and extraction wells. For example, the water level
in a well represents a composite value for the variable aquifer materials adjacent to the well screen,
whereas the modeled water level represents a point value at the center of the model cell. Similarly,
aquifer properties and stresses can exhibit substantial spatial variability within the volume defined
by a model cell, whereas the model is limited to constant values that represent average conditions
within each model cell. As a result, the model cell size sacrifices detailed variations near the
pumping wells, which limit model accuracy near the wells, but further from the well model
performance improves.

4.3 Factors that Influence Model Calculations


A reliable groundwater-flow model is one that can produce field-measured water levels and
groundwater flow within an acceptable range of error. Error exists because information on the real
world system is always incomplete, and the field information that is available has associated errors
(for example, measurement error or the assignment of monitoring wells to incorrect aquifers). The
most likely sources of error in the NMGWM2016 could arise from neglecting potential processes (for
example, density effects on groundwater flow and the hydraulic effect of future sea level changes)
and uncertainty associated with modeled boundary conditions, specified hydraulic conductivity
values, and assumed project operations. Background on these potentially important processes is
provided below, and the sensitivity of model-calculated drawdown to the most relevant factors is
discussed in Section 6.0 Uncertainty.

76

2015

The drawdown in MW-7S calculated by NMGWM


declines over time, and is contrary to the measured
2016
drawdown which is essentially constant and zero. The CEMEX model and NMGWM
both calculate a constant
drawdown of zero in MW-7S, which agrees with measured conditions. However, MW-7S is located near the
boundary of the CEMEX model, and the specified conditions at the model boundary maintain constant water levels
near the boundary regardless of the magnitude and timing of slant well pumping. Hence, the lack of modelcalculated drawdown in MW-7S located at the CEMEX model boundary is a consequence of specified boundary
conditions, and therefore comparisons between CEMEX model-calculated drawdown and measured drawdown in
MW-7S are not reliable.
North Marina Groundwater Model Review, Revision,
25
and Implementation for Slant Well Pumping Scenarios

HydroFocus, Inc.
November 23, 2016

Variable Density
Spatial variations in water density due to salinity differences influence groundwater flow. The
NMGWM2016 was developed using the MODFLOW computer code, which does not consider variable
density effects. Comparisons between MODFLOW calculated water level changes and calculations
using a variable density flow model (SEAWAT77) indicated slight differences in calculated water
levels (approximately one foot).78 These differences exist nearest the coast, where there is a
measured difference in groundwater salinity ranging from seawater to freshwater. However, as the
salinity concentration decreases with increasing distance from the coast, the differences in modelcalculated water levels diminish and become insignificant. Near the coast, and where density effects
are greatest, slant well pumping will have a much greater influence on water level changes and flow
than the spatial differences in salinity and water density. The effects of variable density flow on
NMGWM2016 model results were therefore considered negligible.
Sea Level
Sea level rise can influence the volume of ocean water extracted by slant wells and the resulting
drawdown distribution. An increase in sea level increases the inland encroachment of ocean water
toward the subsurface well screens, and as a result increases the potential for ocean water to flow
into the wells. We therefore considered the sensitivity of model-calculated drawdown to potential
changes in sea level (2012 through 2073). The effects of sea level rise are described below in
Section 5.3.
Boundary Conditions
Model-calculated water levels are variably affected by the type and scope of specified boundary
conditions. Head-dependent flow boundaries (general-head boundaries) are specified around the
perimeter of the inland portions of the NMGWM2016 (Figure 2.2), but no general-head boundaries
are specified along the edges of the submarine aquifer units beneath the ocean. Further, modelcalculated flow across those general-head boundaries can be sensitive to the external boundary
water levels and boundary conductance values specified in the model.
To simulate the effect of submarine flow on model-calculated water levels, general-head boundaries
were added along the entire model extent beneath the ocean. We compared the NMGWM 2016 results
with and without these added boundaries and found no discernable difference in model-calculated
drawdown. With the submarine boundaries included, almost 2% more water enters the model
domain through general-head boundaries, and the added inflow is compensated by a 0.2% decrease
in ocean inflow simulated by the constant head boundaries. We therefore concluded model
sensitivity to submarine boundary conditions was negligible. We also tested model sensitivity to
the specified general-head boundary conductance values. We calculated alternative boundary
conductance values based on the adjacent hydraulic conductivity of the parameter zone values in
77

Langevin CD, Thorne Jr. DT, Dausman AM, Sukop MC, Guo W, 2008, SEAWAT Version 4: A Computer Program
for Simulation of Multi-Species Solute and Heat Transport, U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods Book
6, Chapter A22.
78
Ibid. [10]
North Marina Groundwater Model Review, Revision,
26
and Implementation for Slant Well Pumping Scenarios

HydroFocus, Inc.
November 23, 2016

the model domain, and the resulting conductance values decreased on average by a factor of almost
200. However, there was no discernable difference in model-calculated drawdown as a result of
decreasing boundary conductance. The model-calculated ocean inflow increased 0.03%, and was
compensated by a 0.3% decrease in model-calculated inland flow from the general-head
boundaries. We therefore concluded model sensitivity to general-head boundary conductance was
also negligible. Because the model is fairly insensitive to submarine general-head boundaries and
general-head boundary conductance values, the model-calculated drawdown is likely most
sensitive to the specified external water levels derived from the SVIGSM.
Hydraulic Conductivity
Hydraulic conductivity values are spatially variable due to non-uniformly distributed soil and
geologic units. Comparisons between modeled conductivity values and the values from other
sources (Figures 3.3a and 3.3b) indicate that each parameter zone has a wide range of possible
hydraulic conductivity values. Sensitivity tests are therefore required to assess the uncertainty in
model-calculated drawdown to uncertainty in hydraulic conductivity.
Project Operations
Model Layer 2 and Model Layer 4 have different water-transmitting and storage properties, and
their contribution to the total well extraction rate can be variable. The quantity of water extracted
from the aquifers represented by these model layers influences the magnitude and extent of
drawdown. Sensitivity tests are therefore required to assess drawdown to uncertainty in the
proportional contribution of groundwater from Model Layer 2 and Model Layer 4 to slant well
pumping.
Returning water to the groundwater basin can reduce drawdown. The volume of return water and
its method of return to the basin influence the magnitude and scope of the reduction in drawdown.
Return water from the MPWSP would be delivered to either the Castroville Community Services
District (CCSD) or the CSIP to replace simulated municipal and agricultural pumping from Model
Layer 6 (Model Layer 6 represents the 400-FT Aquifer). The sensitivity of model-calculated
drawdown to variations in replacement water volume was therefore assessed, and the return water
volumes analyzed ranged from 0% to 12% of total slant well pumping.

5.0 Projected Drawdown from Slant Well Pumpage


Model scenarios were developed to estimate future project groundwater level changes (drawdown)
due to slant well pumping and assess the uncertainty in drawdown due to model assumptions and
input. Pumping and recovery scenarios were defined for the CEMEX and Potrero Road sites, and the
63-year pumping and 63-year recovery scenarios simulated using monthly stress periods.

North Marina Groundwater Model Review, Revision,


27
and Implementation for Slant Well Pumping Scenarios

HydroFocus, Inc.
November 23, 2016

5.1 Well Configuration and Pumping Rates


At the CEMEX site, the slant wells will be screened in both the Dune Sand Aquifer and 180-FT
Aquifer. The fraction of well screen intersecting each aquifer influences the magnitude of
groundwater extracted and the corresponding extent of drawdown within each aquifer. The
configuration of the proposed slant wells was determined from cross sections, diagrams, and
maps.79 The designed screen position and length was then utilized to assign the proportional
distribution of planned pumping to appropriate model cells and model layers (Model Layer 2 and
Model Layer 4, respectively). We intersected the slant well configurations with the NMGWM2016
model cells to determine well screen length in each cell, and then employed one of three methods to
allocate the fraction of the total pumping to the well screen in each model layer.
Three methods were considered to allocate total slant well pumping in the model (Table 5.1). The
first approach allocates pumping based on total screen length within each model layer, and
indicates 21% of the extracted groundwater would come from Model Layer 2 and 79% from Model
Layer 4. This approach is limited because the volume of water extracted is also likely influenced by
the water transmitting properties of the aquifers represented by Model Layer 2 and Model Layer 4.
Therefore the second approach allocated pumping by both screen length and modeled horizontal
conductivity, and the approach indicates 44% of the extracted groundwater would come from
Model Layer 2 and 56% from Model Layer 4. The third approach uses reported results that
determined the pumping allocation based on well screen configuration and model calibration to the
test slant well pumping results (66% from Model Layer 2 and 34% from Model Layer 4).80 These
percentages are most similar to the approach that weighted screen length and modeled horizontal
hydraulic conductivity (the second approach described above). All three allocations were simulated
by the model, and thus considered as part of our uncertainty analysis described in Section 6.0,
however for reporting purposes we relied primarily on the second approach that weighted screen
length and modeled horizontal hydraulic conductivity. At the Potrero Road Site, the slant wells are
screened entirely in the Dune Sand Aquifer (100% of the pumping is from the Dune Sand Aquifer
which is represented by Model Layer 2).

79

CEMEX site: Brian Villalobos, Geoscience Support Services, Inc., written communication, February 24, 2016, PDF
full-scale slant well cross sections and PDF of slant well layout and Brian Villalobos, Geoscience Support Services,
Inc., written communication, May 5, 2016, shapefile of slant well layout; Potrero Road site: Ibid [10] Figures 49, 50,
68 to 84.
80
Ibid. [11].
North Marina Groundwater Model Review, Revision,
28
and Implementation for Slant Well Pumping Scenarios

HydroFocus, Inc.
November 23, 2016

Table 5.1
Allocation of Pumping between Model Layer 2 and Model Layer 4
CEMEX Site
NMGWM2016
Horizontal
Total
Model Layer
Conductivity
% Total
% Total Screen
Screen
(Li),
(Kh),
Screen
Length weighted
Length,
feet
feet/day
Length
by Kh
feet
150
1,339
Model Layer 2
21%a
44%c
(Kh2)
(L2)
50
5,186
Model Layer 4
79%b
56%d
(Kh4)
(L4)

Test Slant Well


Analysis
Resultse
66%
34%

a: {[L2]/([L2]+[L4])} x 100
b: {[L4]/([L2]+[L4])} x 100
c: {[Kh2]x[L2]/([Kh2]x[L2]+[Kh4]x[L4])} x 100
d: {[Kh4]x[L4]/([Kh2]x[L2]+[Kh4]x[L4])} x 100
e: CEMEX model analysis of test slant well pumping indicated 64% from Layer 2 and 36% from Layer 4. These
results were utilized to estimate the distribution of pumping as follows (Johnson Yeh, written
communication, May 27, 2016):
(1)
Ratts = 64%/36% = 1.78
(2)
Ratsl-i = Fadj * 1.78
(3)
Fadj = (bL2-sl-i/bL4-sl-i)/(bL2-ts/bL4-ts)
(4)
pL2-sl-i = Ratsl-i/(1+Ratsl-i) * 100
(5)
pL4-sl-i = 100 pL2-sl-i
where,
Ratts is the ratio of pumping percentage from Model Layer 2 to pumping percentage from Model Layer 4 for
the test slant well
Ratsl-i is the ratio of pumping percentage from Model Layer 2 to pumping percentage from Model Layer 4 for
the project slant well i
BL2-sl-I is the screen length in Model Layer 2 for the project slant well i
BL4-sl-I is the screen length in Model Layer 4 for the project slant well i
BL2-ts is the screen length in Model Layer 2 for the test slant well
BL4-ts is the screen length in Model Layer 4 for the test slant well
PL2-sl-i is the pumping percentage from Model Layer 2 for the project slant well i
PL4-sl-i is the pumping percentage from Model Layer 4 for the project slant well i

North Marina Groundwater Model Review, Revision,


29
and Implementation for Slant Well Pumping Scenarios

HydroFocus, Inc.
November 23, 2016

The NMGWM2016 was employed to calculate drawdown using the pumping distributions in Table
5.1 under the following assumed conditions.

Two well configurations and pumping rates (8 wells pumping and 2 wells on rotating standby
collectively pumping at 24.1 MGD; and, 5 wells pumping and 2 wells on rotating standby
collectively pumping at 15.5 MGD).81
Two sea levels (2012 and projected 2073 sea levels).
Four assumed return water percentages (0%, 3%, 6%, and 12% of total pumping). The return
water is used to replace CCSD Well No. 3 pumping from Model Layer 6, and pumping from
Model Layer 6 by irrigators within the CSIP area (Model Layer 6 represents the 400-FT
Aquifer). For the lower production rate (15.5 MGD), 4,260 acre-feet per year of additional water
is assumed delivered to the CSIP area from the Pure Water Monterey Groundwater
Replenishment Project (GWR).

A total of 34 model run scenarios were developed to calculate drawdown and assess its sensitivity
to model input and model assumptions (Table 5.2). Model results are reported in maps that show
the area where calculated drawdown is 1-foot or greater (the cone of depression). The comparison
of contour maps provides visual means to compare the drawdown for each model scenario.

81

Future operations schedule provided by Brian Villalobos, Geoscience Support Services, Inc., written
communication, May 3, 2016.
North Marina Groundwater Model Review, Revision,
30
and Implementation for Slant Well Pumping Scenarios

HydroFocus, Inc.
November 23, 2016

Table 5.2
MPWSP Matrix of Modeling Runs and Assumptions

Potrero Road Site

CEMEX Site

Drawdown Without
Return Water

Project
Site

Model Run Description

CEMEX Without Return Water


CEMEX Without Return Water
CEMEX Without Return Water
CEMEX Without Return Water
Potrero Without Return Water
Potrero Without Return Water
Potrero Without Return Water
Potrero Without Return Water
Project - 3% Rtn Water as InLieu GW pumping
Project - 3% Rtn Water as InLieu GW pumping
Project - 6% Rtn Water as InLieu GW pumping
Project - 6% Rtn Water as InLieu GW pumping
Project - 12% Rtn Water as InLieu GW pumping
Project - 12% Rtn Water as InLieu GW pumping
Post-CEMEX
Variant - 3% Rtn Water as InLieu GW pumping
Variant - 3% Rtn Water as InLieu GW pumping
Variant - 6% Rtn Water as InLieu GW pumping
Variant - 6% Rtn Water as InLieu GW pumping
Variant - 12% Rtn Water as InLieu GW pumping
Variant - 12% Rtn Water as InLieu GW pumping
Potrero - 3% Rtn Water as InLieu GW pumping
Potrero - 3% Rtn Water as InLieu GW pumping
Potrero - 6% Rtn Water as InLieu GW pumping
Potrero - 6% Rtn Water as InLieu GW pumping
Potrero - 12% Rtn Water as InLieu GW pumping
Potrero - 12% Rtn Water as InLieu GW pumping
Post-Potrero
Potrero Variant - 3% Rtn
Water as In-Lieu GW pumping
Potrero Variant - 3% Rtn
Water as In-Lieu GW pumping
Potrero Variant - 6% Rtn
Water as In-Lieu GW pumping
Potrero Variant - 6% Rtn
Water as In-Lieu GW pumping
Potrero Variant - 12% Rtn
Water as In-Lieu GW pumping
Potrero Variant - 12% Rtn
Water as In-Lieu GW pumping

Sea
Level

2012
2073
2012
2073
2012
2073
2012
2073

MPWSP Pumping
(MGD)
Potrero
CEMEX
Road
From Model
From
Layer 2 &
Model
Model Layer 4
Layer 2
24.1
--24.1
--15.5
--15.5
----24.1
--24.1
--15.5
--15.5

Return Water to CSIP


(AF/YR)
CSIP
CSIP
CEMEX Site
Potrero
CCSD
44/56 Layer
Road
2/Layer 4
Site
Distribution
--0
----0
----0
----0
------0
----0
----0
----0

Ground Water
Replenishment
(GWR) Project
with Additional
CSIP Water
Delivery
(AF/YR)
-----------------

2012

24.1

---

800

10

---

---

2073

24.1

---

800

10

---

---

2012

24.1

---

800

821

---

---

2073

24.1

---

800

821

---

---

2012

24.1

---

800

2,442

---

---

2073

24.1

---

800

2,442

---

---

2073

---

---

No

2012

15.5

---

521

---

4,260

2073

15.5

---

521

---

4,260

2012

15.5

---

690

352

---

4,260

2073

15.5

---

690

352

---

4,260

2012

15.5

---

690

1,395

---

4,260

2073

15.5

---

690

1,395

---

4,260

2012

---

24.1

800

---

10

---

2073

---

24.1

800

---

10

---

2012

---

24.1

800

---

821

---

2073

---

24.1

800

---

821

---

2012

---

24.1

800

---

2,442

---

2073

---

24.1

800

---

2,442

---

2073

---

---

No

2012

---

15.5

521

---

4,260

2073

---

15.5

521

---

4,260

2012

---

15.5

690

---

352

4,260

2073

---

15.5

690

---

352

4,260

2012

---

15.5

690

---

1,395

4,260

2073

---

15.5

690

---

1,395

4,260

North Marina Groundwater Model Review, Revision,


and Implementation for Slant Well Pumping Scenarios

31

HydroFocus, Inc.
November 23, 2016

5.2 Water Level Changes Calculated with Superposition


The question addressed by the model scenarios (Table 5.2) is what drawdown is expected from
operation of the proposed slant wells. Calculating these water level changes within the Salinas
Valley Groundwater Basin is a complex problem because recharge and discharge processes vary
geographically and temporally. A superposition model was employed to calculate drawdown due
solely to the proposed slant wells.82 The theory of superposition states that solutions to the parts
of a complex problem can be added to solve the composite problem.83 Superposition can therefore
be utilized to isolate the effect of one stress from all other stresses operating in a basin. The
advantages of superposition for analyses using the NMGWM2016 are summarized below.

The NMGWM2016 evaluation indicated deficiencies in specified recharge and pumping input
from the SVIGSM. For example, modeled seasonal water level highs and lows in Model Layer 8
are more pronounced than measured due to specified pumping being too great. Additionally,
deficiencies in the timing and magnitude of pumping from Model Layer 4 caused a bias in the
model-calculated water levels. Because superposition calculates only the effect of the specified
stress, which in this application is pumping from the slant wells, all other background stresses
in the basin are removed, thereby eliminating the uncertainty introduced by the deficient
recharge and pumping data set.

82

Examples of the use of superposition to solve groundwater problems:


Durbin TJ, Delemos DW, and Rajagopal-Durbin A, 2008, Application of superposition to non-linear groundwater models, Ground Water 46(2): 251-258.
Durbin TJ, and K Loy, 2010, Development of a Groundwater Model Snake Valley Region Eastern Nevada and
Western Utah, Report prepared for National Park Service, U. S. Bureau of Land Management, U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, and U. S. Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Halford KJ, and RW Plume, 2011, Potential effects of groundwater pumping on water levels, phreatophytes,
and spring discharges in Spring and Snake Valleys, White Pine County, Nevada, and adjacent areas in Nevada
and Utah, U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2011-5032.
Hubbell JM, Bishop CW, Johnson GS, and Lucas JG, 1997, Numerical ground-water flow modeling of the Snake
River Plain aquifer using the superposition technique, Ground Water 35(1): 5966.
Leake SA, Greer W, Watt D, Weghorst P, 2008, Use of superposition models to simulate possible depletion of
Colorado River water by ground-water withdrawal, U. S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report
2008-5189.
Reilly TE, Franke OL, Bennett GD, 1987, The principle of superposition and its application in ground-water
hydraulics, U. S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resource Investigation 03-B6, 28 p.
83
When applying superposition, both the equations describing groundwater conditions within the model domain
and the boundary conditions must be linear. For example, doubling an input will double its response, halving the
input will halve its response, and so forth. Some of the mathematical equations that describe groundwater flow
are linear others are not. The equations utilized to describe confined groundwater-flow, like groundwater
conditions in most of the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin, are linear. However, the equations utilized to describe
unconfined groundwater-flow, like conditions that may exist beneath the beach and near the coast, are not linear.
2016
We tested the assumption of linearity when applying the NMGWM
by calculating drawdown using unconfined
and confined versions of the model, and the maximum difference between the two model runs was only 0.01 foot.
The assumption of linearity is therefore reasonable, and application of superposition to calculate drawdown from
slant well pumping is reliable.
-

North Marina Groundwater Model Review, Revision,


32
and Implementation for Slant Well Pumping Scenarios

HydroFocus, Inc.
November 23, 2016

The NMGWM2016 evaluation indicated deficiencies in SVIGSM derived initial conditions and
specified water levels for the general-head boundaries. For example, initial water levels for
Model Layer 2 in the Fort Ord Area were clearly too low, causing large differences between
measured and model-calculated water levels, and external water levels specified for the
southern general-head boundary produced noticeably higher model-calculated water levels
than measured values in Model Layer 4. Superposition eliminates the effects of specified initial
water levels and specified external water levels for the general-head boundaries.

For additional background on the application of superposition, an example of its use to accurately
isolate drawdown from a new pumping well introduced into a hypothetical groundwater basin is
provided in Attachment 1.

5.3 Modifications to the NMGWM2016


A superposition modeling approach solves for changes in water levels rather than their absolute
values. Accordingly, we modified the NMGWM2016 to calculate the relative change in water levels
due solely to slant well pumping.
Initial Heads, Boundary Conditions, and Stresses
In modeling practice, superposition is implemented by setting all initial water levels equal within
the model domain (the initial water levels in the NMGWM2016 were specified with a value of zero so
that simulated groundwater level changes correspond with drawdown). Constant (or fixed) waterlevel boundaries are all specified equal to the initial water levels so that the hydraulic gradient
along the boundary is initially zero (in the NMGWM2016, the boundaries representing the ocean and
the head-dependent boundaries along the edges of the model domain were set to zero). The
modeled stresses represent the incremental change relative to existing conditions, and therefore all
background recharge and pumping is set equal to zero (in the NMGWM2016 the only stress simulated
was pumping from the slant wells).
River Gains and Losses
Groundwater interaction with the Salinas River and the Tembladero Slough/Reclamation Ditch is
simulated in the SVIGSM model. Previously, these water inflows and outflows were extracted from
the SVIGSM model results and incorporated directly into the NMGWM2015 recharge and pumping
data sets. Because slant well pumping alters these flows, it was necessary to represent these
channels in the superposition NMGWM2016. The MODFLOW River Package was used to represent
these channels and simulate changes in river gains and losses in response to slant well pumping.
The NMGWM2016 model cells for implementing the MODFLOW River Package were identified by
overlaying the grid and the Salinas River and Tembladero Slough/Reclamation Ditch channel
centers digitized from aerial photographs. Model cells intersecting less than 20 feet of river/ditch
channel (less than 10% of the model cell dimensions) were not represented. The channel width was
also estimated from the aerial photos, which showed that the width increased from upstream to

North Marina Groundwater Model Review, Revision,


33
and Implementation for Slant Well Pumping Scenarios

HydroFocus, Inc.
November 23, 2016

downstream (the widths ranged from 50 to 600 feet for the Salinas River, and from 12 to 75 feet for
Tembladero Slough/Reclamation Ditch).
Each model cell in which the MODFLOW River Package was assigned required specification of the
river stage, the hydraulic conductivity of the river channel bed, and the elevation of the river
channel bed bottom. Because the superposition model calculates groundwater changes relative to
background conditions, the river stage was set to zero. The hydraulic conductivity of the channel
bed material was obtained from the SVIGSM, and values ranged from 0.1 to 1.5 ft/day for the
Salinas River and 0.2 ft/day for the entire length of the Tembladero Slough/Reclamation Ditch. The
river bed thicknesses were also obtained from the SVIGSM, which specified 5 feet for the Salinas
River and 3 feet for the Tembladero Slough/Reclamation Ditch. The elevation of the river channel
bed bottom was calculated by subtracting 6 feet from the modeled land surface elevation of each
cell representing the river (includes the 1-foot average depth to the top of the channel bottom and
the 5 feet of river bed thickness).84 Similarly, the elevation of the slough channel bottom was
calculated by subtracting 10 feet from the modeled land surface elevation (includes the 7-feet
average depth to the top of the channel bottom and the 3 feet of slough bed thickness).
The MODFLOW River Package assumes that where groundwater levels are above the elevation of
the channel bed bottom, the water table is hydraulically connected to surface water in the river.
Hence, drawdown increases the hydraulic gradient between the river and groundwater, causing
greater losses of river water to the aquifer. In contrast, where groundwater levels are below the
channel bed bottom, an unsaturated zone separates the surface water in the river and the
underlying water table. Hence, the river loses water to the aquifer at a constant rate that is
independent of drawdown. Because the superposition model calculates the change in river losses as
a result of drawdown, only modeled river cells affected by slant well pumping need be active in the
superposition model. These model cells are identified where the model-calculated water levels at
the end of the historical simulation are above the elevation of the channel bed bottom, and the
difference between the model-calculated water levels and the elevation of the channel bed bottom
represents the available drawdown for conditions where the water table is hydraulically connected
to surface water in the river. Hence, because initial water levels in the superposition model are
changed to equal zero, the channel bed bottom elevations must also be changed (lowered) to
maintain the initial available drawdown. Specifically, the difference between the water level
elevation at the end of the historical simulation and channel bed bottom elevation is maintained in
the superposition model by lowering the channel bed bottom elevation so that the difference
between the initial water level, which is zero in the superposition model, and the adjusted channel
bed bottom elevation equal the initial available drawdown.

84

The average depth to the top of the river channel bottom was calculated by subtracting the average channel
bottom elevation estimated from a profile of the Salinas River (Salinas River Stream Maintenance Program, Revised
Final Environmental Impact Report, Appendix E: Flood Study, prepared by Cardno Entrix, January 9, 2013) from the
modeled land surface elevation. The average depth to the top of the slough bottom was calculated by subtracting
the average channel bottom elevation estimated as the water depth at maximum flow (7 feet from SVIGSM rating
tables) and modeled land surfaced elevation.
North Marina Groundwater Model Review, Revision,
34
and Implementation for Slant Well Pumping Scenarios

HydroFocus, Inc.
November 23, 2016

Projected Sea Level Rise


Sea level is projected to rise during the 63-year slant well pumping period,85 and to represent this
change in the NMGWM2016 requires conversion of inactive Layer 1 model cells along the coast into
constant-head cells that represent the ocean. The cells are converted by either flooding in response
to the higher sea level, or encroachment by erosion of the coastal bluffs. Ideally the NMGWM2016
would simulate the incremental sea level rise over the entire 63-year period, but MODFLOW cannot
change inactive cells to active constant-head cells. The influence of potential sea level changes on
model-calculated drawdown was therefore considered using two sets of constant head boundary
conditions that represent the expected minimum (2012) and maximum (2073) sea levels.
Sea level is projected to rise 18.0 inches by 2073 relative to 2012,86 and we used this projected rise
to identify adjacent land areas that would be flooded by the higher water levels. In these areas,
ocean water is projected to move inland inundating the relatively low elevation land areas adjacent
to the current coast line. Rising sea levels also increases erosion along the coast, and is projected to
increase inland flooding and encroachment of the coast.87 To simulate future sea level rise, we
activated cells in layer 1 based on land surface elevation and erosion. When sea level exceeded the
elevation of a model cell, we assumed the ocean floods the entire model cell. When the interpolated
erosion distance reached one-half of the model cell width (100 ft), we assumed the entire cell was
flooded. The modified distribution of constant-head cells representing the ocean in 2073 are
mapped in Figure 5.1.
Particle Tracking
The MODFLOW computer code post-processer MODPATH88 was employed to simulate
groundwater-flow paths. MODPATH utilizes the output from MODFLOW simulations to simulate
paths for particles of water moving through the modeled groundwater system. In addition to
delineating particle paths, MODPATH computes the time-of-travel for the simulated particles to
reach their ending locations. Backward tracking shows the movement of groundwater to former
points of recharge (for example, the movement of ocean water recharge to a pumping well), and
forward tracking shows the movement of groundwater to future points of discharge (for example,
the continued inland movement of the interface between intruded saltwater and native
groundwater). We used MODPATH to track the backward and forward movement of particles in the
groundwater system as described in greater detail below.
Well Capture Zone
Ocean water capture zone boundaries were delineated using NMGWM2016 results and particle
tracking. A capture zone refers to the three-dimensional volume of aquifer that contributes the
85

ESA PWA, Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project: Coastal Water Elevations and Sea Level Rise Scenarios,
April 2013.
86
Ibid. [85]
87
Johnson Yeh, Geoscience Support Services, Inc., written communication, March 30, 2016.
88
Pollock DW, 2012, User Guide for MODPATH Version 6 A Particle-Tracking Model for MODFLOW, U.S.
Geological Survey Techniques and Methods 6-A41.
North Marina Groundwater Model Review, Revision,
35
and Implementation for Slant Well Pumping Scenarios

HydroFocus, Inc.
November 23, 2016

water extracted by the wells. When the pumps are turned on, the wells initially extract the existing
ambient mix of native groundwater in storage, but as pumping continues the wells extract
increasing proportions of infiltrating recharge from the ocean. The ocean recharge gradually
replaces the ambient water within the capture zone, and moves within the capture zone toward the
well but does not spread beyond the capture zone. In map view, the capture zone is a 2-dimensional
surface that delineates the underlying aquifer volume where ocean water replaces ambient
groundwater and ultimately becomes the primary water source to the wells.
Using the NMGWM2016, we delineated slant well ocean water capture zones under steady-state flow
conditions. We summed the slant well pumping in each cell over the entire 63-year simulation and
assigned that average rate in the model. We conducted particle-tracking with two different particle
starting locations assuming a porosity of 0.1. Forward tracking particles placed in every cell along
the coast in Model Layer 2, Model Layer 3, and Model Layer 4 provided path lines that delineate
submarine groundwater flow paths to the extraction wells. Backwards tracking particles placed
evenly within pumping cells provided path lines that delineate recharge that either originates at the
ocean bottom or as submarine groundwater beneath the bay bottom. In both scenarios, submarine
groundwater extracted by the wells is assumed recharged by ocean water.
The initial water levels in superposition are specified zero everywhere in the NMGWM2016, and
therefore the model does not account for regional background gradients. These regional gradients
significantly influence groundwater-flow paths from the ocean to the pumping slant wells, and
therefore are important to consider when calculating capture zone boundaries. For the steady-state
modeling analysis, we superimposed the measured regional background gradient calculated from
Fall 2015 maps that show contours of equal groundwater elevations.89 We first calculated the
regional gradient across the CEMEX site from the contour maps, and then approximately
reproduced the gradient in the NMGWM2016 by assigning external water levels to the eastern-most
general-head boundaries. Table 5.3 compares the observed and model-calculated gradients, and
shows that the average measured gradient (0.0010) is reasonably close to the model-calculated
gradient (0.0007).
Table 5.3
Comparison between calculated gradients at the CEMEX site
Model Layer
Measured Water Level Gradient
2
0.0004
4
0.0020
6
0.0009
Average
0.0010

Model-Calculated Gradient
0.0009
0.0007
0.0005
0.0007

Saltwater Intrusion
Slant well pumping effects on the inland movement of saltwater was assessed using the
NMGWM2016 and MODPATH. Particles were placed along the edge of the inferred 2013 seawater
intrusion front in the 180-FT Aquifer (Model Layer 4) and 400-FT Aquifer (Model Layer 6), as
89

Ibid. [11]

North Marina Groundwater Model Review, Revision,


36
and Implementation for Slant Well Pumping Scenarios

HydroFocus, Inc.
November 23, 2016

reported by MCWRA.90 Forward particle-tracking was then employed to show the change in front
location after 63-years of slant well pumping. Without slant well pumping, the particles
representing saltwater would continue to migrate inland. With slant well pumping, the movement
of saltwater is in response to the regional background gradient and drawdown created by slant well
pumping. We therefore utilized the superposition NMGWM2016 without the regional gradient to
isolate changes in saltwater movement due solely to slant well pumping. The change in particle
locations initially placed at the seawater interface represent the change in saltwater location
relative to its inland location due to continued background recharge and pumping (e.g., the
acceleration or retardation of existing saltwater intrusion).

5.4 CEMEX Site Results


When water is extracted from an aquifer by a well it creates a cone of depression because water
converges on the well from all directions and the gradient becomes steeper toward the well. The
radius of influence of the cone of depression was delineated by the 1-foot drawdown contour; the
area inside the 1-foot drawdown contour delineates the area where drawdown is 1 foot or greater.
Figure 5.2 shows annual model calculated drawdown and the expansion of the cone of depression
at the CEMEX site during the 63-year model simulation. Hydrographs of calculated drawdown show
that the drawdown due solely to slant well pumping stabilizes near the wells within several years.
In Model Layer 2, the expansion of the 1-foot contour away from the well slows substantially after
about 20 years; whereas, in Model Layer 4 the maximum extent of the 1-foot contour is reached by
the first year. We therefore compared the maximum drawdown between model scenarios by
comparing the calculated cone of depression at the end of the 63-year simulations.
Drawdown
Figure 5.3 shows model calculated drawdown for 24.1 MGD at 2012 sea level (Figure 5.3a) and
2073 sea level (Figure 5.3b). Rising sea level clearly increases ocean inflow and reduces the area of
the cone of depression. In Model Layer 2, the maximum distance from the well field to the 1-foot
drawdown contour decreased from about 15,000 feet under 2012 sea level to less than 11,000 feet
under 2073 sea level. Similarly, in Model Layer 4 the distance decreased from almost 20,000 feet to
about 14,000 feet, respectively. At 2012 sea level, groundwater extraction from Model Layer 2 and
Model Layer 4 influence water levels in Model Layer 6, but the effect decreases to less than 1 foot
under 2073 sea level. Return water also reduces the area of the cone of depression, most noticeably
in Model Layer 4. In Model Layer 2, the maximum distance from the well field to the 1-foot
drawdown contour decreased from about 15,000 feet (0% return water) to 13,000 feet (12%
return water) under 2012 sea level. Similarly, in Model Layer 4 the distance decreased from almost
20,000 feet to about 16,000 feet (0% and 12% return water, respectively). Negative drawdown
occurs in some areas and depths, and indicates where water levels increase as a result of return
water deliveries. The water-level increase (shown as negative numbers) occurs primarily in Model
Layer 6 where return water replaces existing pumping.

90

Ibid. [33]

North Marina Groundwater Model Review, Revision,


37
and Implementation for Slant Well Pumping Scenarios

HydroFocus, Inc.
November 23, 2016

Figure 5.4 shows model calculated drawdown for 15.5 MGD at 2012 sea level (Figure 5.4a) and
2073 sea level (Figure 5.4b). Reducing the extraction rate from 24.1 MGD to 15.5 MGD reduces the
area of the cone of depression. In Model Layer 2, the maximum distance from the well field to the 1foot drawdown contour decreased almost 3,000 feet, and the distance decreased more than 4,000
feet in Model Layer 4 (compared to 2012 sea level and without return water). Return water also
decreases the drawdown in Model Layer 6 (and to a limited extent decreases drawdown in Model
Layer 4). The area affected by the water-level increase is substantially greater than the 24.1 MGD
scenario as a result of the 4,260 AFY of additional return water contributed by the GWR Project, and
the reduced pumping from Model Layer 6 increases water levels also in overlying Model Layer 2
and Model Layer 4. Comparisons between Figure 5.4a and Figure 5.4b indicate that sea level rise
substantially increases the areas with negative drawdown in Model Layer 6, and reduces
drawdown in Model Layer 2 and Model Layer 4.
Model-calculated drawdown in Model Layer 6 in response to slant well pumping, and water level
increases in Model Layer 2 and Model Layer 4 in response to return water deliveries is not
unexpected. Groundwater in layered alluvial aquifer systems are typically hydraulically connected
to variable extents. For example, the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin Hydrology Conference
described the interconnection between the 180-FT and 400-FT aquifers in the Pressure Area of the
Salinas Valley.91 A stress affecting water levels in one aquifer (for example, a water level decline in
response to groundwater pumping or water level increases in response to recharge or reductions in
groundwater pumping) may influence water levels in overlying and underlying aquifers,92 and the
observed response depends on the water transmitting and storage properties of the water-bearing
and non-water bearing sediments (the aquifers and aquitards, respectively).
Recovery
Figure 5.5 shows the model-calculated recovery from drawdown due solely to 63-years of slant
well pumping. Hydrographs at various locations show that drawdown decreases and water levels
return to pre-pumped conditions within several years for all but two wells. The modeled water
level recovery for monitoring wells MW-5S and MW-7S is completed within about 20 years.
Considering that the recovery for surrounding wells is on the order of a few years, the longer
recovery for just these two wells is the effect of the relatively low hydraulic conductivity associated
with Model Layer 2 in those areas of the model.
Capture Zone and Saltwater Intrusion
The model-calculated, steady-state ocean water capture zone for slant wells are shown in Figure
5.6, and the figure includes the sensitivity of the capture zone to pumping rate (24.1 and 15.5 MGD)
and superimposed regional gradient (0.0004, 0.0007, and 0.0011). The capture zone delineates the
inland area through which particles placed beneath the coast line pass as they move to the slant
91

Salinas Valley Ground Water Basin Hydrology Conference, 1995, Hydrogeology and Water Supply of Salinas
Valley, white Paper prepared for the Monterey County Water Resources Agency.
92
For example in Hanson R, 2003, Geohydrologic framework of recharge and seawater intrusion in the Pajaro
Valley, Santa Cruz and Monterey Counties, CA, USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report 03-4096,
hydrographs showed similar water level changes in wells completed at different depths.
North Marina Groundwater Model Review, Revision,
38
and Implementation for Slant Well Pumping Scenarios

HydroFocus, Inc.
November 23, 2016

wells. In general, the size of the capture zone is greater in Model Layer 2 than in Model Layer 4, and
the capture zone area decreases with increasing regional gradient. These results are consistent
with the primary source of recharge to the wells being ocean water.
The change in intrusion front location after 63-years of pumping is mapped in Figure 5.7, and
results show that slant well pumping slows future saltwater intrusion in the southern portion of
Model Layer 4; slant well pumping has little to no effect on future saltwater intrusion in Model
Layer 6. The ending particle locations shown in Figure 5.7 represent the change in the seawater
interface location relative to its expected future location as a result of existing recharge and
pumping. Particles that remain on the interface after 63-years delineate areas where the seawater
interface continues to migrate inland under existing conditions. In contrast, particles that move
from the interface toward the ocean indicate a change in the interface location relative to its
expected future location. The direction of the flow paths are towards the coast, but this does not
necessarily mean the interface moves back towards the ocean. Rather, the flow path directions
indicate that existing intrusion at these interface locations will slow proportionally to the relative
lengths of the flow paths. Hence, slant well pumping retards the continued inland movement of the
seawater interface in the southern portion of Model Layer 4.

5.5 Potrero Road Site Results


Figure 5.8 shows annual model calculated drawdown and the expansion of the cone of depression
at the Potrero Road site during the 63-year model simulation. Hydrographs of calculated drawdown
show that the water level changes near the well stabilize in less than three years. The expansion of
the 1-foot contour with time is essentially completed within 5 years in both Model Layer 2 and
Model Layer 4.
The drawdown results for the Potrero Road Site are limited because the extraction wells are
located near the northern head-dependent flux boundary. This boundary provides an unlimited
source of water in response to drawdown within the NMGWM2016, and this water source could have
the effect of reducing the model-calculated cone of depression. We therefore developed a simple
test model based on the NMGWM2016 and extended the boundaries north using information from
the Pajaro Valley Hydrologic Model.93 The simple model was designed to test the effect of boundary
location on modeled drawdown within the NMGWM2016 area. Results indicated that the generalhead boundary flux has a modest effect on the cone of depression, but the effect is likely negligible
for drawdown comparisons between the CEMEX and Potrero Road Sites. Details of test model
construction and analyses are provided in Attachment 2.
Drawdown
Figure 5.9 shows model calculated drawdown for 24.1 MGD at 2012 sea level (Figure 5.9a) and
2073 sea level (Figure 5.9b). In contrast to sea level effects at the CEMEX site, the simulated
93

Hanson RT, Schmid W, Faunt CC, Lear J, Lockwood B, 2014, Integrated Hydrologic Model of Pajaro Valley, Santa
Cruz and Monterey Counties, California, U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2014-5111.
Prepared in cooperation with the Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency.
North Marina Groundwater Model Review, Revision,
39
and Implementation for Slant Well Pumping Scenarios

HydroFocus, Inc.
November 23, 2016

location of the coast does not change relative to the Potrero Road site slant well screens, and the
differences between drawdown contours simulated under 2012 and 2073 sea level conditions are
negligible. In Model Layer 2, the maximum distance from the well field to the 1-foot drawdown
contour under both 2012 and 2073 sea levels is approximately 25,000 feet. In Model Layer 4, this
distance decreases to about 21,000 feet. Return water reduces the area of the cone of depression,
most noticeably in Model Layer 4 and Model Layer 6. In Model Layer 2, the maximum distance from
the well field to the 1-foot drawdown contour decreased from about 25,000 feet (0% return water)
to about 23,000 feet (12% return water) under both 2012 and 2073 sea levels. Similarly, in Model
Layer 4 the distance decreased from about 21,000 feet to almost 14,000 feet (0% and 12% return
water, respectively). Water levels increased as a result of return water deliveries, and the response
occurred primarily in Model Layer 6 where return water deliveries decrease background pumping.
Figure 5.10 shows model calculated drawdown for 15.5 MGD at 2012 sea level (Figure 5.10a) and
2073 sea level (Figure 5.10b). Reducing the extraction rate from 24.1 MGD to 15.5 MGD reduced
the area of the cone of depression somewhat, primarily in Model Layer 4. In Model Layer 2, the
maximum distance from the well field to the 1-foot drawdown contour decreased about 2,000 feet,
and the distance decreased almost 6,000 feet in Model Layer 4 (compared to 2012 sea level and
without return water). Return water deliveries decrease drawdown in Model Layer 2, Model Layer
4, and Model Layer 6.
The water-level increase (shown as negative numbers) occurs primarily in Model Layer 6 where
return water replaces background pumping. The area affected by the water-level increase is
substantially greater than the 24.1 MGD scenario (Figure 5.9) as a result of the 4,260 AFY of
additional return water contributed by the GWR Project, and the pumping reduction in Model Layer
6 produces water level increases in overlying Model Layer 2 and Model Layer 4.
Recovery
Figure 5.11 shows the model-calculated recovery from drawdown following the 63-years of slant
well pumping at the Potrero Road Site. Hydrographs of the calculated recovery show that
drawdown due solely to slant well pumping decreases and water levels return to pre-pumped
conditions relatively rapidly (in less than three years).
Capture Zone and Saltwater Intrusion
The model-calculated, steady-state ocean water capture zone boundaries for slant wells at the
Potrero Road site are shown in Figure 5.12, and include capture zone sensitivity to pumping rate
(24.1 and 15.5 MGD) and regional gradient (0.0004, 0.0007, and 0.0011). The capture zone
delineates the inland area through which particles placed beneath the coast line pass as they move
to the slant wells. There is no ocean water capture zone in Model Layer 4 because the slant wells
are screened only in Model Layer 2. In general, model results indicate that the size of the capture
zone increases with increasing extraction rate, and decreases with increasing inland gradient. The
model results are consistent with ocean water as the primary source of recharge to the wells.

North Marina Groundwater Model Review, Revision,


40
and Implementation for Slant Well Pumping Scenarios

HydroFocus, Inc.
November 23, 2016

The change in seawater intrusion front after 63-years of pumping is mapped in Figure 5.13, and
results indicate that slant well pumping will slow future saltwater intrusion in the northern portion
of Model Layer 4 and Model Layer 6. The ending particle locations shown in Figure 5.13 represent
the change in seawater interface location relative to its projected future location as a result of
background recharge and pumping. Particles that remain on the interface after 63-years of slant
well pumping delineate areas where the saltwater continues to migrate inland under existing
conditions. In contrast, particles that move from the interface toward the ocean indicate a change in
the interface location relative to its expected future location. The direction of the flow paths are
towards the coast, but this does not necessarily mean the interface moves back towards the ocean.
Rather, flow path directions indicate that existing intrusion at these interface locations will slow
proportionally to the relative lengths of the flow paths. Hence, slant well pumping retards the
continued inland movement of saltwater in the northern portions of Model Layer 4 and Model
Layer 6.

6.0 Uncertainty
The sensitivity of model-calculated drawdown to uncertainty in pumping rates, return water
volumes, and projected sea level was considered in Section 5.0 (see Figure 5.3 and Figure 5.4).
There is also uncertainty associated with modeled aquifer parameters and the relative
contributions of groundwater in aquifers represented by Model Layer 2 and Model Layer 4 to total
slant well pumping. In this section, we quantify the uncertainty in model-calculated drawdown to
hydraulic conductivity and the assumed allocation of extracted groundwater from the two model
layers, and then summarize drawdown results from all scenarios to characterize the uncertainty in
model predictions. The objective of the sensitivity analysis is to address the question: If the
assumptions adopted in developing the model were changed, would the model predictions change
so as to change the conclusions regarding proposed slant well operation?
We utilized MODFLOW, the 1979-2011 water level data, and predicted water level changes to slant
well pumping to calculate sensitivities for horizontal and vertical hydraulic conductivity values.94
The results indicated that model-calculated water level changes in response to slant well pumping
is associated mostly with select hydraulic conductivity parameter zones in Model Layer 2 (KH7 and
KV7) and Model Layer 4 (KH5, KH14 and KH8). We conducted two model simulations to quantify
the contribution of hydraulic conductivity uncertainty in these parameter zones on modelcalculated drawdown. Our approach was conservative, and selected alternative parameters that
maximized and minimized aquifer anisotropy (the ratio of horizontal and vertical conductivity). For
maximum anisotropy we multiplied KH7, KH5, KH8, and KH14 by 5 and divided KV7 by 5; for
minimum anisotropy we divided KH7, KH5, KH8, and KH14 by 5 and multiplied KV7 by 2.
The alternative conductivity values are plotted in Figure 6.1 and show they are essentially extreme
values relative to the calibrated values and values reported by other sources, and therefore using
these values essentially brackets the range in possible drawdowns. Figure 6.2 shows the sensitivity
94

Hill MC and CR Tiedeman, 2007, Effective Groundwater Model Calibration, With Analysis of Data, Sensitivities,
Predictions, and Uncertainty, Wiley-Interscience.
North Marina Groundwater Model Review, Revision,
41
and Implementation for Slant Well Pumping Scenarios

HydroFocus, Inc.
November 23, 2016

of model-calculated drawdown to hydraulic conductivity uncertainty. Increasing the anisotropy


(increasing horizontal conductivity and decreasing vertical conductivity) minimizes the area of the
cone of depression. Conversely, decreasing the anisotropy (decreasing horizontal conductivity and
increasing vertical conductivity) maximizes the area of the cone of depression.
Model calculated drawdown at the CEMEX site (24.1 MGD) is mapped in Figure 6.3a, and the
calculated drawdown for 15.5 MGD is mapped in Figure 6.3b; both drawdown contours are for
2012 sea level, no return water, and 44/56-% allocation between Model Layer 2 and Model Layer 4.
We overlaid these contours with the drawdown from sensitivity runs that tested sea level rise, the
pumping layer allocation distribution, and hydraulic conductivity to delineate the potential range in
the drawdown using all the model runs. The shaded areas in Figure 6.3 represent the uncertainty
in the model-calculated cone of depression due to the uncertainty in model input and assumptions.
Under 2012 sea level conditions, the maximum distance from the well field to the 1-foot drawdown
contour in Model Layer 2 is about 15,000 feet, and in Model Layer 4 the distance is about 20,000
feet. As a result of uncertainty in sea level rise, hydraulic conductivity, and the pumping layer
allocation distribution, these distances ranged from less than 10,000 feet to 24,000 feet in Model
Layer 2, and 12,000 feet to 24,000 feet in Model Layer 4. At the lower pumping rate (15.5 MGD),
these distances range from about 6,000 feet to more than 17,000 feet in Model Layer 2, and almost
6,000 feet to 19,000 feet in Model Layer 4.
A similar analysis was completed for the Potrero Road Site. Model-calculated sensitivities indicated
the most important hydraulic conductivity values for projecting drawdown are KH8, KH6, and KV8.
For maximum anisotropy we multiplied KH8 and KH6 by 5, and divided KV8 by 5; for minimum
anisotropy we divided KH8 and KH6 by 5, and multiplied KV8 by 5. We overlaid the drawdown
from the sensitivity runs that tested sea level and hydraulic conductivity to delineate the range in
potential drawdown due to uncertainty (Figure 6.4). The shaded areas in Figure 6.4a (24.1 MGD)
and Figure 6.4b (15.5 MGD) represent the uncertainty in model-calculated drawdown to
uncertainty in model input and assumptions. The maximum distances from the well field to the 1foot drawdown contour can range from about 19,000 to 27,000 feet, and 16,000 to almost 22,000
feet in Model Layer 2 as a result of uncertainty in sea level rise, hydraulic conductivity, and the
pumping layer allocation distribution for the 24.1 and 15.5 MGD pumping rates, respectively.

7.0 Summary
The North Marina Groundwater Model was revised using additional water level data, refined model
layer bottom elevations from new geologic sections, and updated aquifer properties estimated from
a slant well pumping test. Additionally, aquifer parameter zones were added to the model to include
the former Fort Ord Area A-Aquifer and Fort Ord Salinas Valley Aquitard (FO-SVA) to better
represent groundwater conditions south of the Salinas River. In this report, the updated model is
referred to as the NMGWM2016.
We evaluated the capability of NMGWM2016 to match historical water levels (October 1979 through
September 2011) and simulate drawdown in response to test slant well pumping. The NMGWM2016

North Marina Groundwater Model Review, Revision,


42
and Implementation for Slant Well Pumping Scenarios

HydroFocus, Inc.
November 23, 2016

calculated water levels and trends generally match measured water levels and trends. The relative
error is substantially less than 10% to 15%, which meets the calibration criteria and indicates that
model errors are only a small part of the overall model response. Visually, the errors fall within a
fairly narrow range that is close to zero, and the number of positive and negative residuals appear
about the same. The spatial distribution of model errors is fairly random, and all model layers have
both positive and negative values. Relatively large differences between model-calculated and
measured water levels were identified for wells in Model Layer 2, and simulation bias between
model-calculated water levels and model errors was identified for some wells in Model layer 4.
These errors are attributed to (1) limitations for simulating steep vertical gradients and localized
perched conditions in areas of Model Layer 2, (2) specified initial water levels for Model Layer 2 in
the Fort Ord Area, (3) specified water levels along the southern head-dependent flux boundaries,
and (4) deficiencies in the timing and magnitude of specified recharge and pumping. Most of these
deficiencies were introduced by the transfer of information from the SVIGSM to the NMGWM, and
were removed from the modeling analysis by utilizing the superposition approach as described
below.
Pumping and recovery model scenarios were defined for the CEMEX and Potrero Road sites, and
the 63-year pumping and 63-year recovery scenarios simulated using monthly stress periods. Due
to the complex nature of simulating recharge and discharge processes in the Salinas Valley
Groundwater Basin, and identified problems with specified initial water levels and boundary
conditions that were derived from SVIGSM results, we employed the theory of superposition to
remove these deficiencies and determine water level changes (drawdown) resulting solely from
proposed slant well pumping. We converted the NMGWM2016 into a superposition model and ran 34
future scenarios representing variable project operations and sea levels (2012 and 2073). Model
results are presented in maps that show the area where calculated drawdown is 1 foot or greater
under various future project scenarios for both the CEMEX and Potrero Road sites. Particle tracking
was also employed to estimate the ocean capture zone for future slant well pumping and to
simulate changes to the reported seawater intrusion front for different scenarios. Results show that
slant well pumping at the CEMEX site slows future saltwater intrusion in the southern portion of
Model Layer 4; however slant well pumping has little to no effect on future saltwater intrusion in
Model Layer 6.
The most likely sources of error in the superposition NMGWM2016 arise from uncertainty associated
with modeled boundary conditions including sea level rise, specified hydraulic conductivity values,
and assumed project operations including pumping rates and relative contributions of groundwater
in aquifers represented by Model Layer 2 and Model Layer 4 to total slant well pumping. We used
the results from sensitivity model runs to delineate the potential range in drawdown contours and
thus bracket the possible drawdown due to uncertainty in model input and assumptions. At the
CEMEX site (24.1 MGD), the maximum distance from the well field to the 1-foot drawdown contour
was about 15,000 feet under 2012 sea level, and about 20,000 feet in Model Layer 4. As a result of
uncertainty in sea level rise, hydraulic conductivity, and pumping layer allocation distribution,
these distances ranged from less than 10,000 feet to 24,000 feet in Model Layer 2, and 12,000 to
24,000 feet in Model Layer 4. At the lower pumping rate (15.5 MGD), these distances range from
about 6,000 feet to more than 17,000 feet in Model Layer 2, and almost 6,000 feet to 19,000 feet in
North Marina Groundwater Model Review, Revision,
43
and Implementation for Slant Well Pumping Scenarios

HydroFocus, Inc.
November 23, 2016

Model Layer 4. Similarly at the Potrero Road site, the distances can range from about 19,000 to
27,000 feet, and 16,000 to almost 25,000 feet in Model Layer 2 as a result of uncertainty in sea level
rise, hydraulic conductivity, and pumping layer allocation distribution for the 24.1 and 15.5 MGD
pumping rates, respectively.

North Marina Groundwater Model Review, Revision,


44
and Implementation for Slant Well Pumping Scenarios

HydroFocus, Inc.
November 23, 2016

West

Slant Well

East

Ocean
Blank Well Casing

Screened Interval
Aquifer

Modifed from: Geoscience Support Services, Inc., 2015, Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Groundwater Modeling and Analysis DRAFT,
prepared for California American Water and Environmental Science Associates, April 17, 2015.

Example low-angle horizontal slant well diagram


PROJECT: 5073

DATE: 11/8/2016

Note: not to scale.


Figure
1.1

EXPLANATION
NMGWM Boundary

I
0

Miles

Potrero Road site

Tem

bla

der
o
Slo

l
Sa

ug
h

ina
s
Ri
ve

CEMEX site

Former
Fort Ord
Area

North Marina Groundwater Model (NMGWM)


boundaries and relevant features.
PROJECT: 5073

DATE: 11/15/2016

Figure
1.2

North

South
Salinas
River

Shallow Aquifer

Shallow Aquifer

dune sands and uvial deposits

Tembladero
Slough
Layer 2
Layer 3

Salinas Valley Aquitard


180-FT Aquifer
180-FT Aquifer

older alluvium and fan deposits

Layer
4

terrace deposits

Layer
5

180/400-FT Aquitard
400-FT Aquifer

Layer
6

400-FT Aquifer

Aromas Sands
Potrero Road site

bla

der
o
Slo

l
Sa

400/900-FT Aquitard

Tem

ina
s

Layer
7

900-FT Aquifer

ug
h

CEMEX site

Ri
ve

Layer
8
Former
Fort Ord
Area

EXPLANATION
NMGWM Boundary

Note: not to scale


Basin Management Plan, May 1992. & Geoscience Support Services Inc., 2016, DRAFT Monterey Peninsula W
and CEMEX Model Update, prepared for California American Water, July 15, 2016.

Prepared for Monterey County Water Resources Agency

Conceptual hydrogeologic section in the NMGWM area.


PROJECT: 5073

DATE: 11/18/2016

Miles

Figure
2.1

Former
Fort Ord
Area

EXPLANATION
NMGWM Boundary
SVIGSM Boundary

Miles

SVIGSM and NMGWM grid boundaries.


PROJECT: 5073

DATE: 11/15/2016

Figure
2.2

EXPLANATION

Close up showing relative model cell size.


0

Constant Head Boundary

0.25

0.5

Miles

Head-Dependent Flow Boundary


General Head

2
Miles

Former
Fort Ord
Area

NMGWM2016 boundary conditions.


PROJECT: 5073

DATE: 8/25/2016

Figure
2.3

EXPLANATION
MW-BW-31-A

Monitoring Well Cluster

Labeled with Well ID

NMGWM2016 Boundary

Miles

Potrero
Road
Site

CEMEX
Site

MW-OU2-07-A
MW-OU2-07-180R
MW-BW-11-A
MW-BW-12-180

MW-BW-31-A
MW-BW-54-180
MW-BW-01-A
MW-BW-02-180
MW-BW-04-180
MW-BW-03-400

MW-02-15-180U
MW-02-15-180M

MW-OU2-29-A
MW-OU2-29-180

Former
Fort Ord
Area

Monitoring well clusters added to model areas south of the Salinas


River (former Fort Ord Area) for historical model run, 1979-2011.
PROJECT: 5073

DATE: 8/30/2016

Figure
3.1

EXPLANATION
A

A' Section Line

Labeled with
Section ID

NMGWM Boundary

Miles

D'
E'
C

C'

A'

B'

D
E

Former
Fort Ord
Area

NMGWM2016 section lines.


PROJECT: 5073

DATE: 8/12/2016

Figure
3.2a

A
200 ft

Cross-Section Along Model Row 192

West

East

Cross Section E

Cross Section D
100 ft

Sea level

-100 ft
-200 ft
-300 ft

-400 ft
-500 ft
-600 ft
-700 ft
-800 ft

-900 ft
-1000 ft

consolidated
rock

-1100 ft
-1200 ft
-1300 ft

Layer 1

-1500 ft

Salinas Valley Aquitard

Layer 5

180/400-FT Aquitard

Fort Ord-Salinas Valley Aquitard

Layer 6

Aromas Sand

Dune Sand

Fort Ord-Salinas Valley Aquitard transition zone

Layer 7

400/900-FT Aquitard

Older Dune Sand, coastal

Older Alluvim

Layer 8

Paso Robles Formation

Ocean

Layer 3

Flood Plain and Basin Deposits

-1400 ft

Layer 2

Layer 4

Older Dune Sand

-1600 ft

Older Dune Sand

Terrace Deposits, inland

Notes:
See Figure 3.3 for map view of the conductivity zones.
Not all zones/geologic descriptions are in all cross sections.

Terrace Deposits, coastal

-1700 ft

-1800 ft
3,000
ft

6,000
ft

9,000
ft

12,000
ft

15,000
ft

18,000
ft

21,000
ft

24,000
ft

27,000
ft

30,000
ft

Section A-A, NMGWM2016.


PROJECT: 5073

DATE: 11/8/2016

33,000
ft

36,000
ft

39,000
ft

42,000
ft

45,000
ft

48,000
ft

Figure
3.2b

300 ft

Cross-Section Along Model Row 268

East

West
Cross Section E

200 ft

Cross Section D
100 ft

Sea level

-100 ft

-200 ft

-300 ft

-400 ft

-500 ft

-600 ft

-700 ft

-800 ft

-900 ft

consolidated
rock

consolidated rock

-1000 ft
-1100 ft

-1200 ft

Layer 1

Layer 5

180/400-FT Aquitard

Fort Ord-Salinas Valley Aquitard

Layer 6

Aromas Sand

Dune Sand

Fort Ord-Salinas Valley Aquitard transition zone

Layer 7

400/900-FT Aquitard

Older Dune Sand, coastal

Older Alluvim

Layer 8

Paso Robles Formation

Layer 3

Flood Plain and Basin Deposits

-1300 ft

-1400 ft

Salinas Valley Aquitard

Ocean

Layer 2

Layer 4

Older Dune Sand


Older Dune Sand

-1500 ft

Terrace Deposits, inland

Notes:
See Figure 3.3 for map view of the conductivity zones.
Not all zones/geologic descriptions are in all cross sections.

Terrace Deposits, coastal

Older Dune Sand, inland

-1600 ft
4,000
ft

8,000
ft

12,000
ft

16,000
ft

20,000
ft

24,000
ft

28,000
ft

32,000
ft

Section B-B, NMGWM2016.


PROJECT: 5073

DATE: 11/21/2016

36,000
ft

40,000
ft

44,000
ft

48,000
ft

Figure
3.2c

Cross-Section Along Model Row 51

West

East

Cross Section D

100 ft

Cross Section E

Sea level

-100 ft
-200 ft

-300 ft

-400 ft
-500 ft

-600 ft
-700 ft
-800 ft

-900 ft
-1000 ft

-1100 ft

-1200 ft
consolidated
rock

-1300 ft
-1400 ft

-1500 ft
-1600 ft
-1700 ft

Explanation

Hydraulic Conductivity Zones, Geologic, and Hydrogeologic Descriptors


Layer 1
Layer 2
Layer 3

Ocean

Layer 4

Flood Plain and Basin Deposits

Layers
1-5

Terrace and Alluvial Fan Deposits


Salinas Valley Aquitard

Older Alluvim

Layer 5

180/400-FT Aquitard

Fan Deposits and Eolian Sand

Layer 6

Aromas Sand

Layer 7

400/900-FT Aquitard

Layer 8

Paso Robles Formation

Canyon Fill

Notes:
See Figure 3.3 for map view of the conductivity zones.
Not all zones/geologic descriptions are in all cross sections.

-1800 ft
-1900 ft
2,000
ft

4,000
ft

6,000
ft

8,000
ft

10,000
ft

12,000
ft

14,000
ft

16,000
ft

18,000
ft

Section C-C, NMGWM2016.


PROJECT: 5073

DATE: 11/21/2016

20,000
ft

22,000
ft

24,000
ft

26,000
ft

28,000
ft

Figure
3.2d

D
100 ft

South

Cross-Section Along Model Column 150


Cross Section B

North

Cross Section C

Cross Section A

Sea level

-100 ft

-200 ft

-300 ft

-400 ft

-500 ft

-600 ft

-700 ft

-800 ft

-900 ft

-1000 ft

-1100 ft

consolidated
rock

-1200 ft

Explanation

-1300 ft

Hydraulic Conductivity Zones, Geologic, and Hydrogeologic Descriptors


-1400 ft

Layer 1

Ocean

Layer 4

-1500 ft

-1600 ft

Layer 2

-1700 ft

Layer 3

Flood Plain and Basin Deposits

Terrace Deposits, coastal

Layer 5

180/400-FT Aquitard

Fan Deposits and Eolian Sand

Layer 6

Aromas Sand

Layer 7

400/900-FT Aquitard

Layer 8

Paso Robles Formation

Older Alluvim

Dune Sand

Notes:
See Figure 3.3 for map view of the conductivity zones.
Not all zones/geologic descriptions are in all cross sections.

Salinas Valley Aquitard

-1800 ft
5,000
ft

10,000
ft

15,000
ft

20,000
ft

25,000
ft

30,000
ft

35,000
ft

40,000
ft

Section D-D, NMGWM2016.


PROJECT: 5073

DATE: 11/21/2016

45,000
ft

50,000
ft

55,000
ft

60,000
ft

Figure
3.2e

Cross-Section Along Model Column 207

North

South
300 ft

Cross Section B

Cross Section A

200 ft

Cross Section C
100 ft
Sea level
-100 ft
-200 ft

-300 ft
-400 ft

-500 ft
-600 ft
-700 ft
-800 ft

consolidated
rock

-900 ft

-1000 ft

Explanation

-1100 ft

Hydraulic Conductivity Zones, Geologic, and Hydrogeologic Descriptors


-1200 ft
-1300 ft

Flood Plain and Basin Deposits

Layer 2

-1400 ft

Layer 3

Terrace and Alluvial Fan Deposits


Older Dune Sand

Salinas Valley Aquitard

Layer 5

180/400-FT Aquitard

Fort Ord-Salinas Valley Aquitard

Layer 6

Aromas Sand

Layer 7

400/900-FT Aquitard

Layer 8

Paso Robles Formation

Older Alluvim

Inactive cells

Layer 4

-1500 ft

Terrace Deposits, inland


Terrace Deposits, coastal

Notes:
See Figure 3.3 for map view of the conductivity zones.
Not all zones/geologic descriptions are in all cross sections.

-1600 ft
-1700 ft
5,000
ft

10,000
ft

15,000
ft

20,000
ft

25,000
ft

30,000
ft

35,000
ft

40,000
ft

Section E-E, NMGWM2016.


PROJECT: 5073

DATE: 11/21/2016

45,000
ft

50,000
ft

55,000
ft

60,000
ft

Figure
3.2f

Model Layer 4

Model Layer 3

Model Layer 2

NMGWM2016 Boundary

KH8
KH6

Inactive Model Cells


KH20

KH4

Sources
1, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12
1, 7, 8
1, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12
1, 2, 3, 17
1, 8
1, 2, 3, 9, 16
1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 14
1, 7, 8, 14
1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 11, 12, 16, 17

Zone
KH14
KH16
KH17 & KH19
KH18
KH20
KH21
KHLAY5
KHLAY6
KHLAY7
KHLAY8

Sources
1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17
1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17
1, 8
6, 11, 12
1, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17
6, 11, 12

KH6

KH2
KH5

KH20

KH2

KH7

KH5

KH21

KH2

KH7

KH5

KH18

KH17

Miles

Layer 1 represents the ocean and therefore is not mapped.

KH9

KH8

KH16
KH13

See Figure 3.3d for source information.

KH6

KH8
KH1

1, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 17


1, 8, 9, 10, 19

KH3

KH8

KH8
Zone
KH1
KH2
KH3
KH4
KH5
KH6
KH7
KH8
KH9
KH13 & KH15

KH4

KH4

Horizontal Hydraulic Conductivity Zone

KH14

KH15
KH19

Model Layer 5

Model Layer 6

Kh
1300

1200

1200

1100

1100

1000

1000

900

900

800

800

700

700

600

600

500

500

400

400

300

300

200

200

100

100

KHLAY5

Kh (ft/d)

Kh (ft/d)

1300

EXPLANATION
max
min

Miles

Range of values
from other sources

Model Layer 7

Model value

KHLAY7

Model Layer 8

KHLAY8

Horizontal hydraulic conductivity parameter zones, NMGWM


PROJECT: 5073

KHLAY6

DATE: 11/21/2016

2016

Figure
3.3a

Model Layer 3

Model Layer 2

NMGWM2016 Boundary

Model Layer 4
KV8

Inactive Model Cells


KV20

KV6

Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity Zone

KV4

KV4

KV4

KV3
Zone
KV1
KV2
KV3
KV4
KV5
KV6
KV7
KV8
KV9
KV10
KV12

Sources
1
11
1
11
1, 3
1
1, 3
1, 3, 14
1, 14
1

Zone
KV13 & KV15
KV14
KV16
KV17 & KV19
KV18
KV20
KV21
KVLAY5
KVLAY6
KVLAY7
KVLAY8

KV8

Sources
1, 6, 11
1, 6, 11, 14
1, 6, 11, 14, 18
1
1, 6, 11, 12, 15
1, 6, 11, 14
1, 6, 11, 12
1, 7
11
1, 7

KV8

KV6

KV6

KV8

KV9
KV8

KV1

KV10
KV2
KV5

KV7

KV2

KV20

KV5

KV7

KV16

See Figure 3.3d for source information.


Layer 1 represents the ocean and therefore is not mapped.

KV17

Miles

KV12

KV5
KV14

KV18

KV13
0

KV2

KV21

KV15
KV19

Model Layer 5

Model Layer 6

Kv
1.0E+02

1.0E+02

1.0E+01

1.0E+01

KVLAY5
1.0E+00

1.0E+00

1.0E-01

1.0E-01

1.0E-02

1.0E-02

1.0E-03

1.0E-03

Kv (ft/d)

Kv (ft/d)

EXPLANATION
max
min

KVLAY6

Miles

Range of values
from other sources

Model Layer 7

Model Layer 8

Model value
1.0E-04

1.0E-04

1.0E-05

1.0E-05

1.0E-06

1.0E-06

1.0E-07

1.0E-07

Vertical hydraulic conductivity parameter zones, NMGWM2016.


PROJECT: 5073

DATE: 11/21/2016

KVLAY7

KVLAY8

Figure
3.3b

Model Layer 3

Model Layer 2

NMGWM2016 Boundary

Model Layer 4

Inactive Model Cells


SS20

SS8
SS6

Specific Storage Zone

SS4

SS4

SS4

SS3
SS8

SS8
Zone
SS1
SS2
SS3
SS4
SS5
SS6
SS7
SS8
SS9
SS13 & SS15

Sources
1
1
1, 7, 8
1
1, 7
1, 8
1
1, 8
1, 7, 8
1, 8

Zone
SS14
SS16
SS17 & SS19
SS18
SS20
SS21
SSLAY5
SSLAY6
SSLAY7
SSLAY8

SS6

Sources
1, 7, 8, 9, 11
1, 8, 9, 10
1, 8
1, 11
1, 8, 9
1, 11

SS6

SS8
SS1

SS2
SS5

1, 8, 10, 11

SS7

SS20

1, 8, 10

SS2

SS7

SS2

SS21

SS5
SS13

See Figure 3.3d for source information.


Layer 1 represents the ocean and therefore is not mapped.

SS17

Miles

SS15
SS19

Ss
1.0E+00

1.0E+00

1.0E-01

1.0E-01

1.0E-02

1.0E-02

1.0E-03

1.0E-03

1.0E-04

1.0E-04

1.0E-05

1.0E-05

1.0E-06

1.0E-06

SSLAY5

1.0E-07

1.0E-07

1.0E-08

1.0E-08

1.0E-09

1.0E-09

1.0E-10

1.0E-10

1.0E-11

1.0E-11

1.0E-12

1.0E-12

Ss (1/ft)

Ss (1/ft)

EXPLANATION
max
min

Model Layer 6

SSLAY6

Miles

Range of values
from other sources

Model Layer 7

Model value

Specific storage parameter zones, NMGWM


DATE: 11/21/2016

SS5
SS14

SS18

SS16

Model Layer 5

PROJECT: 5073

SS9

SS8

SSLAY7

2016

Model Layer 8

SSLAY8

Figure
3.3c

Source #
Source
1
Luhdor and Scalmanini, Consulting Engineers, 2015, "Updated Draft Version 2 Hydrologic Modeling of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Using the Salinas
Valley Integrated Ground and Surface Water Model." Prepared for Geoscience, March 2015 in GEOSCIENCE, 2015, "Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project
Groundwater Modeling and Analysis Draft." Prepared for California American Water and Environmental Science Associates, April 17, 2015.
2
GEOSCIENCE, 2014, "Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation Technical Memorandum (TM1) Summary of Results - Exploratory
Boreholes," Prepared for California American Water RBF Consulting, July 8, 2014. Tables 3-8.
3
GEOSCIENCE, 2014, "Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation Technical Memorandum (TM1) Summary of Results - Exploratory
Boreholes," Prepared for California American Water RBF Consulting, July 8, 2014. Figures 44-47.
4
GEOSCIENCE, 2014, "Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation Technical Memorandum (TM1) Summary of Results - Exploratory
Boreholes," Prepared for California American Water RBF Consulting, July 8, 2014. Pumping test (SGD, 1992).
5
California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Coast Region, 2006, "Revised Waste Discharge Requirements Order No. R3-2006-0017 Waste Discharger
Identication No. 3 270303001 For Monterey Regional Waste Management District Monterey Peninsula Calss III Landll Monterey County"
6
HydroMetrics LLC, 2008, "Preliminary Modeling Results for the MCWD Desalination Intake," Draft Technical Memorandum to Martin Feeney, from Derrik Williams and
Dave Van Brocklin, July 23, 2008.
7
Durbin TJ, Kapple GW, Freckleton JR, 1978, "Two-Dimensional and Three-Dimensional Digital Flow Models of the Salinas Valley Ground-Water Basin, California," U.S.
Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 78-113. Prepared in cooperation with the U.S.
8
Yates EB, 1988, "Simulated Eects of Ground-Water Management Alternatives for the Salinas Valley, California," U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations
Report 87-4066. Prepared in cooperation with the Monterey County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
9
Various sources reporting Transmissivity, calculated K based on average model thickness in Fort Ord area. Transmissivity values from sources: 10(Tables 6 and 7),
13(page 7, Table 6), 15(App E), 16(Table 3.8)
10
Harding Lawson Associates, 1994, "Draft Final Basewide HydroGeologic Characterization Fort Ord, California. Volume I - Text and Plates." A Report Prepraed for U.S.
Department of the Army Corps of Engineers, June 10, 1994. Tables 6-7.
11
Harding Lawson Associates, 1995, Appendix D Fort Ord Groundwater Model in "Basewide Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Fort Ord, California. Volume II Remedial Investigation." Prepared for Department of the Army Corps of Engineers, October 19, 1995.
Harding Lawson Associates, 1995, "Draft Final Conceptual Design Analysis OU 2 Groundwater Remedy Operable Unit 2, Fort Ord Landlls Fort Ord, California." Prepared
12
for Department of the Army Sacramento District Corp of Engineers, May 17, 1995
Harding Lawson Associates, 1999, "Draft Final OU 2 Plume Delineation Investigation Report Fort Ord, California." Prepared for United States Department of the Army
13
Corps of Engineers, February 11, 1999.
14
MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc., 2005, "Draft Final Report Groundwater Modeling Report Operable Unit Carbon Tetrachloride Plume Groundwater Remedial
Investigation / Feasibility Study Former Fort Ord, California." Prepared for United States Army Corps of Engineers Sacramento District, October 28, 2005.
15
MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc., 2006, "Final Operable Unit Carbon Tetrachloride Plume Groundwater Remedial Investigation / Feasibility Study Former Fort
Ord, California Volume I - Remedial Investigation." Prepared for United States Army Corps of Engineers, May 19, 2006.
16
HydroGeoLogic, Inc., 2006, "Final 100% Engineering Design Report Volume 2 of 3 Groundwater Modeling and Design Analysis Operable Unit 1 Fritzsche Army Aireld
Fire Drill Area Former Fort Ord, Califorina." Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Sacramento District, June 15, 2006.
17
Various sources reporting K from aquifer and slug tests. Sources: 10(Table 5, Plate 19), 16(Table 3.8), 18(Table 10.9-1)
Jordan PD, Oldenburg CM, Su GW, 2005, "Analysis of Aquifer Response, Groundwater Flow, and Plume Evolution at Site OU 1, Former Fort Ord, California. Final Repot
18
Part 1." February 21, 2005.
Hanson RT, Everett RR, Newhouse MW, Crawford SM, Pimentel MI, Smith GA, Geohydrology of a Deep-Aquifer System Monitoring-Well Site at Marina, Monterey
19
County, California, U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 02-4003.

Sources for parameter values.


PROJECT: 5073

DATE: 8/19/2016

Figure
3.3d

Layer 4

Layer 3

Layer 2

Layer 5

200
90

90

90

90
47

200
337

20
50

50

114
337

20
150

200

337

150

20

20

50
425

2
625

625

375

375

Layer 6

3-4

6-7

4-5

20

5-6

90

Layer 8

Layer 7

Explanation
NMGWM2016 boundary
Inactive model cells
336.6 Horizontal hydraulic conductivity, ft/day
4

35

Notes:
Layer 1 represents the ocean and therefore
is not mapped.
Values are rounded to the nearest whole number.

10 - 20

60 - 70

20 - 30

70 - 80

30 - 40

80 - 90

40 - 50

90 - 100

8 Miles

50 - 60

Horizontal hydraulic conductivity parameter zones and values, NMGWM2016.


PROJECT: 5073

DATE: 11/15/2016

Figure
3.4a

Layer 2

Layer 5

Layer 4

Layer 3
0.16
0.045

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.024
0.045

0.045

0.01

0.16

0.16

0.071
0.16

0.71
0.239
0.9

0.9
8.0

15.0

8.0

0.03

15.0

0.9

0.0005

0.9

8.5

0.0000005
12.5

8.0

12.5
8.7

8.7

0.006 - 0.007
0.007 - 0.009
0.009 - 0.100

Layer 6

0.100 - 0.4
0.9

Layer 8

Layer 7

Explanation
NMGWM2016 boundary
Inactive model cells
0.01
0.0072

Vertical hydraulic conductivity, ft/day

0.175

Notes:
Layer 1 represents the ocean and therefore
is not mapped.

I
0.0524 - 0.160
0.160 - 0.240
0.240 - 0.310
0.310 - 0.377
0.377 - 0.439

0.439 0.498 0.781 0.848 -

8 Miles

0.498
0.781
0.848
0.932

Vertical hydraulic conductivity parameter zones and values, NMGWM2016.


PROJECT: 5073

DATE: 11/15/2016

Figure
3.4b

Layer 3

Layer 2

Layer 6

0.000055 to 0.08

0.000001 to 0.0082
0.000002
0.019

0.000001 to 0.019

0.000147 to 0.1

Layer 5

Layer 4

Layer 7

Layer 8

Explanation
NMGWM2016 boundary
Inactive model cells
0.0007 to 16.67

Range of Specific storage values

Notes:
Layer 1 represents the ocean and therefore
is not mapped.
Darker colors indicate larger values.

I
0.000001 to 0.0082

0.000001 to 0.000005

DATE: 11/15/2016

8 Miles

0.000001 to 0.00001

Specific storage parameter zones and values, NMGWM2016.


PROJECT: 5073

Figure
3.4c

Jan-85

May-90

Sep-95
Date

Jan-01

May-06

Water Level Elevation, ft NAVD 88

Sep-11

-70
Oct-79

May-90

Sep-95
Date

Jan-01

May-06

Sep-11

Potrero
Road
Site

30
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
-70
Oct-79

-30
-40
-50
-60

-20
Jan-85

May-90

Sep-95
Date

Jan-01

May-06

-70
Oct-79

Sep-11

May-90

Sep-95
Date

Jan-01

May-06

Sep-11

CEMEX
Site

CEMEX
Site

MW-2-15-180U

20

20

10

30
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
-70
Oct-79

-10

-20

-20

-30

-30

-40

-40

-50

-50

-60

-60

Date

Jan-01

May-06

-70
Oct-79

Sep-11

MW-OU2-29-A

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
Oct-79

MW-BW-01-A

Water Level Elevation, ft NAVD 88

Water Level Elevation, ft NAVD 88

110
90
70
50
30
10

Jan-85

May-90

Sep-95
Date

Jan-01

May-06

Sep-11

Jan-85

May-90

Sep-95
Date

Jan-01

May-06

Sep-11

MW-OU2-29-180

30

20

10

10

-10

-20

-30

-30

-40

-40

-50

Sep-95
Date

Jan-01

May-06

Sep-11

-50

-60
-70
Oct-79

-10

-20

May-90

MW-BW-02-180

30

20

Jan-85

-60

Jan-85

May-90

Sep-95
Date

Jan-01

May-06

Sep-11

-70
Oct-79

Jan-85

EXPLANATION
Well with Historical Water Level Data

Active Model Cell

Date

Jan-01

May-06

Sep-11

Jan-85

Constant Head Model Cell

Simulated

Modeled Hydraulic
Conductivity Zone

Inactive Model Cell

Measured

Sep-95
Date

Jan-01

May-06

Sep-11

May-06

Sep-11

May-06

Sep-11

15S/2E-01Q01

30
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
-70
Oct-79

Jan-85

May-90

Sep-95
Date

Jan-01

15S/2E-02J01

May-90

Sep-95
Date

Jan-01

May-06

Sep-11

Jan-85

May-90

Sep-95
Date

Jan-01

Hydrograph:

NMGWM Boundary

May-90

Water Level Elevation, ft NAVD 88

Sep-95

Water Level Elevation, ft NAVD 88

May-90

Water Level Elevation, ft NAVD 88

Jan-85

Sep-95

Water Level Elevation, ft NAVD 88

10

-10

May-90

14S/2E-03R01

MW-2-15-180M

30

Water Level Elevation, ft NAVD 88

30

Jan-85

Jan-85

Model Layer 4

-20

13S/2E-33R01

Water Level Elevation, ft NAVD 88


Jan-85

-10

-10

Water Level Elevation, ft NAVD 88

May-06

10

10

-10
Oct-79

Date

Jan-01

20

20

-70
Oct-79

Sep-95

MW-BW-12-180

30

30

-30
Oct-79

May-90

Sep-11

Potrero
Road
Site

40

-60

Jan-85

30
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
-70
Oct-79

Water Level Elevation, ft NAVD 88

-70
Oct-79

Model Layer 2

50

-50

-60

MW-BW-11-A

60

Water Level Elevation, ft NAVD 88

Water Level Elevation, ft NAVD 88

Water Level Elevation, ft NAVD 88

Date

-30
Oct-79

Sep-11

-40

-50

-20

May-06

-30

-40

-10

Jan-01

-20

-30

10

-10

-20

20

Sep-95

10

-10

30

May-90

20

10

40

MW-BW-54-180

30

20

50

Jan-85

MW-OU2-07-180

30

60

70

Water Level Elevation, ft NAVD 88

MW-BW-31-A

70

Water Level Elevation, ft NAVD 88

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
Oct-79

MW-OU2-07-A

Miles

Measured and NMGWM2016 calculated water levels, History Matching Run (1979-2011) for Model Layer 2 and Model Layer 4.
PROJECT: 5073

DATE: 8/19/2016

Figure
4.1a

May-90

Sep-95
Date

Jan-01

May-06

Sep-11

Sep-95
Date

Jan-01

May-06

Sep-95

Jan-01

Date

May-06

Sep-11

Jan-85

13S/2E-31N02

May-90

Sep-95
Date

Jan-01

May-06

Sep-11

Model Layer 8

14S/2E-12Q01

Water Level Elevation, ft NAVD 88

30
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
-70
Oct-79

Sep-11

CEMEX
Site

Jan-85

May-90

Sep-95
Date

Jan-01

May-06

Sep-11

14S/2E-14L01

30
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
-70
Oct-79

Date

Jan-01

May-06

Sep-11

14S/2E-08M02

MW-BW-03-400

Water Level Elevation, ft NAVD 88

30
20
10
0

-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60

Jan-85

May-90

Sep-95
Date

Jan-01

May-06

Sep-11

-70
Oct-79

30
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
-70
Oct-79

Jan-85

May-90

Sep-95
Date

Jan-01

May-06

Sep-11

May-90

Sep-95
Date

Jan-01

May-06

Sep-11

May-06

Sep-11

May-06

Sep-11

13S/2E-31A02

Water Level Elevation, ft NAVD 88


Jan-85

May-90

Sep-95
Date

Jan-01

May-06

Sep-11

14S/2E-34A01

30
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
-70
Oct-79

14S/2E-06L01

Jan-85

May-90

Sep-95
Date

Jan-01

May-06

Sep-11

Jan-85

EXPLANATION
Well with Historical Water Level Data

Jan-85

Active Model Cell


Constant Head Model Cell

Simulated

Modeled Hydraulic
Conductivity Zone

Inactive Model Cell

Measured

May-90

Sep-95
Date

Jan-01

13S/2E-32E05

May-90

Sep-95
Date

Jan-01

May-06

Sep-11

Jan-85

May-90

Sep-95
Date

Jan-01

Hydrograph:

NMGWM Boundary

30
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
-70
Oct-79

Jan-85

Water Level Elevation, ft NAVD 88

Sep-95

Water Level Elevation, ft NAVD 88

May-90

13S/2E-19Q03

CEMEX
Site

Water Level Elevation, ft NAVD 88

30
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
-70
Oct-79

30
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
-70
Oct-79

Potrero
Road
Site

Water Level Elevation, ft NAVD 88

Jan-85

Water Level Elevation, ft NAVD 88

30
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
-70
Oct-79

May-90

Potrero
Road
Site

May-90

14S/3E-06R01

Model Layer 6

Water Level Elevation, ft NAVD 88

30
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
-70
Oct-79

Jan-85

13S/2E-32A02

Jan-85

0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
-70
-80
-90
-100
Oct-79

Water Level Elevation, ft NAVD 88

Water Level Elevation, ft NAVD 88


Jan-85

Water Level Elevation, ft NAVD 88

30
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
-70
Oct-79

13S/2E-21N01

30
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
-70
Oct-79

Water Level Elevation, ft NAVD 88

13S/2E-30A01

Water Level Elevation, ft NAVD 88

30
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
-70
Oct-79

Miles

Measured and NMGWM2016 calculated water levels, History Matching Run (1979-2011) for Model Layer 6 and Model Layer 8.
PROJECT: 5073

DATE: 8/12/2016

Figure
4.1b

CEMEX Monitoring Wells


Model-Calculated (ft), September 2011

40
NMGWM2015
Model Layer 2

30

2015

NMGWM
Model Layer 4

20

2015

NMGWM
Model Layer 6

MW-5S
10

MW-6M

2016

NMGWM
Model Layer 2

NMGWM2016
Model Layer 4

-10

NMGWM2016
Model Layer 6

-20

1:1 Line

-30
-30

-20

-10
0
10
20
Measured (ft), average June-October 2015

30

40

September 2011 model-calculated water levels (NMGWM2015 and NMGWM2016)


and 2015 water levels measured in CEMEX monitoring wells.
PROJECT: 5073

DATE: 8/19/2016

Figure
4.2

Model-calculated water level (feet amsl)

All Model Layers

125
100

y = 0.6x - 4.7
r = 0.8

75
50
25
0
-25
-50

EXPLANATION

-75
-100
-100

-75

-50

-25

25

50

75

100

125

Measured water level (feet amsl)

Observation Well
Linear (Wells)
1 to 1

All Model Layers


75
50
25

Residual

0
-25
-50
y = -0.1x + 0.5
r = 0.0

-75
-100

EXPLANATION

-125
-75

-50

-25

25

50

75

Model calculated water-level (feet amsl)

Residual
Linear (Wells)

Histograms of Residuals
1,600
1,400

Frequency

1,200
1,000

Error Statistics (in feet):


RMSE: 12.4
Min error: -80.9
Max error: 55.0
Mean error: 0.6

800
600
400
200

-85
-80
-75
-70
-65
-60
-55
-50
-45
-40
-35
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60

Residual (feet)

Measured vs. NMWGM2016 calculated water levels and residuals.


PROJECT: 5073

DATE: 8/18/2016

Figure
4.3a

Note: All wells in Model Layer 2


are screened in the A-Aquifer

125

Model Layer 2

100

50

100

25

y = 0.5x + 8.1
r = 0.6

25
0

0
-25
-50

-25

20
0

-50

-25

25

50

75

100

-90 -85 -80 -75 -70 -65 -60 -55 -50 -45 -40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0

-75

125

-50

-25

50

100

50

y = 0.8x - 1.3
r = 0.7

Histograms of Residuals
180
160

25

140

Residual

25

-25
y = 0.3x + 2.5
r = 0.4

-50

-25

80
60

-16
-14
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34

-125

-100
-50

-25

25

50

75

100

-75

125

-50

-25

Measured water level (feet amsl)

Model Layer 6
75

100

50

50

Residual (feet)

75

Histograms of Residuals

25

y = 0.6x - 5.4
r = 0.8
Residual

50

25

Model Layer 6

125

75

Model calculated water-level (feet amsl)

25
0
-25

0
-25
-50

y = -0.1x + 0.5
r = 0.0

-75

-50

Frequency

-75

-100

-75

500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0

-50

-25

25

50

75

100

-75

125

-50

Model Layer 8
75

100

50

75

25

Residual

y = 0.6x - 5.3
r = 0.8

0
-25
-50
-75
-100
-100

-75

-50

-25

25

25

50

Residual (feet)

75

Model Layer 8

125

25

Model calculated water-level (feet amsl)

Measured water level (feet amsl)

50

-25

50

75

100

125

Measured water level (feet amsl)

EXPLANATION
Observation Well
Linear (Wells)
1 to 1

Histograms of Residuals

Frequency

-75

RMSE: 10.7
Min error: -39.9
Max error: 55.0
Mean error: 2.1

-40-36-32-28-24-20-16-12 -8 -4 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52

-125

-100
-100

RMSE: 7.2
Min error: -15.8
Max error: 32.2
Mean error: 1.4

100

20

-100

-75

120

40

-75

-50

-100

-25
y = -0.1x - 0.5
r = 0.0

-50
-75

EXPLANATION

-100

Residual

-125
-75

-50

-25

25

Model calculated water-level (feet amsl)

50

75

Linear (Wells)

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

RMSE: 11.3
Min error: -35.4
Max error: 41.2
Mean error: 0.5

-36 -32 -28 -24 -20 -16 -12 -8 -4

DATE: 8/12/2016

8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40

Residual (feet)

Measured vs. NMGWM2016 calculated water levels and residuals, model layers 2-8.
PROJECT: 5073

5 10

Residual (feet)

75

Model Layer 4
75

50

25

Model calculated water-level (feet amsl)

125

75

Frequency

-75

Model Layer 4
Model-calculated water level (feet amsl)

40

-75

Measured water level (feet amsl)

Model-calculated water level (feet amsl)

60

-125

-100

RMSE: 30.2
Min error: -80.9
Max error: 9.2
Mean error: -17.1

80

-100

-50
-75

y = 0.1x - 20.0
r = 0.0

Frequency

75

Error Statistics
(in feet)

120

50

-100

Model-calculated water level (feet amsl)

Histograms of Residuals

75

Residual

Model-calculated water level (feet amsl)

Model Layer 2

Figure
4.3b

180-FT Aquifer

50

180-FT Aquifer

80
60

25

40
0
Residual

Model-calculated water level (feet amsl)

SVIGSM:

y = 0.8x - 3.3
r = 0.8

-25
-50

20
y = 0.2x + 0.3
r = 0.3

0
-20
-40

-75

-60
-80

-100
-100

-75

-50

-25

25

50

-80

-60

NMGWM:

-40

Model Layer 4

20

40

80

60

80

Model Layer 4
60

25

40
y = 0.8x - 1.3
r = 0.7

0
-25
-50

20
0
-20

y = 0.3x + 2.5
r = 0.4

-40
-75

-60
-80

-100
-100

-75

-50

-25

Measured water level (feet amsl)

EXPLANATION
Observation Well
Linear (Wells)
1 to 1

25

50

-80

-60

-40

-20

20

40

Model calculated water-level (feet amsl)

EXPLANATION
Residual
Linear (Wells)

Comparison between SVIGSM and NMGWM2016 calculated water levels


and residuals, Model Layer 4/180-FT Aquifer.
PROJECT: 5073

60

80

50

Residual

Model-calculated water level (feet amsl)

-20

Model calculated water-level (feet amsl)

Measured water level (feet amsl)

DATE: 8/12/2016

Figure
4.3c

35

30

30

25

25

20

20

15

15

10

10

Residual (Model - Obs), feet

Water Level, feet

35

-5

-5

-10

-10

-15

-15

-20

-20

-25

-25

-30

-30

-35
Oct-79

-35
Sep-81

Sep-83

Sep-85

Sep-87

Date

Sep-89

Sep-91

EXPLANATION
Residual
Model Calculated
Measured

35
30
25

Residual (Model - Obs), feet

20
15
10
5
0
-5
-10
y = 0.3x + 5.8
R = 0.2

-15
-20
-25
-30
-35
-35

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

10

Model-Calculated, feet

15

20

25

30

35

EXPLANATION
Residual
Linear (Wells)

Relationships between measured water levels,


model-calculated water levels, and water level residuals.
Well 02J01, Model Layer 4.
PROJECT: 5073

DATE: 8/18/2016

Figure
4.3d

Model Layer 2

Model Layer 4

0
-6

-3

8
-9

-5

-10

-3

-67

-5

11
4

10

Model Layer 6

Model Layer 8

-5

-1

2
0
15
-1
-7
-2

-2
7

EXPLANATION
NMGWM Calibration Well
Active Model Cell
Constant Head
Model Cell

Standard Deviation of the Residuals (ft)


-1

0 - 3.6

Inactive Model Cell

3.6 - 7.2
7.2 - 10.8

NMGWM Boundary
Modeled Hydraulic
Conductivity Zone

Labeled with median


residual (ft)

Miles

10.8 - 14.4

Geographic distribution of residuals by


NMGWM2016 model layer.
PROJECT: 5073

DATE: 8/18/2016

Figure
4.4

Storage Change: 2,140

1,600
+ Ocean Inflow
= 37,300
- Offshore Discharge = 14,700

22,600

#
*

7,560
Regional
Recharge: 39,500
Regional
Pumping: 66,200

12,200
EXPLANATION
*
#

Castroville Well #3

1,600

Black numbers indicate an addition to the dynamic


groundwater system, and red numbers indicate a
subtraction from the dynamic groundwater system.

Net Groundwater Flow (AF/yr)

CSIP Area
River Model Cell
NMGWM Boundary

2
Miles

NMGWM2016 calculated average annual


volumetric water budget, 1979-2011.
PROJECT: 5073

DATE: 11/21/2016

Figure
4.5

MW-1S
5/26/2015

7/15/2015

Date
9/3/2015

10/23/2015

12/12/2015

1/31/2016

4/6/2015
-1.0

5/26/2015

Date
9/3/2015

7/15/2015

10/23/2015

12/12/2015

4/6/2015
-1.0

1/31/2016

5/26/2015

7/15/2015

Date
9/3/2015

MW-4M
10/23/2015

12/12/2015

1/31/2016

4/6/2015
-1.0

0.0

0.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

2.0

2.0

2.0

2.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0

4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0

Drawdown, feet

0.0

1.0

Drawdown, feet

0.0

Drawdown, feet

Drawdown, feet

4/6/2015
-1.0

MW-1M

MW-4S

4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0

5/26/2015

9.0

9.0

9.0

10.0

10.0

10.0

10.0

11.0

11.0

11.0

11.0

P otrero
Roa d
Site

CEMEX
Site

CEMEX
Site

MW-3S
1/31/2016

4/6/2015
-1.0

5/26/2015

7/15/2015

Date
9/3/2015

10/23/2015

12/12/2015

4/6/2015
-1.0

1/31/2016

5/26/2015

7/15/2015

Date
9/3/2015

MW-7M
10/23/2015

12/12/2015

1/31/2016

4/6/2015
-1.0
0.0

1.0

1.0

2.0

2.0

2.0

2.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0

4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0

4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0

Drawdown, feet

0.0

1.0

Drawdown, feet

0.0

1.0

Drawdown, feet

Drawdown, feet

MW-3M

MW-7S

0.0

7.0

9.0

9.0

9.0

9.0

10.0

10.0

10.0

10.0

11.0

11.0

11.0

11.0

CEMEXMonitoring
Oth er

Hydrograph:

NMGWM

Consta ntHea d Mod elCell

CEMEX

2016

Ac tiv eMod elCell

NMGWM

I
na c tiv eMod elCell

Mea sured *

8.0

Notes:
*m ea sured v a lues a red etrend ed

2015

Mod eled Hyd ra ulic Cond uc tiv ityZone

Geosc ienc e(
2016)

Sourc e:
Geosc ienc eSupportServ ic es I
nc .
,2016,
DRAFTMontereyP enisula
Wa ter SupplyP rojec tMonitoring WellCom pletion Reporta nd CEMEXMod el
Upd a te,
prepa red for Ca lifornia Am eric a n Wa ter,July15,2016.

Mea sured v s.m od elc a lc ula ted d ra wd own in CEMEXm onitoring wells d uring testsla ntwellpum ping .
P ROJ
ECT:5073

DATE:1
1/
15/
2016

Date
9/3/2015

6.0

8.0

NMGWM Bound a ry

7/15/2015

5.0

8.0

EXPLANATION

5/26/2015

4.0

8.0

Wells

1/31/2016

Model Layer 4

P otrero
Roa d
Site

12/12/2015

12/12/2015

8.0

Model Layer 2

10/23/2015

10/23/2015

7.0

9.0

Date
9/3/2015

1/31/2016

6.0

8.0

7/15/2015

12/12/2015

5.0

8.0

5/26/2015

10/23/2015

4.0

8.0

4/6/2015
-1.0

Date
9/3/2015

7/15/2015

I
4

Miles

Fig ure
4.
6

Potrero Road site

CEMEX site

EXPLANATION
NMGWM Boundary

Model Cells
Constant Head
No Flow
Flooded due to Erosion
Flooded due to Sea Level Rise

I
0

0.5

Miles

NMGWM2016 constant head cells activated for 2073 sea level rise.
PROJECT: 5073

DATE: 8/12/2016

Figure
5.1

MW-3M

MW-3S
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20

Drawdown (ft)

Drawdown (ft)

Model Year
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63

MW-1S

MW-5S

MW-5M
Model Year
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63

Model Year
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20

CEMEX
Site

CEMEX
Site

Drawdown (ft)

Drawdown (ft)

0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20

MW-7M

Model Year
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63

Model Year
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63

Model Year
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20

MW-4M

MW-7S

Model Year
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63

0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20

Drawdown (ft)

Drawdown (ft)

MW-4S

11 1

0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20

1 1

0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20

Drawdown (ft)

0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20

0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20

MW-1M

Model Year
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63

Drawdown (ft)

Drawdown (ft)

Model Year
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63

Model Layer 4

Model Year
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63

Drawdown (ft)

Model Layer 2

0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20

EXPLANATION
River Model Cell
Active Model Cell
Constant Head
Model Cell
Inactive Model Cell
NMGWM Boundary
Modeled Hydraulic
Conductivity Zone

Contours (ft) - Line color indicates modeled years of Slant Well pumping
Only +/- 1 foot drawdown contours are shown.
Contours not shown where groundwater level
change is less than 1 foot.

Slant Well

Wells
CEMEX Monitoring

Groundwater Level Decrease (Drawdown)

Other

Groundwater Level Increase


1 year

10 years

5 years

20 years

63 years

In some cases contours are located directly


beneath other contours and are not visible.

2
Miles

Annual NMGWM2016 calculated drawdown from slant well pumping (24.1 MGD),
44/56 Layer 2/Layer 4 distribution, 2012 sea level, with no return water, CEMEX site.
PROJECT: 5073

DATE: 11/15/2016

Figure
5.2

Model Layer 4

Model Layer 2

Potrero
Road
Site

Potrero
Road
Site

CEMEX
Site

CEMEX
Site
1

1 1

111

Model Layer 6

Model Layer 8

Potrero
Road
Site

Potrero
Road
Site

#
*
-1

CEMEX
Site

CEMEX
Site

-1
1

Return water replaces pumping from Castroville Well #3 and


irrigation wells in the CSIP area within the 400-FT Aquifer.

Model Layer 6 area underlying CSIP


River Model Cell
Active Model Cell
Constant Head
Model Cell

EXPLANATION
Contours (ft) - Line color indicates % return water
Only +/- 1 foot drawdown contours are shown.
Contours not shown where groundwater level
change is less than 1 foot.

Groundwater Level Decrease (Drawdown)


Groundwater Level Increase

Inactive Model Cell

0% Return Water

NMGWM Boundary

3% Return Water

Modeled Hydraulic
Conductivity Zone

6% Return Water
12% Return Water

In some cases contours are located directly


beneath other contours and are not visible.
2016

Wells
Slant Well
*
#

Castroville Well #3, 400-FT Aquifer


CEMEX Monitoring
Other

2
Miles

NMGWM
calculated drawdown
63 years of slant well pumping (24.1 MGD), 44/56 Layer 2/Layer 4 distribution,
2012 sea level, with variable return water, CEMEX site.

PROJECT: 5073

DATE: 8/29/2016

Figure
5.3a

Model Layer 2

Model Layer 4

-1

Potrero
Road
Site

Potrero
Road
Site

-1

CEMEX
Site

CEMEX
Site
1

Model Layer 6

Potrero
Road
Site

Model Layer 8

-1

Potrero
Road
Site

-1

#
*

CEMEX
Site

CEMEX
Site

Return water replaces pumping from Castroville Well #3 and


irrigation wells in the CSIP area within the 400-FT Aquifer.

EXPLANATION
Model Layer 6 area underlying CSIP
River Model Cell
Active Model Cell
Constant Head
Model Cell
Inactive Model Cell
NMGWM Boundary
Modeled Hydraulic
Conductivity Zone

Contours (ft) - Line color indicates % return water


Only +/- 1 foot drawdown contours are shown.
Contours not shown where groundwater level
change is less than 1 foot.

Wells
Slant Well
*
#

Castroville Well #3, 400-FT Aquifer

Groundwater Level Decrease (Drawdown)

CEMEX Monitoring

Groundwater Level Increase

Other

0% Return Water
3% Return Water

6% Return Water
12% Return Water

In some cases contours are located directly


beneath other contours and are not visible.

2
Miles

NMGWM2016 calculated drawdown


63 years of slant well pumping (24.1 MGD), 44/56 Layer 2/Layer 4 distribution,
2073 sea level, with variable return water, CEMEX site.

PROJECT: 5073

DATE: 8/12/2016

Figure
5.3b

Model Layer 4

Model Layer 2

Potrero
Road
Site

Potrero
Road
Site

-1

-1
-1

CEMEX
Site

-1

1 1

CEMEX
Site
1

Model Layer 8

Model Layer 6

-1

Potrero
Road
Site

Potrero
Road
Site

-1

#
*

CEMEX
Site

CEMEX
Site

-1

Return water replaces pumping from Castroville Well #3 and


irrigation wells in the CSIP area within the 400-FT Aquifer.

Model Layer 6 area underlying CSIP


River Model Cell
Active Model Cell
Constant Head
Model Cell

EXPLANATION
Contours (ft) - Line color indicates % return water
Only +/- 1 foot drawdown contours are shown.
Contours not shown where groundwater level
change is less than 1 foot.

Modeled Hydraulic
Conductivity Zone

Slant Well
*
#

Castroville Well #3, 400-FT Aquifer

Groundwater Level Decrease (Drawdown)

CEMEX Monitoring

Groundwater Level Increase

Other

Inactive Model Cell


NMGWM Boundary

Wells

0% Return Water
3% Return Water

6% Return Water
12% Return Water

In some cases contours are located directly


beneath other contours and are not visible.

2
Miles

NMGWM2016 calculated drawdown


63 years of slant well pumping (15.5 MGD), 44/56 Layer 2/Layer 4 distribution,
2012 sea level, with variable return water, CEMEX site.

PROJECT: 5073

DATE: 8/19/2016

Figure
5.4a

Model Layer 4

Model Layer 2

Potrero
Road
Site

Potrero
Road
Site

-1

-1

CEMEX
Site

-1
-1

-1

CEMEX
Site

-1

Model Layer 6

Model Layer 8

Potrero
Road
Site
-1

Potrero
Road
Site
-1

#
*

CEMEX
Site

CEMEX
Site

-1

Return water replaces pumping from Castroville Well #3 and


irrigation wells in the CSIP area within the 400-FT Aquifer.

Model Layer 6 area underlying CSIP


River Model Cell
Active Model Cell
Constant Head
Model Cell

EXPLANATION
Contours (ft) - Line color indicates % return water
Only +/- 1 foot drawdown contours are shown.
Contours not shown where groundwater level
change is less than 1 foot.

Modeled Hydraulic
Conductivity Zone

Slant Well
*
#

Castroville Well #3, 400-FT Aquifer

Groundwater Level Decrease (Drawdown)

CEMEX Monitoring

Groundwater Level Increase

Other

Inactive Model Cell


NMGWM Boundary

Wells

0% Return Water
3% Return Water

6% Return Water
12% Return Water

In some cases contours are located directly


beneath other contours and are not visible.

2
Miles

NMGWM2016 calculated drawdown


63 years of slant well pumping (15.5 MGD), 44/56 Layer 2/Layer 4 distribution,
2073 sea level, with variable return water, CEMEX site.

PROJECT: 5073

DATE: 8/19/2016

Figure
5.4b

0.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0
Model Year

PROJECT: 5073
DATE: 11/15/2016

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0
Model Year

MW-4S

0.5

0.0

1.5
0.5

2.0
1.0

0.0

2.5

0.5

1.0
0.0

1.5

CEMEX
Site

0.5

0.0

1.5

0.5

2.0

1.0

MW-5S

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

MW-6S

1.5

2.0

MW-7S

1.5

2.0

River Model Cell


Inactive Model Cell

Active Model Cell


NMGWM Boundary

Constant Head
Model Cell
Modeled Hydraulic
Conductivity Zone

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

3.5

Model Year
0.0

4.0
Model Year

0.0

2.5
3.5

3.0
4.0

2.5
3.5

3.0
4.0

MW-1M

3.5

4.0
Model Year

0.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0
Model Year

Model Year

EXPLANATION
Slant Well

Wells
CEMEX Monitoring

I
2

NMGWM2016 calculated recovery hydrographs


post-CEMEX site, 2073 sea level.

Drawdown (ft)

Model Layer 2

Model Year

63
66
69
72
75
78
81
84
87
90
93
96
99
102
105
108
111
114
117
120
123
126

2.0

1.0
0.0

1.5
0.5

2.0

2.5

1.0

3.0

3.5

4.0

Drawdown (ft)

4.0

63
66
69
72
75
78
81
84
87
90
93
96
99
102
105
108
111
114
117
120
123
126

3.0

63
66
69
72
75
78
81
84
87
90
93
96
99
102
105
108
111
114
117
120
123
126

1.5

63
66
69
72
75
78
81
84
87
90
93
96
99
102
105
108
111
114
117
120
123
126

0.0

MW-1S

1.0

Drawdown (ft)

0.5

2.5

3.0

Drawdown (ft)

MW-3S

Model Year

63
66
69
72
75
78
81
84
87
90
93
96
99
102
105
108
111
114
117
120
123
126

Model Year

MW-9S

Drawdown (ft)

4.0

63
66
69
72
75
78
81
84
87
90
93
96
99
102
105
108
111
114
117
120
123
126

3.5

63
66
69
72
75
78
81
84
87
90
93
96
99
102
105
108
111
114
117
120
123
126

3.0

Drawdown (ft)

2.5

Drawdown (ft)

2.0

Drawdown (ft)

63
66
69
72
75
78
81
84
87
90
93
96
99
102
105
108
111
114
117
120
123
126

63
66
69
72
75
78
81
84
87
90
93
96
99
102
105
108
111
114
117
120
123
126

Drawdown (ft)
1.5

0.0

Drawdown (ft)

Model Year

63
66
69
72
75
78
81
84
87
90
93
96
99
102
105
108
111
114
117
120
123
126

2.0

Drawdown (ft)

0.0

63
66
69
72
75
78
81
84
87
90
93
96
99
102
105
108
111
114
117
120
123
126

1.0

Drawdown (ft)

63
66
69
72
75
78
81
84
87
90
93
96
99
102
105
108
111
114
117
120
123
126

Drawdown (ft)
1.0

63
66
69
72
75
78
81
84
87
90
93
96
99
102
105
108
111
114
117
120
123
126

1.0

Drawdown (ft)

63
66
69
72
75
78
81
84
87
90
93
96
99
102
105
108
111
114
117
120
123
126

Drawdown (ft)
0.5

63
66
69
72
75
78
81
84
87
90
93
96
99
102
105
108
111
114
117
120
123
126

63
66
69
72
75
78
81
84
87
90
93
96
99
102
105
108
111
114
117
120
123
126

Drawdown (ft)

0.0

MW-8S

MW-8M

Model Layer 4

0.5

1.0

1.5

0.0

2.0

Model Year

0.5

1.0

1.5

0.0

2.0

MW-9M

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

MW-3M
Model Year

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Model Year

MW-5M

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

CEMEX
Site
Model Year

0.5

0.0

MW-6M

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

MW-4M
Model Year

MW-7M

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Other

Miles

Figure
5.5

CEMEX 24.1 MGD:

CEMEX 15.5 MGD:


Model Layer 2

Model Layer 2

Potrero
Road
Site

Potrero
Road
Site

CEMEX
Site

CEMEX
Site

Model Layer 4

Model Layer 4

Potrero
Road
Site

Potrero
Road
Site

CEMEX
Site

CEMEX
Site

EXPLANATION
River Model Cell

CEMEX Monitoring Well

Active Model Cell

Slant Well

Particle Tracking Ocean Capture Zones

Ocean Capture Zone, porosity = 0.1, avg gradient = 0.0004

Constant Head
Model Cell

Ocean Capture Zone, porosity = 0.1, avg gradient = 0.0007

Inactive Model Cell

Ocean Capture Zone, porosity = 0.1, avg gradient = 0.0011

NMGWM Boundary
Modeled Hydraulic
Conductivity Zone

Miles
NMGWM2016 calculated ocean capture zone with variable regional gradients,
63 years of slant well pumping (24.1 and 15.5 MGD),
44/56 Layer 2/Layer 4 distribution, 2012 sea level, CEMEX site.

PROJECT: 5073

DATE: 11/15/2016

Figure
5.6

Model Layer 4

Model Layer 6

"

"
"
"

"

"

" " "

"

"
"

"
" "

" "

Potrero
Road
Site

"

" "

" " "

"

"

"

"

"

Potrero
Road
Site

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

" "

" "

"

"

"

"

"

"
" "

"

"

"

"

"

"

" "

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

" "

"

"

" " "


"

"

" " "

""

"

"

"

"

"
"

"

"
"

"

"

"

" "

"

"

"

""

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

" " "

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

" "
" " " " "
" "

"
"

"

" "

"

"

"

"

"

" "

"

"
"

"

"

"

" " "

"

"

" "

"
"
"

" "

"

"

"
"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

" " " "


"
"
"
"

"

"

"

"

"

" " " "


"
"
"
"

"

"
" "

"

"

"

"

"

"

"
""

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

" " "

"
"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

" "

" " "

"

"

" "
" "

"

"

"

" "
"

CEMEX
Site

"

"

"

"

" "
" "
" "
"

"

CEMEX
Site

"
"

EXPLANATION

EXPLANATION
Seawater Intrusion
Model Layer 4

"

1944

1999

2011

1965

2001

2013

1975

2003

1985

2005

1993

2007

1997

2009

Seawater Intrusion

Particle tracking path line and ending location.

Source: Monterey County


Water Resources Agency
(2014) Historic Seawater
Intrusion Map. Pressure
180-Foot Aquifer 500 mg/L Chloride Areas

Particle tracking path line and ending location.

Model Layer 6

porosity = 0.1

NMGWM Boundary

I
2

Miles

"

1959

1997

2009

1975

1999

2011

1985

2001

2013

1990

2003

1993

2005

1995

2007

Source: Monterey County


Water Resources Agency
(2014) Historic Seawater
Intrusion Map. Pressure
400-Foot Aquifer 500 mg/L Chloride Areas

porosity = 0.1

NMGWM2016 particle tracking changes at mapped saltwater intrustion front after 63 years of slant well pumping (24.1 MGD),
44/56 Layer 2/Layer 4 distribution, 2012 sea level, with no return water, CEMEX site.
PROJECT: 5073

DATE: 11/23/2016

NMGWM Boundary

Miles

Figure
5.7

0
3
6
9
12
15
18
21
24
27
30
33
36
39
42
45
48
51
54
57
60
63

0
2

2
4

Drawdown (ft)

Drawdown (ft)

Model Layer 4

6
8

10

14

10

12

Potrero
Road
Site

14

E
E

E
Model Year

12

14

12

Drawdown (ft)

Drawdown (ft)

Model Year

10

8
10

14

4
Model Year

6
8

10

12

14

8
10

0
3
6
9
12
15
18
21
24
27
30
33
36
39
42
45
48
51
54
57
60
63

Drawdown (ft)

12

14

Model Year
0

14

10

10

6
8

Model Year

14

12

12

0
3
6
9
12
15
18
21
24
27
30
33
36
39
42
45
48
51
54
57
60
63

Drawdown (ft)

Drawdown (ft)

0
3
6
9
12
15
18
21
24
27
30
33
36
39
42
45
48
51
54
57
60
63

Model Year

0
3
6
9
12
15
18
21
24
27
30
33
36
39
42
45
48
51
54
57
60
63

10

0
3
6
9
12
15
18
21
24
27
30
33
36
39
42
45
48
51
54
57
60
63

Drawdown (ft)

Drawdown (ft)

Drawdown (ft)

0
3
6
9
12
15
18
21
24
27
30
33
36
39
42
45
48
51
54
57
60
63

Model Year

0
3
6
9
12
15
18
21
24
27
30
33
36
39
42
45
48
51
54
57
60
63

E
E

Model Year

Potrero
Road
Site

12

0
3
6
9
12
15
18
21
24
27
30
33
36
39
42
45
48
51
54
57
60
63

Model Year

Model Layer 2

0
3
6
9
12
15
18
21
24
27
30
33
36
39
42
45
48
51
54
57
60
63

Model Year

6
8
10
12

12

14

14

EXPLANATION
Slant Well

Contours (ft) - Line color indicates modeled years of Slant Well pumping
River Model Cell
Active Model Cell
Constant Head
Model Cell
Inactive Model Cell

Only +/- 1 foot drawdown contours are shown.


Contours not shown where groundwater level
change is less than 1 foot.

Water Level Observation Site

Wells
CEMEX Monitoring

Groundwater Level Decrease (Drawdown)

Other

Groundwater Level Increase

NMGWM Boundary

1 year

10 years

Modeled Hydraulic
Conductivity Zone

5 years

20 years

63 years

In some cases contours are located directly


beneath other contours and are not visible.

Miles

Annual NMGWM2016 calculated drawdown from slant well pumping (24.1 MGD),
2012 sea level, with no return water, Potrero Road site.
PROJECT: 5073

DATE: 11/15/2016

I
Figure
5.8

Model Layer 4

Model Layer 2
Potrero
Road
Site

Potrero
Road
Site

11

1 1

1
1

CEMEX
Site

CEMEX
Site

Model Layer 6
Potrero
Road
Site

Model Layer 8
Potrero
Road
Site

-1

-1

CEMEX
Site

CEMEX
Site

Return water replaces pumping from Castroville Well #3


and irrigation wells in the CSIP area within the 400-FT Aquifer.

EXPLANATION
Model Layer 6 area underlying CSIP
River Model Cell
Active Model Cell
Constant Head
Model Cell
Inactive Model Cell
NMGWM Boundary
Modeled Hydraulic
Conductivity Zone

Contours (ft) - Line color indicates % return water


Only +/- 1 foot drawdown contours are shown.
Contours not shown where groundwater level
change is less than 1 foot.

Wells
Slant Well
*
#

Castroville Well #3, 400-FT Aquifer

Groundwater Level Decrease (Drawdown)

CEMEX Monitoring

Groundwater Level Increase

Other

0% Return Water
3% Return Water

6% Return Water
12% Return Water

In some cases contours are located directly


beneath other contours and are not visible.

NMGWM2016 calculated drawdown


63 years of slant well pumping (24.1 MGD),
2012 sea level, with variable return water, Potrero Road site.

PROJECT: 5073

DATE: 8/30/2016

Miles

Figure
5.9a

Model Layer 2

Model Layer 4

Potrero
Road
Site

Potrero
Road
Site

1 1

1
1

CEMEX
Site

CEMEX
Site

Model Layer 8

Model Layer 6
Potrero
Road
Site

Potrero
Road
Site

-1

-1

CEMEX
Site

CEMEX
Site

Return water replaces pumping from Castroville Well #3 and


irrigation wells in the CSIP area within the 400-FT Aquifer.

EXPLANATION
Model Layer 6 area underlying CSIP
River Model Cell
Active Model Cell
Constant Head
Model Cell
Inactive Model Cell
NMGWM Boundary
Modeled Hydraulic
Conductivity Zone

Contours (ft) - Line color indicates % return water


Only +/- 1 foot drawdown contours are shown.
Contours not shown where groundwater level
change is less than 1 foot.

Wells
Slant Well
*
#

Castroville Well #3, 400-FT Aquifer

Groundwater Level Decrease (Drawdown)

CEMEX Monitoring

Groundwater Level Increase

Other

0% Return Water
3% Return Water

6% Return Water
12% Return Water

In some cases contours are located directly


beneath other contours and are not visible.

NMGWM2016 calculated drawdown


63 years of slant well pumping (24.1 MGD),
2073 sea level, with variable return water, Potrero Road site.

PROJECT: 5073

DATE: 8/30/2016

Miles

Figure
5.9b

Model Layer 2
Potrero
Road
Site

Model Layer 4
Potrero
Road
Site

11

-1

-1
-1

-1

CEMEX
Site

CEMEX
Site

Model Layer 6
Potrero
Road
Site

Model Layer 8
Potrero
Road
Site

-1

-1

-1

CEMEX
Site

CEMEX
Site

Return water replaces pumping from Castroville Well #3 and


irrigation wells in the CSIP area within the 400-FT Aquifer.

EXPLANATION
Model Layer 6 area underlying CSIP
River Model Cell
Active Model Cell
Constant Head
Model Cell
Inactive Model Cell
NMGWM Boundary
Modeled Hydraulic
Conductivity Zone

Contours (ft) - Line color indicates % return water


Only +/- 1 foot drawdown contours are shown.
Contours not shown where groundwater level
change is less than 1 foot.

Groundwater Level Decrease (Drawdown)


Groundwater Level Increase
0% Return Water
6% Return Water
3% Return Water 12% Return Water
In some cases contours are located directly
beneath other contours and are not visible.

Wells
Slant Well
*
#

Castroville Well #3, 400-FT Aquifer


CEMEX Monitoring
Other

NMGWM2016 calculated drawdown


63 years of slant well pumping (15.5 MGD),
2012 sea level, with variable return water, Potrero Road site.

PROJECT: 5073

DATE: 8/30/2016

Miles

Figure
5.10a

Model Layer 2
Potrero
Road
Site

Model Layer 4
Potrero
Road
Site

1 1

-1

-1

-1

CEMEX
Site

CEMEX
Site

-1

Model Layer 6

Model Layer 8
Potrero
Road
Site

Potrero
Road
Site

CEMEX
Site

-1

-1

CEMEX
Site

-1

Return water replaces pumping from Castroville Well #3 and


irrigation wells in the CSIP area within the 400-FT Aquifer.

Model Layer 6 area underlying CSIP


River Model Cell
Active Model Cell
Constant Head
Model Cell

EXPLANATION
Contours (ft) - Line color indicates % return water
Only +/- 1 foot drawdown contours are shown.
Contours not shown where groundwater level
change is less than 1 foot.

Groundwater Level Decrease (Drawdown)


Groundwater Level Increase

Inactive Model Cell


NMGWM Boundary
Modeled Hydraulic
Conductivity Zone

0% Return Water
3% Return Water

6% Return Water
12% Return Water

In some cases contours are located directly


beneath other contours and are not visible.

Wells
Slant Well
*
#

Castroville Well #3, 400-FT Aquifer


CEMEX Monitoring
Other

NMGWM2016 calculated drawdown


63 years of slant well pumping (15.5 MGD),
2073 sea level, with variable return water, Potrero Road site.

PROJECT: 5073

DATE: 8/30/2016

Miles

Figure
5.10b

0.0

2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0

3.0
4.0
5.0

63
66
69
72
75
78
81
84
87
90
93
96
99
102
105
108
111
114
117
120
123
126

7.0

63
66
69
72
75
78
81
84
87
90
93
96
99
102
105
108
111
114
117
120
123
126

7.0

2.0

6.0

Potrero
Road
Site

6.0

Model Layer 4

1.0

Drawdown (ft)

Drawdown (ft)

0.0

Model Layer 2

1.0

Model Year

Potrero
Road
Site

Model Year

E
0.0

0.0

Drawdown (ft)

3.0

0.0

7.0

2.0

0.0

Model Year

4.0
5.0

Drawdown (ft)

0.0
1.0

Model Year

4.0
0.0

5.0

1.0

7.0

3.0

5.0

3.0

6.0

2.0

4.0

2.0

63
66
69
72
75
78
81
84
87
90
93
96
99
102
105
108
111
114
117
120
123
126

Model Year

Drawdown (ft)

63
66
69
72
75
78
81
84
87
90
93
96
99
102
105
108
111
114
117
120
123
126

7.0

3.0

7.0

1.0

63
66
69
72
75
78
81
84
87
90
93
96
99
102
105
108
111
114
117
120
123
126

4.0

2.0

6.0

0.0

Model Year

6.0

1.0

3.0

3.0

5.0

0.0

7.0

7.0

2.0

6.0

6.0

1.0

5.0

Model Year

4.0
5.0
6.0

Drawdown (ft)

Model Year

4.0

63
66
69
72
75
78
81
84
87
90
93
96
99
102
105
108
111
114
117
120
123
126

Drawdown (ft)

6.0

1.0

3.0

Drawdown (ft)

5.0

2.0

63
66
69
72
75
78
81
84
87
90
93
96
99
102
105
108
111
114
117
120
123
126

4.0

63
66
69
72
75
78
81
84
87
90
93
96
99
102
105
108
111
114
117
120
123
126

Drawdown (ft)

2.0

Drawdown (ft)

1.0

1.0

2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0

7.0

63
66
69
72
75
78
81
84
87
90
93
96
99
102
105
108
111
114
117
120
123
126

63
66
69
72
75
78
81
84
87
90
93
96
99
102
105
108
111
114
117
120
123
126

7.0

Model Year

Model Year

EXPLANATION
Slant Well

River Model Cell


Active Model Cell

Constant Head
Model Cell

Wells

Water Level Observation Site

Inactive Model Cell

CEMEX Monitoring

NMGWM Boundary

Other

Modeled Hydraulic
Conductivity Zone

2
Miles

NMGWM2016 calculated recovery hydrographs


post-Potrero Road site, 2073 sea level.
PROJECT: 5073

DATE: 11/15/2016

Figure
5.11

Potrero Road 24.1 MGD:

Potrero Road 15.5 MGD:


Model Layer 2

Model Layer 2
Potrero
Road
Site

Potrero
Road
Site

CEMEX
Site

CEMEX
Site

Model Layer 4

Model Layer 4

Potrero
Road
Site

Potrero
Road
Site

CEMEX
Site

CEMEX
Site

No Extraction Wells in Model Layer 4 at Potrero Road Site

EXPLANATION
River Model Cell

CEMEX Monitoring Well

Active Model Cell

Slant Well

Particle Tracking Ocean Capture Zones

Ocean Capture Zone, porosity = 0.1, avg gradient = 0.0004

Constant Head
Model Cell

Ocean Capture Zone, porosity = 0.1, avg gradient = 0.0007

Inactive Model Cell

Ocean Capture Zone, porosity = 0.1, avg gradient = 0.0011

NMGWM Boundary
Modeled Hydraulic
Conductivity Zone

2
Miles

NMGWM2016 calculated ocean capture zone with variable regional gradients,


63 years of slant well pumping (24.1 and 15.5 MGD),
2012 sea level, Potrero Road site.

PROJECT: 5073

DATE: 8/30/2016

Figure
5.12

Model Layer 4
"

"

"

"
"

"

"

"

" "

"

"

"

" "
"
" ""
" " "

" "

Potrero
Road
Site

"

" "

"

"

"

"

"

" "

"

"

"
"

"

"

"

"

" "

"

Potrero
Road
Site

Model Layer 6

"

"

"

"
" ""

"

"

"

" "

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

""

"

"

"

""

"

" "

"

"

"

"

"

""
"

"

"

" "

"

"

"

"

"

"

" ""

"

"

" " "

"

"
"

"

" " "

"
"

"

"" "

"
"

"

"

"

"
"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"
"

"

""

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

" "
" "
" "
"

"

"
"

"

"

"

"

"
""

" "
" "

"

CEMEX
Site

""
"

"

CEMEX
Site

"

""
"
"

"

"

"

"

"

"

" "

"

"
" "

"

"

"
"

"

" "

"

"
"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

""

"

"
"
" "

" " " " "


" "

"

"

"

"
" "

"

"

"

"

"

" "

"

"

" "

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

" "

" " "

"
"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"
"

" " " "


"
"
"
"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"" " " "


"
"
"
"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

" " "

"

"

" " ""

" " "

"

"
"

EXPLANATION

EXPLANATION
Seawater Intrusion
Model Layer 4

"

1944

1999

2011

1965

2001

2013

1975

2003

1985

2005

1993

2007

1997

2009

Seawater Intrusion

Particle tracking path line and ending location.

Source: Monterey County


Water Resources Agency
(2014) Historic Seawater
Intrusion Map. Pressure
180-Foot Aquifer 500 mg/L Chloride Areas

Particle tracking path line and ending location.

Model Layer 6

porosity = 0.1

NMGWM Boundary

I
2

Miles

"

1959

1997

2009

1975

1999

2011

1985

2001

2013

1990

2003

1993

2005

1995

2007

Source: Monterey County


Water Resources Agency
(2014) Historic Seawater
Intrusion Map. Pressure
400-Foot Aquifer 500 mg/L Chloride Areas

porosity = 0.1

NMGWM2016 particle tracking changes at mapped saltwater intrusion front


after 63 years of slant well pumping (24.1 MGD), 2012 sea level, with no return water, Potrero Road site.
PROJECT: 5073

DATE: 11/23/2016

NMGWM Boundary

Miles

Figure
5.13

Horizontal Hydraulic Conductivity (KH)

Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity (KV)

2200

2200

2000

2000

1800

1800

1600

1600

1400

1400

1200

1200

1000

1000

800

800

600

600

400

400

200

200

35

35

30

30

25

25

20

20

15

15

10

10

KH5

KH7

KH8

KH14

KV7

EXPLANATION
max
min

Range of values
from other sources
Model value

Sensitivity Runs:
Maximum anisotropy
Minimum anisotropy

Alternative NMGWM2016 hydraulic conductivity values employed to simulate maximum and


minimum anisotropy (ratio of horizontal to vertical hydraulic conductivity).
PROJECT: 5073

DATE: 8/12/2016

Figure
6.1

Model Layer 2

Model Layer 4

Potrero
Road
Site

Potrero
Road
Site

CEMEX
Site

CEMEX
Site

1 1

Model Layer 6

Model Layer 8
Potrero
Road
Site

Potrero
Road
Site

CEMEX
Site

Slant Well
River Model Cell
Active Model Cell
Constant Head
Model Cell
Inactive Model Cell

CEMEX
Site

EXPLANATION
Contours (ft) - Line color indicates different sensitivity parameters

Wells

Only +/- 1 foot drawdown contours are shown.


Contours not shown where groundwater level
change is less than 1 foot.

Groundwater Level Decrease (Drawdown)


Groundwater Level Increase
NMGWM2016
Maximum Anisotropy
Minimum Anisotropy

NMGWM Boundary
Modeled Hydraulic
Conductivity Zone

CEMEX Monitoring
Other

2
Miles

Sensitivity of calculated drawdown to hydraulic conductivity after


63 years of slant well pumping (24.1 MGD), 44/56 Layer 2/Layer 4 distribution,
2012 sea level with no return water, CEMEX site.

PROJECT: 5073

DATE: 8/30/2016

Figure
6.2

Model Layer 2

Model Layer 4

Potrero
Road
Site

Potrero
Road
Site

CEMEX
Site
1

CEMEX
Site

Model Layer 6

Model Layer 8

Potrero
Road
Site

CEMEX
Site

Potrero
Road
Site

CEMEX
Site

EXPLANATION
River Model Cell
Active Model Cell
Constant Head
Model Cell

Groundwater Level Decrease


(Drawdown) Contour (ft)
for CEMEX Site 24.1 MGD,
44/56 Layer 2/Layer 4 distribution,
2012 sea level, no return water

NMGWM Boundary

Only +/- 1 foot drawdown contours are shown.


Contours not shown where groundwater level
change is less than 1 foot.

Modeled Hydraulic
Conductivity Zone

Possible extent of 1 ft drawdown


based on sensitivity tests

Inactive Model Cell

Slant Well

Wells
CEMEX Monitoring
Other

Uncertainty in calculated drawdown from slant well


pumping at CEMEX site due to projected sea level rise,
layer distribution, and hydraulic conductivity; 24.1 MGD.

PROJECT: 5073

DATE: 8/19/2016

Miles

Figure
6.3a

Model Layer 2

Model Layer 4

Potrero
Road
Site

Potrero
Road
Site

CEMEX
Site

CEMEX
Site
1

Model Layer 6

Model Layer 8

Potrero
Road
Site

Potrero
Road
Site

CEMEX
Site

CEMEX
Site

Layer only effected by the minimum anisotropy


sensitivity run.

EXPLANATION
River Model Cell
Active Model Cell
Constant Head
Model Cell

Groundwater Level Decrease


(Drawdown) Contour (ft)
for CEMEX Site 15.5 MGD,
44/56 Layer 2/Layer 4 distribution,
2012 sea level, no return water

NMGWM Boundary

Only +/- 1 foot drawdown contours are shown.


Contours not shown where groundwater level
change is less than 1 foot.

Modeled Hydraulic
Conductivity Zone

Possible extent of 1 ft drawdown


based on sensitivity tests

Inactive Model Cell

Slant Well

Wells
CEMEX Monitoring
Other

Uncertainty in calculated drawdown from slant well


pumping at CEMEX site due to projected sea level rise,
layer distribution, and hydraulic conductivity; 15.5 MGD.

PROJECT: 5073

DATE: 8/19/2016

Miles

Figure
6.3b

Model Layer 2

Model Layer 4
Potrero
Road
Site

Potrero
Road
Site

CEMEX
Site

CEMEX
Site

Model Layer 6
Potrero
Road
Site

Model Layer 8
Potrero
Road
Site

CEMEX
Site

CEMEX
Site

EXPLANATION
River Model Cell
Active Model Cell
Constant Head
Model Cell

Groundwater Level Decrease


(Drawdown) Contour (ft)
for Potrero Road Site 24.1 MGD,
2012 sea level, no return water

NMGWM Boundary

Only +/- 1 foot drawdown contours are shown.


Contours not shown where groundwater level
change is less than 1 foot.

Modeled Hydraulic
Conductivity Zone

Possible extent of 1 ft drawdown


based on sensitivity tests

Inactive Model Cell

Slant Well

Wells
CEMEX Monitoring
Other

Uncertainty in calculated drawdown from slant well pumping


at Potrero Road site due to projected sea level rise
and hydraulic conductivity; 24.1 MGD.

PROJECT: 5073

DATE: 8/12/2016

Miles

Figure
6.4a

Model Layer 2

Model Layer 4

Potrero
Road
Site

Potrero
Road
Site

CEMEX
Site

CEMEX
Site

Model Layer 6

Model Layer 8

Potrero
Road
Site

Potrero
Road
Site

CEMEX
Site

CEMEX
Site

EXPLANATION
River Model Cell
Active Model Cell
Constant Head
Model Cell

Groundwater Level Decrease


(Drawdown) Contour (ft)
for Potrero Road Site 15.5 MGD,
2012 sea level, no return water

NMGWM Boundary

Only +/- 1 foot drawdown contours are shown.


Contours not shown where groundwater level
change is less than 1 foot.

Modeled Hydraulic
Conductivity Zone

Possible extent of 1 ft drawdown


based on sensitivity tests

Inactive Model Cell

Slant Well

Wells
CEMEX Monitoring
Other

Uncertainty in calculated drawdown from slant well pumping


at Potrero Road site due to projected sea level rise
and hydraulic conductivity; 15.5 MGD.

PROJECT: 5073

DATE: 8/19/2016

Miles

Figure
6.4b

Attachment 1

Example Superposition Model


We modeled a hypothetical groundwater basin to provide an example application of superposition
(Figure A1.1). The model represents a 10 mile by 5 mile hypothetical multi-aquifer groundwater
system, and it employs monthly stress periods to simulate 4 years of variable recharge and
pumping. The hypothetical basin is represented by 5 model layers, 3 layers represent aquifers
(upper, middle, and deep aquifers), and 2 layers represent aquitards separating the aquifers.
Constant-head cells are assigned to the western-most model boundary to represent a large surfacewater body like the ocean (water level specified as zero), and head-dependent flux boundary cells
assigned to the eastern-most boundary to represent inland groundwater conditions beyond the
extent of the model grid (external water level specified as 55 feet above mean sea level). The
northern and southern boundaries are contacts between the aquifers and non-water bearing
sediments. Groundwater does not move in or out of the basin across these boundaries, and they are
represented in the model as no-flow boundaries. A river is simulated in model layer 1, and the river
stage ranges from 0 at the coast to 58 feet above mean sea level at the eastern-most boundary. The
river channel bed bottom is assumed to be 14 feet below land surface, and the spatially varying
elevation of the channel bed bottom calculated as land surface elevation minus 14 feet.
Background hydrologic conditions in the hypothetical basin include rainfall recharge and pumping.
Variable monthly rainfall recharge is simulated for 6-months of the year (4,381 AF/yr average
annual rainfall recharge), followed by a 6-month dry period. Groundwater is extracted by three
wells at a continuous pumping rate of 2,001 AF/yr per well (6,004 AF/yr total). Each well extracts
groundwater from one of the three aquifers.
Model calculated water levels and annual average volumetric water budgets for background
recharge and pumping conditions are shown in Figure A1.2a. The water levels at the observation
wells show seasonal variation as a result of monthly varying recharge and extractions by pumping
wells. Pumping exceeds rainfall recharge by over 1,620 AF/yr, and additional water inflows to
supply the water pumped by wells are provided by river losses (12,185 AF/yr) and groundwater
inflow from basin areas east of the model represented by the head-dependent flux boundary cells
(5,461 AF/yr). Total water inflow to the hypothetical basin exceeds pumping, and recharge in
excess of pumping discharges to the constant-head boundaries (16,034 AF/yr). The model
calculates a nominal 11 AF/yr reduction in groundwater storage under background recharge and
pumping conditions.
The model was used to project the water level and volumetric budget changes in response to a new
well that is constructed and operated in the basin. The new well is screened in all three aquifers
and extracts groundwater at a pumping rate of 6,004 AF/yr, effectively doubling total pumping in
the basin (12,008 AF/yr). The model-calculated water levels and volumetric budget in response to
the new well is shown in Figure A1.2b. Contours of equal water level elevations show increased
water losses from the river to the aquifer, and groundwater movement toward the well. The water

Attachment 1
Example Superposition Model

A1-1

HydroFocus, Inc.
November 23, 2016

extracted by the new well is therefore supplied primarily by increased river losses, groundwater
inflow from basin areas east of the model represented by the head-dependent flux model cells, and
groundwater discharge to the constant-head cells that is now captured by the pumping well. As a
result of increased pumping, the river losses increased from 12,185 AF/yr to 13,859 AF/yr (a net
increase of 1,674 AF/yr), inflow from the head-dependent flux model cells increased from 5,461
AF/yr to 5,532 AF/yr (net increase of 71 AF/yr), and groundwater discharge to the constant-head
model cells decreased from 16,034 AF/yr to 11,781 AF/yr (a net decrease of 4,253 AF/yr). The
model calculates a nominal 6 AF/yr increase in storage depletion as a result of the new well
pumping. The accumulated change in model-calculated fluxes equals the 6,004 AF/yr pumping
increase exactly (1,674 + 71 + 4,253 + 6 = 6,004 AF/yr).
Figure A1.3a compares the model-calculated hydrographs before and after the new well started
operation. The seasonal variability in the water levels is similar, but their magnitude decreases as a
result of the new pumpage. By subtracting the model-calculated water levels with the new well
from the model-calculated background water levels provides the net water level change as a result
of the new pumping, effectively isolating the drawdown due solely to the new well. We calculated
these differences and show the results in Figure A1.3b. Although the model simulates groundwater
changes for four years of new well operations, the drawdown attributed to the new well stabilizes
in about 100 days (approximately 3 months), and the maximum drawdown at observation wells
constructed in each of the three aquifers decline 0.96 foot in layer 1 (upper aquifer), 1.07 feet in
layer 3 (middle aquifer), and 1.35 feet in layer 5 (deep aquifer).
We converted the example model to a superposition model to calculate the drawdown from the
new pumping well directly. The superposition modeling approach solves for changes in water
levels and fluxes directly, and therefore the background recharge and pumping are set to zero. The
only stress simulated in the superposition model is pumping from the new well. Additionally, the
initial head distribution and specified boundary conditions are also defined in terms of changes
rather than actual measured values. In the example superposition model, the initial water levels are
set to zero, and the specified water levels for the constant-head cells, head-dependent boundary
flux cells, and river cells are also all set to zero. Because pumping causes a decline in water levels,
only water level changes relative to the elevation of the channel bed bottom effect model-calculated
river losses. The available drawdown is the difference between the groundwater level and the river
channel bottom. In the superposition model, the river channel bottom elevation is therefore
lowered to maintain the available drawdown in each river cell when the initial water levels are
changed to zero.
The superposition model-calculated drawdown hydrographs and cone of depression are provided
in Figure A1.4. The superposition hydrographs agree exactly with the water level differences
calculated by subtracting the water levels with the new well from the background water levels
reported in Figure A1.3. The model-calculated cone of depression shows the area influenced by the
new pumping well, and the simulated water budget components reported in Figure A1.4 represent
the net flux changes in response to the new well pumping. The superposition budget components
agree exactly with the differences in budget components reported in Figure A1.2 and summarized
above.
Attachment 1
Example Superposition Model

A1-2

HydroFocus, Inc.
November 23, 2016

Recharge to Layer 1

River:

North
Layer 1

W1

Constand head boundary:


Head = 0.0 ft

250 ft Aquifer
Layer 2

50 ft
W4

OBW

W3

W2

Aquitard

200 ft Layer 3

Aquifer

100 ft

0 ft
(Land Surface)

Layer 4
Aquitard

-190 ft
-240 ft

600 ft

Layer 5
Aquifer

-440 ft

-540 ft

ile

5m

General head boundary:


Head = 55 ft for all layers
-1140 ft

10 miles

Wells:

Recharge:

Aquifer Properties:

W1- Screened in layer 1.


Year Months Recharge (ft/day)
1 Jan-June
0.000685
Pumping 2,001 AF/yr
W2- Screened in layer 3.
1
July-Dec
0
Pumping 2,001 AF/yr
2 Jan-June
0.0003425
W3- Screened in layer 5.
2
July-Dec
0
Pumping 2,001 AF/yr
3 Jan-June
0.00137
W4- Screened in Layers 1, 3 and 5.
3
July-Dec
0
Pumping from Layer 1 3,901 AF/yr
4 Jan-June
0.000685
Pumping from Layer 3 1,051 AF/yr
4
July-Dec
0
Pumping from Layer 5 1,051 AF/yr
OBW- Observation well cluster. Wells screened in
Layers 1, 3 and 5.

Layer
1
2
3
4
5

Kx
220
1
75
1
25

Example problem.
PROJECT: 5073

DATE: 8/8/2016

Ky
220
1
75
1
25

Kz
S
Ss
2
2.5x10-4 1x10-6
0.03
5x10-5 1x10-6
0.75
2x10-4 1x10-6
0.004 1x10-4 1x10-6
0.25
6x10-4 1x10-6

Sy
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2

Figure
A1.1

A. background conditions

Storage change: 11
Regional Pumping: 6,004

16,034

12,185

5,461

40

30

20

10

Regional Recharge: 4,381

Water Level Elevation (ft)

18
16
14
12
10
8
6
0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Model Time (days)


Layer 1

EXPLANTION
Layer 3

Layer 5

B. new well conditions

Storage change: 17
Regional Pumping: 6,004

11,781

13,859

5,532

6,004
40

30

20

10

Regional Recharge: 4,381

EXPLANATION
Simulated water level elevation contour (ft)
Model Layer 1

Water Level Elevation (ft)

18
16
14
12
10
8
6
0

5,532

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Model Time (days)

Net groundwater flow (AF/yr)

Black numbers indicate an addition to the dynamic


groundwater system, and red numbers indicate a
subtraction from the dynamic groundwater system.

Layer 1

EXPLANTION
Layer 3

Layer 5

Example Problem average annual volumetric water budget, water elevation contours, and hydrographs.
PROJECT: 5073

DATE: 8/16/2016

Figure
A1.2

Water Level Eleva on ( )

18
16
14
12
10
8
6
0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Model Time (days)

EXPLANTION
Layer 1 Background

Layer 3 Background

Layer 5 Background

Layer 1 New Well

Layer 3 New Well

Layer 5 New Well

Model Time (days)


0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

0.0
0.2

Drawdown (ft)

0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0

EXPLANTION
Layer 1

Layer 3

Layer 5

Example problem - (a) model calculated water levels, background


and new well conditions; (b) water level difference (drawdown)
between background and new well conditions

PROJECT: 5073

DATE: 8/16/2016

Figure
A1.3

Storage change: 6
Regional Pumping: 0

4,253

1,674

71

6,004
3

Regional Recharge: 0
Model Time (days)
0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

0
0.2

EXPLANATION

Drawdown ( )

0.4

Model Layer 1

71
Net groundwater flow (AF/yr)

0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8

groundwater system, and red numbers indicate a

Layer 1

EXPLANTION
Layer 3

Layer 5

Example problem - average annual volumetric water budget,


water elevation contours, and hydrographs calculated with superposition model.
PROJECT: 5073

DATE: 8/16/2016

Figure
A1.4

Attachment 2

Simple Expanded Test Model


We examined the sensitivity of model-calculated drawdown to the northern head-dependent flux
boundary (general-head boundary) by creating a simple test model that included the NMGWM2016
area and southern portion of the Pajaro Valley represented by the Pajaro Valley Hydrologic Model
(PVHM).95 We extended the northern boundary of the NMGWM2016 to include an additional 150
rows (approximately 5.5 miles), and the model layering was simplified for the Dune Sand
Aquifer/A-Aquifer (Model Layer 2), the FO-SVA/SVA and upper 180-FT Aquifer (Model Layer 3),
and the lower 180-FT Aquifer (Model Layer 4) using their average layer thicknesses for each
hydraulic conductivity zone. For the expanded model grid in the north, we used the corresponding
average layer thickness from the PVHM.
The ocean was represented with constant head model cells and projected 2050 sea level. Generalhead boundaries were assigned to the northern- and southern-most boundaries of the expanded
model cells, the eastern-most boundaries of the NMGWM2016 model cells, and the PVHM cells
influenced by Carneros Creek. In both the PVHM and our simplified model, Elkhorn Slough is
simulated with general-head boundaries; we adjusted the PVHM general-head boundary
conductance values to account for the cell size difference between the PVHM and the simplified
model. As with the NMGWM2016, Salinas River and Tembladero Slough were simulated by river cells.
The model was a superposition model, and we specified initial water levels, constant head cell
water levels, general-head boundary external water levels, and river cell stage all to zero.
Figure A2.1 shows model calculated drawdown at Potrero Road using the NMGWM2016 and simple
expanded test model. The cone of depression is similar towards the center of the model, however it
does extend further into the Pajaro Valley than simulated by the NMGWM2016. The cone of
depression extends northward into the Pajaro Valley by approximately one-half mile in Model
Layer 2, and approximately three-quarter mile for Model Layers 3 and Model Layer 4. However, the
calculated drawdown in Model Layer 6 is less than 1 foot and smaller than the drawdown
calculated by the NMGWM2016. This is consistent with subsurface geologic conditions north of the
NMGWM2016, where a localized clay bed near Elkhorn Slough inhibits horizontal groundwater flow
north of the NMGWM2016 boundary96 (see Figure 3.2e of the main report, which shows
representation of the clay bed by the model parameter zones). We therefore concluded that the
general-head boundary in the NMGWM2016 has a modest effect on the model-calculated cone of
depression, but that effect is fairly insignificant for making drawdown comparisons between the
CEMEX and Potrero Road Sites.
95

Hanson RT, Schmid W, Faunt CC, Lear J, Lockwood B, 2014, Integrated Hydrologic Model of Pajaro Valley, Santa
Cruz and Monterey Counties, California, U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2014-5111.
Prepared in cooperation with the Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency.
96
Ibid [26] and Yates EB, 1988, "Simulated Effects of Ground-Water Management Alternatives for the Salinas
Valley, California," U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 87-4066. Prepared in cooperation
with the Monterey County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
Attachment 2
Simple Expanded Test Model

A2-1

HydroFocus, Inc.
November 23, 2016

Model Layer 2

Model Layer 3/4

Model Layer 6

Model Layer 8

EXPLANATION

River Model Cell

Contours (ft) - Line color indicates model version

General Head Boundary


Model Cell

Only +/- 1 foot drawdown contours are shown.


Contours not shown where groundwater level
change is less than 1 foot.

Active Model Cell


Constant Head
Model Cell

Groundwater Level Decrease (Drawdown)

Inactive Model Cell

Groundwater Level Increase

NMGWM Boundary

NMGWM2016

Simple Expanded Model Boundary


Modeled Hydraulic
Conductivity Zone

Simple expanded test model


In some cases contours are located directly
beneath other contours and are not visible.

Wells
Other
CEMEX Monitoring
Slant Well

Model Calculated Drawdown


63 years of slant well pumping (24.1 MGD), Potrero Road Site,
NMGWM2016 and simple expanded test model.

PROJECT: 5073

DATE: 11/15/2016

Miles

Figure
A2.1

APPENDIX F
Special-status Plant and Wildlife Species
Considered

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

F-1

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix F
Special-status Plant and Wildlife Species Considered

TABLE F-1
SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES CONSIDERED FOR THE MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT AREA

Name

Status*
(USFWS/
CDFW/CRPR) Habitat

Regional Distribution

Potential for Occurrence


Within Project Area

FEDERAL OR STATE LISTED SPECIES

Plants
Low. Species not identified to date during appropriately
timed surveys within project area. Known population is
approximately 3 miles southwest of the terminus of the
new Monterey pipeline, which is in city streets.

FE/SE/ CRPR
1B.1

Coastal dunes, sandy areas in coastal bluff


scrub, and mesic areas in coastal prairie
habitats. Often associated with vernally
mesic areas.

Known regional distribution is restricted to a


single population on the Monterey Peninsula
along 17-Mile Drive near Pebble Beach.
Otherwise known from southern California.

marsh sandwort
(Arenaria paludicola)

FE/SE/
CRPR 1B.1

Freshwater wetlands and wetland riparian


habitats.

Absent. Species not identified to date during


Known remaining distribution limited to San
Luis Obispo County and reintroduction sites in appropriately timed surveys within project area. Project
area is outside known range of the species.
Santa Cruz, Nipomo, and Los Osos.

San Benito evening-primrose


(Camissonia benitensis)

FT/--/CRPR
1B.1

Serpentinite alluvium, clay or gravelly soils


in chaparral, woodland, and valley and
foothill grassland habitats.

Known distribution is restricted to the New


Idria area of San Benito County. Seriously
threatened by vehicles. Nearest CNDDB
documented location is about 50 miles
southeast of the project area.

Absent. Species not identified to date during


appropriately timed surveys within project area. Project
area is outside known range of the species.

FE/SE/ CRPR
1B.1

Sandy soils in chenopod scrub in pinyon


and juniper woodland and valley and
foothill grassland.

Not known from Monterey County. Nearest


CNDDB documented location is about 90
miles southeast of the project area in Fresno
County.

Absent. Species not identified to date during


appropriately timed surveys within project area. Project
area is outside known range of the species.

Monterey spineflower
(Chorizanthe pungens var.
pungens)
Critical Habitat

FT/--/CRPR
1B.2

Sandy soils in maritime chaparral,


woodland, coastal dunes, coastal scrub,
and valley and foothill grassland habitats.

Documented on former Fort Ord lands and


within sandy dunes west of Highway 1 in
northern Monterey County. Occurs on sandy
soils in grasslands inland from Elkhorn
Slough.

Present. CNDDB identified occurrences throughout the


project area; observed during botanical surveys at the
subsurface slantwell site and along the proposed
Source Water Pipeline, new Desalinated Water
Pipeline, new Transmission Main, new Monterey
Pipeline alignments, and at the Terminal Reservoir.
High potential to occur where there is suitable habitat in
the vicinity of all project components.

Robust spineflower
(Chorizanthe robusta var.
robusta)

FE/CRPR
1B.1

Sandy or gravelly soils in coastal dunes,


coastal scrub, and openings in woodland
habitats.

The species is primarily limited to Santa Cruz


County. Also reported from Fort Ord lands in
2006.

Low to Moderate. May occur in suitable habitat


throughout the project area. However, not observed to
date in project-related botanical surveys.

Seaside birds-beak
(Cordylanthus rigidus ssp.
littoralis)

SE/CRPR
1B.1

In areas with sandy soils and often in


disturbed sites within closed-cone
coniferous forest, maritime chaparral,
woodland, coastal dunes, and coastal
scrub habitats.

Endemic to northwestern Monterey and Santa


Barbara Counties. CNDDB documented
occurrences in central and eastern portions of
former Fort Ord lands and on sandy dunes
west of Highway 1 near Seaside, Sand City,
Marina, and Monterey.

Present. Observed at the Terminal Reservoir site. Low to


Moderate at other sites. May occur in suitable habitat,
especially along the proposed Source Water Pipeline,
new Desalinated Water Pipeline, new Transmission Main,
eastern portion of the new Monterey Pipeline, and ASR
Facilities.

Coastal dunes milk-vetch


(Astragalus tener var. titi)

California jewel-flower
(Caulanthus californicus)

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

F-2

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix F
Special-status Plant and Wildlife Species Considered

TABLE F-1 (Continued)


SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES CONSIDERED FOR THE MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT AREA

Name

Status*
(USFWS/
CDFW/CRPR) Habitat

Regional Occurrence

Potential for Occurrence


Within Project Area

FEDERAL OR STATE ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES (cont.)

Plants (cont.)
Menzies wallflower (Erysimum
menziesii)
Includes the formerly
recognized subspecies E.
menziesii ssp. yadonii and
ssp. menziesii

FE/SE/ CRPR
1B.1

Coastal dune habitat.

Known from Pacific Grove and Asilomar State


Beach area as well as the dunes west of
Highway 1 and Marina and Fort Ord National
Monument.

Moderate. Observed during 2012 project-related


botanical surveys in dune habitat in the vicinity of the
subsurface slant wells. Observed within the new
Transmission Main alignment. May occur in central
dune scrub within the proposed Source Water Pipeline
and new Desalinated Water Pipeline alignments.

sand gilia
(Gilia tenuiflora ssp. arenaria)

FE/ST/ CRPR
1B.2

Sandy soils and openings in maritime


chaparral, woodland, coastal dunes, and
coastal scrub habitats.

Central dune scrub (stabilized) west of


Highway 1, Asilomar State Beach area, and
maritime chaparral on former Fort Ord.

Present. Moderate to High. Has been documented in


the CEMEX mining facility, at Terminal Reservoir site
and along the new Transmission Main alignment. May
occur in suitable habitat throughout the project area.
Numerous documented locations in the vicinity of
project components from the 1990s.

In closed-cone coniferous forest and


maritime chaparral habitat.

Known from only three native occurrences in


the Monterey area including Del Monte Forest
and Point Lobos south of the project area.

Low. Species has not been identified within the project


area. Not observed to date during project-related
botanical surveys.

FT/SE/ CRPR
1B.1

In sandy and often clayey soils in coastal


prairie, coastal scrub, and valley and
foothill grassland.

North of project area on coastal terraces in


Watsonville and Santa Cruz. Nearest
documented occurrence is about 10 miles
north of the project area.

Low. Species not identified by CNDDB within project


area. Southern limit of known species range is north of
project area. Not observed to date during project-related
botanical surveys.

FE/CRPR
1B.1

Mesic areas in woodland, alkaline playas,


valley/foothill grassland, and vernal pools.

Documented from vernal pools and wet


depressions on eastern portion of former Fort
Ord lands.

Low. Species not identified by CNDDB or observed in


project-related botanical surveys within project area.
Nearest documented locations are 3.5 miles east of
project area.

Gowen cypress
(Hesperocyparis goveniana)
Santa Cruz tarplant
(Holocarpha macradenia)

FT/CRPR
1B.2

Contra Costa goldfields


(Lasthenia conjugens)

beach layia
(Layia carnosa)

FE/SE/ CRPR
1B.1

Coastal dune and sandy coastal scrub


habitats.

Partially stabilized dunes along the Monterey


peninsula (Pacific Grove to Carmel).

Low. Species not identified by CNDDB or observed to


date during project-related botanical surveys within
project area.

Tidestroms lupine
(Lupinus tidestromii)

FE/SE/ CRPR
1B.1

Coastal dune habitat.

Partially stabilized dunes along the Monterey


peninsula (Pacific Grove to Carmel)

Low. Species not identified by CNDDB or observed to


date during project-related botanical surveys within
project area.

In chenopod scrub in sandy valley/foothill


grassland

Known from the south Central Valley and San


Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties. Not
known from Monterey County.

Absent. Species not documented from Monterey


County. Nearest recent CNDDB location is 60 miles
east in San Benito County. No suitable habitat present.

San Joaquin woollythreads


(Monolopia congdonii)

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

FE/CRPR
1B.2

F-3

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix F
Special-status Plant and Wildlife Species Considered

TABLE F-1 (Continued)


SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES CONSIDERED FOR THE MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT AREA

Name

Status*
(USFWS/
CDFW/CRPR) Habitat

Regional Occurrence

Potential for Occurrence


Within Project Area

FEDERAL OR STATE ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES (cont.)

Plants (cont.)
Yadons rein orchid
(Piperia yadonii)

FE/CRPR
1B.1

In sandy coastal bluff scrub, closed-coned


coniferous forest and maritime chaparral
habitats.

Known from multiple locations on the


Monterey peninsula and in the Prunedale
area north east of the project area.

High. May occur in suitable habitat within the project


area at the ASR Facilities, Terminal Reservoir, and Main
System-Hidden Hills Interconnection Improvements site.
Observed during project-related botanical surveys within
the Presidio of Monterey in the understory of Monterey
Pine forest; population located outside of the New
Monterey Pipeline alignment.

Hickmans cinquefoil (Potentilla


hickmanii)

FE/SE, CRPR
1B.1

Coastal bluff scrub, closed-cone coniferous Known from understory of Monterey Pine
forest, vernally mesic meadows and seeps, forest on the Monterey peninsula.
and freshwater marshes and swamps.

Low. CNDDB documented locations in the vicinity of the


new Monterey Pipeline are historical and/or inexact as
to location.

Monterey clover
(Trifolium trichocalyx)

FE/SE/ CRPR
1B.1

Openings or burned areas in closed-cone


coniferous forest habitat with sandy soils.

Known from understory of Monterey pine


forest on the Monterey peninsula in Morse
Botanical Preserve south of Pacific Grove

Low. Species not identified by CNDDB within project


area.

Invertebrates
vernal pool fairy shrimp
(Branchinecta lynchi)

FT/--

Ephemeral freshwater vernal pools.

Absent. Species not identified by CNDDB within project


Documented from Fort Hunter Ligget and
area. No vernal pool habitat within project footprint.
Camp Roberts in southeastern Monterey
Project is outside known range for the species.
County. Not recorded in northern Monterey
County. Nearest CNDDB records are 50 miles
east of project area.

Smiths blue butterfly


(Euphilotes enoptes smithi)

FE/--

Coastal dunes and inland in coastal scrub,


grassland, and chamise chaparral where
host plants are present. Requires
Eriogonum parvifolium and E. latifolium to
complete its life cycle.

Primarily occurs in dune habitat along coast.


Also occurs inland along and south of the
Carmel River valley. Could occur elsewhere if
host plant is present.

High. CNDDB documented occurrences in coastal


dunes west of Highway 1 from Salinas to Monterey.
Host plants observed within central dune scrub habitat
within the subsurface slant wells, Source Water
Pipeline, new Transmission Main and new Monterey
Pipeline alignments between Marina and Sand City
during project-related botanical surveys. Observed
during surveys of the proposed slant well sites.

Fish
tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius
newberryi)

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

FE/CSSC

Shallow lagoons and lower stream reaches Known to occur in Moro Cojo Slough, Pajaro
with fairly still, but not stagnant water.
River, and Elkhorn/Bennett Slough (possibly
extirpated). Documented from the Salinas
River Lagoon but thought to be extirpated
from that location.

F-4

Low. Based on documented occurrences species


distribution is primarily north of the project area. Species
is not expected to occur within the project area.

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix F
Special-status Plant and Wildlife Species Considered

TABLE F-1 (Continued)


SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES CONSIDERED FOR THE MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT AREA

Name

Status*
(USFWS/
CDFW/CRPR) Habitat

Regional Occurrence

Potential for Occurrence


Within Project Area

FEDERAL OR STATE ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES (cont.)

Fish (cont.)
Free-flowing coastal rivers and streams.
Spawning habitat: clear, cool streams with
overhanging vegetation.

Occurs in coastal watersheds from the Pajaro


River south to, but not including, the Santa
Maria River. Salinas and Carmel Rivers are
designated Critical Habitat for the species.

Moderate. Known to occur within the Salinas River and


Carmel River watersheds. Salinas River population
abundance is poorly documented. May occur within the
Castroville Pipeline alignment at the Salinas River
during seasonal migration.

FC/ST

Anadromous smelt found in nearshore


marine, estuary, and bay habitats.

Generally known from San Francisco Bay


north to Humboldt Bay. One CNDDB
occurrence at Moss Landing harbor which is
not a known breeding site. Individuals may
have been pushed south by ocean currents.

Low. Based on known distribution the species is not


expected to occur within the project area.

FT/ST

Vernal or temporary pools in annual


grasslands, or open stages of woodlands.
Typically aestivates in ground squirrel
burrows.

Scattered distribution throughout Monterey


County. Found in grasslands and aquatic
habitats on eastern former Fort Ord and in
Elkhorn Slough and Moro Cojo Slough areas
north of the project area.

Low to Moderate. No CNDDB occurrences identified


within project footprint. Nearest documented locations
are about 1 mile south of the Ryan RanchBishop
Interconnection site, 1.5 miles northeast of the
Castroville Pipeline terminus, and 2 miles east of ASR
Conveyance Pipeline and the Terminal Reservoir site.
Could occur where habitat is suitable in seasonal
wetlands where suitable upland habitat is also present.

steelhead, south-central
California coast DPS
(Onchorhynchus mykiss
irideus)

FT/--

longfin smelt
(Spirinchus thaleichthys)

Amphibians
California tiger salamander
(Ambystoma californiense)

Santa Cruz long-toed


Salamander
(Ambystoma macrodactylum
croceum)

FE/SE/FP

Freshwater wetlands with surrounding


dense riparian vegetation in the Pajaro
Valley and Moss Landing areas.

Monterey County records are north and east


of Moss Landing, in upper Moro Cojo Slough,
Bennett Slough, Struve Slough, Elkhorn
Slough, and McCluskey Slough.

Low. Based on known distribution the species is not


expected to occur within the project area.

California red-legged frog (Rana


draytonii)

FT/CSSC

Slow water in streams, freshwater pools


and ponds with overhanging or emergent
vegetation. Requires pools of >0.5 m depth
for breeding.

Known from scattered locations throughout


Monterey County. In the vicinity of the project
area observations are concentrated to the
north in upper Moro Cojo Slough, Elkhorn
Slough, and McCluskey Slough and to the
south in the Carmel River and its tributaries.

Moderate. Breeding population documented on the


Carmel River adjacent to the Carmel Valley Pump
Station site. Other nearby occurrences are located
about 1 mile northeast from the CISP pond, 1.5 miles
northeast of the Castroville Pipeline terminus, and 1.5
miles south east of the Ryan RanchBishop
Interconnection site. Could occur where suitable upland
habitat is present in the vicinity of suitable wetland
habitat.

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

F-5

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix F
Special-status Plant and Wildlife Species Considered

TABLE F-1 (Continued)


SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES CONSIDERED FOR THE MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT AREA

Name

Status*
(USFWS/
CDFW/CRPR) Habitat

Regional Occurrence

Potential for Occurrence


Within Project Area

FEDERAL OR STATE ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES (cont.)

Birds
FT/SE
Marbled murrelet
(Brachyramphus marmoratus)
FT/CSSC

Western snowy plover


(Charadrius alexandrinus
nivosus)

Nests up to 45 miles inland on the ground


or a mossy tree branch. Requires old
growth or mature redwood or fir for
nesting. Feeds on small fish and plankton.

No documented nesting occurrences in


Monterey County. However, the species is
known from the waters of Monterey Bay.

Low. No suitable nesting habitat and no known


documented locations within the project area. Nearest
documented nesting location is within Henry Cowell
Redwoods State Park in Santa Cruz County.

Resident on coastal beaches and salt


panne habitat.

The species is known from the dunes and


beaches throughout the project area, which
comprise designated Critical Habitat.

Present. Snowy plover are known to nest and winter on


the beaches, dunes, and back-dunes in the vicinity of
the subsurface slant wells and Source Water Pipeline
alignment.

Southwestern willow flycatcher


(Empidonax traillii extimus)

FE/SE

Breeds in mature riparian habitat along


rivers, streams, or other wetlands.

No recent records of breeding birds west of


the San Joaquin Valley.

Absent. Considered extirpated from coastal California.


Migrant willow flycatchers in Monterey County would
almost certainly be northern-breeding, unlisted,
subspecies.

California condor
(Gymnogyps californianus)

FE/SE

Forages for carrion over a variety of open


habitats. Inhabits rugged canyons, gorges,
and forested mountains. Nests by steep,
rugged terrain with dense brush.

Regional reintroduction programs focused in


Big Sur and at Pinnacles National Monument
and Monterey County sightings are primarily
restricted to the coastal mountains south of
Carmel. No records of individuals in the
project area.

Low. The project area does not include suitable nesting


habitat and the project would not have a substantial
impact on foraging habitat.

Bald Eagle
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

FD/SE

Forages in rivers and lakes for large fish.


Does not breed locally.

Two CNDDB occurrences in southern


Monterey County. Occasional sightings in the
project vicinity.

Low. Low potential for occurrence of foraging


individuals. Wintering birds could occur as occasional
foragers, e.g., at the Salinas or Carmel Rivers. The
project would not impact substantial foraging habitat.

A single historical CNNDB occurrence in


Monterey County at Elkhorn Slough. One
observation at Moss Landing harbor in 1980.
No recent records.

Absent. Given the sparse records for Monterey County


the species is not expected to occur within the project
area.

The single recent nesting record in northern


Monterey County is located in a coastal
sandbank north of Seaside from 2012.
Observations within the project area include
at Fort Ord Dunes State Park and Laguna
Grande Park.

Low. Nearest nesting colony documented in CNDDB is


located south of the new Transmission Main alignment
as it heads east along Lightfighter Drive. Last
documented in use in 2012. No suitable nesting habitat
occurs within the project area. Could forage in project
area, particularly along rivers and sloughs, during
migration.

California clapper rail


(Rallus longirostris obsoletus)

FE/SE and FP Inhabits multiple elevational tidal marsh


zones and uses taller vegetation for
protection.

bank swallow
(Riparia riparia)

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

--/ST

Nests in colonies in sandy banks along


riparian habitat.

F-6

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix F
Special-status Plant and Wildlife Species Considered

TABLE F-1 (Continued)


SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES CONSIDERED FOR THE MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT AREA

Name

Status*
(USFWS/
CDFW/CRPR) Habitat

Regional Occurrence

Potential for Occurrence


Within Project Area

FEDERAL OR STATE ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES (cont.)

Birds (cont.)
California least tern
(Sternula antillarum browni)

FE/SE and FP Nests in colonies on relatively open


beaches kept free of vegetation by natural
scouring from tidal action.

Least Bells Vireo


(Vireo bellii pusillus)

FE/SE

No CNDDB records for Monterey County. A


single sighting from the Moss Landing State
Wildlife Area from 2000.

Absent. Given the sparse records for Monterey County


the species is not expected to occur within the project
area.

Breeds in thick willow riparian groves.


Range, once thought to be limited to
southern California, is expanding.

Closest occurrence is located approximately


10 miles northeast of the project area on the
Pajaro River where it is presumed to be
extant. Three sightings at Andrew Molera
State Park in 1995, 2003, and 2013, 20 miles
south of the project area.

Low. Given the lack of records for the species in the


project area the species is not expected to occur. May
occasionally occur where there is well developed willow
riparian habitat along the Carmel or Salinas Rivers.

Roosts in caves and abandoned buildings.


Very sensitive to human disturbance.

Throughout the western U.S.

Low. The project site is within the range of this species.


However, no potential roosting structures (abandoned or
isolated, undisturbed structures or caves) are present
within the project boundary.

Mammals
Townsends big-eared bat
(Corynorhinus townsendii)

--/CT

OTHER SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES

Plants
vernal pool bent grass
(Agrostis lacuna-vernalis)

CRPR 1B.1

Occurs in mima mound areas within or on


the margins of vernal pools.

CNDDB records in eastern portion of former


Fort Ord lands.

Absent. No suitable habitat within the project footprint.

Hickmans onion
(Allium hickmanii)

CRPR 1B.2

Closed-cone coniferous forest, maritime


chaparral, coastal prairie, coastal scrub,
and valley and foothill grassland habitats.

Scattered locations from southern Monterey


Peninsula to eastern portion of former Fort
Ord.

Low to Moderate. CNDDB records west of the proposed


Ryan RanchBishop Interconnection and south and
east of the new Monterey Pipeline. Not observed to date
in project-related botanical surveys, but potential to
occur in grassland or grassland understory of coast live
oak woodland at the Interconnection Improvements
sites and in the new Monterey Pipeline alignment.

Hooker's manzanita
(Arctostaphylos hookeri ssp.
hookeri)

CRPR 1B.2

Sandy areas in closed-cone coniferous


forest, chaparral, woodland, and coastal
scrub habitats.

Known from eastern portion of former Fort


Ord lands and the Monterey peninsula.

Present. Potential to occur in suitable habitat in the


vicinity of the subsurface slant wells, Source Water
Pipeline, new Desalinated Water Pipeline, new
Transmission Main, and new Monterey Pipeline
alignments, Interconnection Improvement sites, the ASR
facilities, and the Terminal Reservoir site.

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

F-7

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix F
Special-status Plant and Wildlife Species Considered

TABLE F-1 (Continued)


SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES CONSIDERED FOR THE MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT AREA

Name

Status*
(USFWS/
CDFW/CRPR) Habitat

Regional Occurrence

Potential for Occurrence


Within Project Area

OTHER SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES (cont.)

Plants (cont.)
Toro manzanita
(Arctostaphylos
montereyensis)

CRPR 1B.2

Sandy areas in maritime chaparral,


woodland, and coastal scrub habitats.

Known from eastern portion of former Fort


Ord lands, Toro Regional Park, and the
Monterey airport.

Moderate. Potential to occur in suitable habitat at the


new Transmission Main, and new Monterey Pipeline
alignments, Interconnection Improvement sites, the ASR
facilities, and the Terminal Reservoir site. CNDDB
occurrence in vicinity of Hidden Hills Interconnection.
Not observed to date in project-related botanical
surveys.

Pajaro manzanita
(Arctostaphylos pajaroensis)

CRPR 1B.1

Sandy soils in chaparral habitat.

CNDDB records from uplands above Elkhorn


Slough, along General Jim Moore Boulevard,
near the Monterey airport, on former Fort Ord
lands, and near Highway 1 at Lightfighter
Drive.

Low to Moderate. CNDDB records in vicinity of the


proposed Terminal Reservoir, southern portion of the
new Transmission Main, and the Ryan Ranch Bishop
Interconnection site. Not observed to date in projectrelated botanical surveys.

sandmat manzanita
(Arctostaphylos pumila)

CRPR 1B.2

Opening with sandy soils in closed-cone


coniferous forest, maritime chaparral,
woodland, coastal dunes, and coastal
scrub habitats.

Throughout former Fort Ord lands, including


along General Jim Moore Boulevard and
coastal dunes, and near the Monterey
peninsula airport.

Present. Observed during project-related botanical


surveys on Lapis Road and in central dune scrub habitat
within the new Transmission Main alignment between
Marina and Lightfighter Dr. Also observed along General
Jim Moore near the ASR Facilities and at the Terminal
Reservoir site.

ocean bluff milkvetch


(Astragalus nuttallii var.
nuttallii)

CRPR 4.2

Sandy soils in coastal habitat of central


coast California

Endemic to central coast California and


documented throughout Monterey County
where habitat is present.

Present. Observed during project-related botanical


surveys of the CEMEX active mining area in the vicinity of
the proposed subsurface slantwells. Could occur
throughout the project area in suitable habitat.

alkali milk-vetch
(Astragalus tener var. tener)

CRPR 1B.2

Alkaline playas, valley and foothill


grassland (adobe clay), and vernal pools.

Known from only two historical (late 1800s)


locations in Monterey and San Benito
Counties about 6 miles east and 22 miles
northeast of the project area.

Low. Regional occurrences are historical only and both


are presumed extirpated. No alkaline playas or vernal
pools occur within the project footprint. Not observed to
date in project-related botanical surveys.

pink Johnny-nip
(Castilleja ambigua var.
insalutata)

CRPR 1B.1

Coastal prairie and scrub.

CNNDB records from Monterey peninsula,


south of Carmel, and the central portion of
Ford Ord National Monument

Low. Species documented historically at Deer Flat Park


and Monterey Veterans Memorial Park near the
southern end of the proposed new Monterey Pipeline.
However, species not observed to date in projectrelated botanical surveys and pipeline is in city streets.

Sandy soils in closed-cone coniferous


forest, coastal dunes, coastal scrub, and
openings in cismontane woodland.

Occurs in Monterey and Santa Cruz Counties. Present. Observed at the subsurface slant wells and
long the proposed new Transmission Main pipeline
alignment. May occur in suitable habitat throughout the
project area.

Monterey Coast paintbrush


(Castilleja latifolia)

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

CRPR 4.3

F-8

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix F
Special-status Plant and Wildlife Species Considered

TABLE F-1 (Continued)


SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES CONSIDERED FOR THE MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT AREA

Name

Status*
(USFWS/
CDFW/CRPR) Habitat

Regional Occurrence

Potential for Occurrence


Within Project Area

OTHER SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES (cont.)

Plants (cont.)
Monterey ceanothus
(Ceanothus rigidus)

Closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral,


coastal scrub.

Known from throughout the Monterey Bay


region.

Present. Observed at the proposed Terminal Reservoir


site, the eastern terminus of the new Monterey Pipeline
alignment and along the new Transmission Main
alignment and ASR Pipeline alignments between Patton
Parkway and Imjin Parkway and along General Jim
Moore Blvd.

Valley & foothill grassland habitat,


particularly in areas with alkaline
substrates and in sumps or disturbed
areas where water collects; ephemeral
drainages.

Known from multiple locations primarily east


and north of project area. Also known from
Moss Landing area.

Low to moderate. Recent documented occurrences


along Highway 68 in vicinity of Ryan Ranch-Bishop and
Hidden Hills Interconnections. Not observed to date in
project-related botanical surveys. Potential to occur at
sites with suitable habitat.

CRPR
1B.2

Edges or recently burned areas of


chaparral, coastal scrub, oak woodland or
riparian woodland.

Historical records in coastal areas from Moss


Landing to Monterey peninsula. Extant
populations in Monterey County south of
peninsula.

Low. CNDDB non-specific historical record noted along


railway, near Del Monte, Seaside. No recent
observations in the region. Not observed to date in
project-related botanical surveys.

CRPR 1B.2

Sometimes occurs in serpentine habitats.


Closed-cone coniferous forest and coastal
scrub.

One collection on the Monterey peninsula


from 1903. Another historical occurrence west
of King City, about 40 miles southeast of the
project area.

Low. No recent observations in the region. Not observed


to date in project-related botanical surveys.

CRPR 3.2

Closed cone coniferous forest, coastal


dunes

Known from throughout the Monterey Bay


region.

Present. Observed at many locations along the Source


Water Pipeline, new Desalinated Water Pipeline, and
new Transmission Main alignments.

Hospital Canyon larkspur


(Delphinium californicum ssp.
interius)

CRPR 1B.2

Occurs in chaparral openings, woodland


(mesic) and coastal scrub.

A single documented occurrence from the


Santa Lucia mountains south of Carmel
Valley. Two other occurrences from San
Benito County about 40 miles east of the
project area.

Low. Given the sparse records for Monterey County the


species is not expected to occur within the project area.
Not observed to date in project-related botanical
surveys.

Hutchinsons larkspur
(Delphinium hutchinsoniae)

CRPR 1B.2

Broadleaved upland forest, chaparral,


coastal prairie, and coastal scrub habitats.

Extreme eastern portion of former Fort Ord


lands and areas south of Carmel Valley. A
single historical non-specific occurrence from
the Monterey peninsula.

Low. No CNDDB occurrences within the project area.


Not observed to date in project-related botanical
surveys.

Congdons tarplant
(Centromadia parryi ssp.
congdonii)

Jolon clarkia
(Clarkia jolonensis)

San Francisco collinsia


(Collinsia multicolor)

Branching beach aster


(Corethrogyne filaginifolia
[formerly leucophylla])

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

CRPR 4.2

CRPR 1B.1

F-9

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix F
Special-status Plant and Wildlife Species Considered

TABLE F-1 (Continued)


SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES CONSIDERED FOR THE MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT AREA

Name

Status*
(USFWS/
CDFW/CRPR) Habitat

Regional Occurrence

Potential for Occurrence


Within Project Area

OTHER SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES (cont.)

Plants (cont.)
umbrella larkspur
(Delphinium umbraculorum)

CRPR 1B.3

Woodland

Although there is a non-specific occurrence


recorded for the species in the Monterey
quad the species range encompasses the
Santa Lucia mountains south of the project
area, as well as San Luis Obispo, Santa
Barbara, and Ventura Counties.

Low. The project area is outside the known range of the


species. Not observed to date in project-related
botanical surveys.

Eastwoods goldenbush
(Ericameria fasciculata)

CRPR 1B.1

Openings with sandy soils in closed-cone


coniferous forest, maritime chaparral,
coastal dunes, and coastal scrub habitats.

Endemic to Monterey County. CNDDB


records from dunes near Marina and Seaside,
former Fort Ord lands along General Jim
Moore Boulevard, Monterey peninsula and
Carmel River valley.

Present. Observed at the Terminal Reservoir site. May


occur in suitable habitat throughout the project area.

Pinnacles buckwheat
(Eriogonum nortonii)

CRPR 1B.3

Sandy soil in chaparral and valley and


foothill grasslands. Often found on recent
burns.

Endemic to Monterey and San Benito


Counties. Known from Pinnacles National
Monument, the mountains west of Hollister
and several locations south of the Carmel
River valley.

Low. No occurrences identified within project area, most


of which is below the known elevation range for the
species. Not observed to date in project-related
botanical surveys.

sand-loving wallflower
(Erysimum ammophilum)

CRPR 1B.2

Sandy areas and openings in maritime


chaparral, coastal dunes, and coastal
scrub habitats.

Although known from several other coastal


counties, center of distribution is Monterey
County. Known from dunes near Marina and
Seaside, former Fort Ord lands along General
Jim Moore Boulevard and east.

Present. Observed at the proposed subsurface slant


wells site and Terminal Reservoir site. May occur in
suitable habitat throughout the project area.

Confined to four known occurrences in


Low. No occurrences identified within project area. Not
Monterey County. Most recent are at
observed to date in project-related botanical surveys.
Prunedale and Aromas. Historical records
from Pebble Beach area and south of Big Sur.

fragrant fritillary
(Fritillaria liliacea)

CRPR 1B.2

Often found in serpentine soils in


woodland, coastal prairie, coastal scrub,
and valley and foothill grassland.

Santa Lucia bedstraw


(Galium clementis)

CRPR 1B.3

Occurs in granitic or serpentine, rocky soils Endemic to Santa Lucia mountains of


Monterey County.
in lower and upper montane coniferous
(red fir/yellow fir) forest.

San Francisco gumplant


(Grindelia hirsutula var.
maritima)

CRPR 3.2

Occurs in sandy or serpentinite soils in


coastal bluff scrub, coastal scrub, and
valley and foothill grassland

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

Absent. No suitable habitat occurs within the project


area. Project area outside known species range.

Occurs in coastal California from Marin to San Low. No recent occurrences identified within the project
Luis Obispo Counties.
area. Not observed to date in project-related botanical
surveys.

F-10

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix F
Special-status Plant and Wildlife Species Considered

TABLE F-1 (Continued)


SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES CONSIDERED FOR THE MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT AREA

Name

Status*
(USFWS/
CDFW/CRPR) Habitat

Regional Occurrence

Potential for Occurrence


Within Project Area

OTHER SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES (cont.)

Plants (cont.)
Monterey cypress
(Hesperocyparis macrocarpa)

CRPR 1B.2

Typically grows in pure stands with an


understory of scattered dwarf shrubs and
perennial herbs. Forms closed-cone
coniferous woodland and forest.

Two natural populations endemic to Monterey


county and located between Point Cypress
and Pescadero Point and at Point Lobos,
south of the project area. Also widely planted
along the California coast.

Absent. Species may occur within project area but trees


would be planted and not protected as special-status.

Kelloggs horkelia
(Horkelia cuneata ssp.
sericea)

CRPR 1B.1

In openings with sandy or gravelly


substrates within closed-cone coniferous
forest, maritime chaparral, and coastal
scrub habitats.

Occurrences in Monterey County are


concentrated in the Monterey Bay area.
CNDDB records throughout the project area.
Known from the dunes near Marina and
Seaside, former Fort Ord lands along General
Jim Moore Boulevard and east.

Present. Observed within the proposed new


Desalination Water Pipeline and new Transmission
Main Pipeline alignments and at the ASR Facilities.
Potential to occur in suitable habitat throughout the
project area.

Point Reyes horkelia


(Horkelia marinensis)

CRPR 1B.2

Coastal strand, coastal prairie, northern


coastal scrub and dune habitats.

Coastal areas from Mendocino to San Luis


Obispo counties. One historical CNDDB
occurrence documented in the project vicinity
in Marina.

Low. Based on known distribution the species is not


expected to occur within the project area.

Legenere
(Legenere limosa)

CRPR 1B.1

Occurs in vernal pools, and floodplains of


intermittent streams surrounded by
grassland, open woodland, or hardwood
forest.

A single CNDDB record on the eastern


portion of former Fort Ord.

Low. Lack of suitable habitat and sightings within the


project area. Not observed to date in project-related
botanical surveys.

coast yellow leptosiphon


(Leptosiphon croceus)

CRPR 1B.1

Occurs in coastal bluff scrub and prairie.

A single literature reference places this


species in the Monterey quad. Otherwise no
recorded observations in Monterey County.

Absent. Lack of suitable habitat within the project


footprint and lack of recorded observations. Not
observed to date in project-related botanical surveys.

Carmel Valley bush-mallow


(Malacothamnus palmeri var.
involucratus)

CRPR 1B.2

A fire-dependent species found on talus


hilltops and slopes in chaparral, woodland,
and coastal scrub. Sometimes on
serpentine substrates.

Endemic to Monterey and San Luis Obispo


Counties. One historical observation near
Pacific Grove. More recent observations in
Carmel Valley and hills to north. Also occurs
in the Santa Lucia Mountains south of the
project area.

Moderate to High potential to occur within coastal scrub


at the Terminal Reservoir, and in the vicinity of the
proposed Interconnection Improvements sites in the
southeast portion of the project area.

Santa Lucia bush-mallow


(Malacothamnus palmeri var.
palmeri)

CRPR 1B.2

Rocky chaparral.

Endemic to Monterey and San Luis Obispo


Counties. Distribution is poorly understood,
with few documented occurrences.

Low. A single historical (1985) observation from the


vicinity of Carmel. Not observed to date in projectrelated botanical surveys.

Carmel Valley malacothrix


(Malacothrix saxatilis var.
arachnoidea)

CRPR 1B.2

Occurs in meadows of foothill woodland


and chaparral communities. Almost always
under natural conditions in non wetlands in
California

Endemic to Monterey and Santa Barbara


Counties. Known primarily from the Carmel
River valley.

Low. No records within the project area. Not observed to


date in project-related botanical surveys.

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

F-11

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix F
Special-status Plant and Wildlife Species Considered

TABLE F-1 (Continued)


SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES CONSIDERED FOR THE MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT AREA

Name

Status*
(USFWS/
CDFW/CRPR) Habitat

Regional Occurrence

Potential for Occurrence


Within Project Area

OTHER SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES (cont.)

Plants (cont.)
Oregon meconella
(Meconella oregana)

CRPR 1B.1

Open, moist places in coastal prairie,


coastal scrub.

Documented from Fort Ord National


Monument and in the vicinity of the Carmel
River above the San Clemente Dam.

Low. No occurrences within the immediate project area.

marsh microseris
(Microseris paludosa)

CRPR 1B.2

Closed-cone coniferous forest, woodland,


coastal scrub, and valley and foothill
grassland. Reports in project region from
vernally wet areas.

Documented from the Del Monte Forest,


vernal pools in east former Fort Ord lands,
and Monterey County Veterans Park, as well
as locations near Carmel and in hills east of
Carmel.

Moderate. May occur in seasonally wet areas in suitable


habitat in the vicinity of the Interconnection
Improvements sites in the southeastern portion of the
project area.

Mt. Diablo cottonweed


(Micropus amphibolus)

CRPR 3.2

Broadleafed upland forest, chaparral,


cismontane woodland, valley and foothill
grassland

Known from Santa Lucia Mountains in


Monterey and Santa Cruz Mountains

Low. No occurrences identified within the project area.

Northern curly-leaved
monardella
(Monardella sinuata ssp.
nigrescens)

CRPR 1B.2

Coastal dunes, coastal scrub, chaparral,


lower montane coniferous forest.

Known from coastal Monterey Bay.


Documented on inland ranges of former Fort
Ord lands.

High. May occur in central dune scrub and chaparral


habitat within the project area.

woodland woollythreads
(Monolopia gracilens)

CRPR 1B.2

Serpentine soils in broadleafed upland


forest, chaparral, woodland, and North
Coast coniferous forest openings, and
valley and foothill grasslands.

A single historical collection from the


Monterey area, exact location unknown. A
single collection from Santa Lucia mountains
to the southeast of the project area.

Low. No occurrences identified within project area. Not


observed to date in project-related botanical surveys.

Sandy, sometimes rocky, soils in


chaparral, coastal dunes, coastal scrub,
and coastal salt marshes and swamps.

Coastal areas from Monterey to southern


California

Present. Observed at the Terminal Reservoir site and


within the eastern terminus of the new Monterey
Pipeline alignment. Potential to occur in suitable habitat
at other facility sites.

Closed-cone coniferous forest and


woodland habitats.

Three natural populations remain on


California coast at Ano Nuevo to the north,
Monterey area, and Cambria to the south.
Widely used in landscaping and other
plantings.

Moderate. Extant natural populations restricted to


Monterey peninsula west and south of the project area.
CNDDB reports historical range of Monterey pine in
southern portion of project area and includes portions of
the new Monterey Pipeline.

South coast branching phacelia


(Phacelia ramosissima var.
austrolitoralis)
Monterey pine
(Pinus radiata)

Michaels rein orchid


(Piperia michaelii)

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

CRPR 3.2

CRPR 1B.1

CRPR 4.2

Coastal bluff scrub, closed-cone coniferous Known from southern Monterey Bay.
forest, chaparral, cismontane woodland,
coastal scrub, lower montane coniferous
forest.

F-12

Present. Observed at the proposed new Transmission


Main alignment and Terminal Reservoir site. Potential to
occur in suitable habitat at other facility sites.

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix F
Special-status Plant and Wildlife Species Considered

TABLE F-1 (Continued)


SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES CONSIDERED FOR THE MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT AREA

Name

Status*
(USFWS/
CDFW/CRPR) Habitat

Regional Occurrence

Potential for Occurrence


Within Project Area

OTHER SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES (cont.)

Plants (cont.)
Choriss popcorn flower
(Plagiobothrys chorisianus
var. chorisianus)

CRPR 1B.2

Vernal pools or vernally wet swales in


chaparral, coastal prairie, and coastal
scrub.

Known from Monterey County.

Low. No vernal pools or vernally wet swales observed


within the project area.

hooked popcornflower
(Plagiobothrys uncinatus)

CRPR 1B.2

Sandy chaparral in woodland and valley


and foothill grassland.

Endemic to San Benito, Monterey and San


Luis Obispo Counties. All documented
occurrences in Monterey County are from the
Santa Lucia Range south of the project area.

Absent. Project area is not within the known range of


the species.

Pine rose
(Rosa pinetorum)

CRPR 1B.2

Closed-cone coniferous forest habitat.

Manzanita County Park and vicinity of Edward Absent. No suitable habitat and no occurrences
identified within project area.
Morse botanical preserve; Monterey
Peninsula.

Maple-leaved checkerbloom
(Sidalcea malachroides)

CRPR 4.2

Broadleafed upland forest, coastal prairie,


coastal scrub, North Coast coniferous
forest, riparian woodland

Known from Monterey and Santa Cruz


Counties and northern California coastal
areas.

Low. No occurrences within the project area and no


suitable forest habitat within the project area. Closest
record is historical and from the Carmel/Pacific Grove
area.

Santa Cruz microseris


(Stebbinsoseris decipiens)

CRPR 1B.2

Open areas, sometimes in serpentine soils


within broadleaf upland forest, chaparral,
coastal prairie and scrub, and valley and
foothill grassland.

Known from Monterey, Santa Cruz, and Marin


Counties. Three CNDDB occurrences in
Monterey County, including two in the project
vicinity near Ryan RanchBishop
Interconnection site and east of the Main
SystemHidden Hills Interconnection site on
Laurels Grade Road, and one at Camp
Roberts to the southeast.

Low to Moderate. Potential to occur in the vicinity of the


Interconnection Improvements sites in the southeast
portion of the project area.

Santa Cruz clover


(Trifolium buckwestiorum)

CRPR 1B.1

On margins of broadleaved upland forest,


woodland, and coastal prairie.

Known from Santa Cruz and Monterey


Counties. Records in the project vicinity are
from the eastern portion of former Fort Ord
lands and from Highway 68.

Low to Moderate. Potential to occur in suitable habitat


the vicinity of the Interconnection Improvements sites in
the southeastern part of the project area.

saline clover
(Trifolium hydrophilum =
depauperatum var.
hydrophilum)

CRPR 1B.2

Marshes and swamps, vernal pools, and


alkaline, mesic areas in valley and foothill
grassland.

Large populations documented in vicinity of


Moss Landing; historical collection in vicinity
of Pacific Grove.

Low. No occurrences identified within project area. Not


observed to date in project-related botanical surveys.

Pacific Grove clover


(Trifolium polyodon)

--/SR/CRPR
1B.1

Along small springs and seeps in grassy


openings of closed-coned coniferous
forest, coastal prairie, meadows and
seeps, and valley and foothill grassland

Coast of Monterey Peninsula to hills in area of Low to Moderate. Several CNDDB records in vicinity of
Segunda Reservoir.
proposed Interconnection Improvements sites in
southeast part of the project area. May occur adjacent
to those sites if spring/seep conditions are present.

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

F-13

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix F
Special-status Plant and Wildlife Species Considered

TABLE F-1 (Continued)


SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES CONSIDERED FOR THE MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT AREA

Name

Status*
(USFWS/
CDFW/CRPR) Habitat

Regional Occurrence

Potential for Occurrence


Within Project Area

OTHER SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES (cont.)

Invertebrates
--/*

Caterpillars feed on milkweed plants and


are confined to meadows and open areas
where milkweed grows. Adults can be
found in areas abundant with wildflowers.
Autumnal and winter roosts in eucalyptus
and conifers.

Known from numerous locations along the


Santa Cruz and Monterey County coast.
Overwintering sites in Pacific Grove.

Low. Autumnal and overwintering roosts are known


primarily from native Monterey pine forest stands on the
Monterey peninsula. One CNDDB location in eucalyptus
stand along Del Monte Road and SPRR tracks is
located 0.5 mile north of the proposed new Monterey
pipeline alignment. Last CNDDB observation of
overwintering is from 2014.

Western pond turtle


(Actinemys marmorata)

CSSC

Permanent or nearly permanent water in a


variety of habitats.

One CNDDB record in Marina, one in Pacific


Grove, and multiple records along the Carmel
River.

Low to Moderate. CNDDB occurrences are located in


aquatic habitat along the New Desalinated Water Pipeline
near Beach Road and near the western terminus of the
new Monterey Pipeline alignment. Could occur where
habitat is suitable at ponds or freshwater wetlands.

black legless lizard (Anniella


pulchra nigra)

CSSC

Sandy or loose, loamy soils, including


stream terraces and coastal dunes. Dune
scrub, maritime chaparral, oak woodland.

Endemic to the Monterey Bay area. Occurs in


sandy soils throughout the project area.
Specific locations not given but CNDDB
records occurrences in the Marina, Seaside,
Monterey, Moss Landing, and Watsonville
West topo quads. Species is currently
undergoing taxonomic revision.

High. May occur in suitable habitat throughout the


project area.

silvery legless lizard (Anniella


pulchra pulchra)

CSSC

Occurs in moist warm loose soil with plant


cover. Occurs in sparsely vegetated areas of
beach dunes, maritime chaparral, pine-oak
woodlands, desert scrub, sandy washes,
and stream terraces with tree cover.

Two CNDDB records in northwestern


Monterey County. Otherwise general
distribution is east of the project area. Species
is currently undergoing taxonomic revision.

High. May occur in suitable habitat within the project


area. Local records are from dunes at Moss Landing
and maritime chaparral near Highway 1 and
Reservation Road.

coast horned lizard


(Phrynosoma blainvillii)

CSSC

Exposed, gravely-sandy substrates,


usually containing scattered shrubs,
clearings in riparian woodlands.

Multiple records from west former Fort Ord


lands. Also known from Camp Roberts in
southern Monterey County.

Present. Observed at the proposed Terminal Reservoir


site. Likely to occur in sandy soils elsewhere in the
project area.

Coast Range newt


(Taricha torosa)

CSSC

Wet forests, oak forests, chaparral, and


rolling grasslands, breed in ponds,
reservoirs, and streams

Records from south of the Carmel River and


over 10 miles northeast of the survey.

Low to Moderate. Potential to occur in aquatic habitat


(ponds and streams) and in adjacent upland areas such
as woodland or grassland habitat.

two-striped garter snake


(Thamnophis hammondii)

CSSC

Found around water sources such as creeks


often in rocky areas in oak woodland,
chaparral, brushland, and coniferous forest.
Marshes and swamps, riparian.

A single CNDDB record in Monterey County,


otherwise known from San Benito and Fresno
Counties.

Low. CNDDB occurrence is 9.5 miles east of the


proposed Main System-Hidden Hills Interconnection
Improvements site.

Monarch butterfly
(Danaus plexippus)

Reptiles and Amphibians

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

F-14

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix F
Special-status Plant and Wildlife Species Considered

TABLE F-1 (Continued)


SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES CONSIDERED FOR THE MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT AREA

Name

Status*
(USFWS/
CDFW/CRPR) Habitat

Regional Occurrence

Potential for Occurrence


Within Project Area

OTHER SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES (cont.)

Birds
Coopers hawk
(Accipiter cooperii)

3503.5

Breeds in riparian woodlands and wooded


canyons. Also known to breed in urban
neighborhoods where mature trees are
present.

Observed throughout the project area, almost Low. May forage in riparian or wooded habitat
throughout the project area.
exclusively in the winter months. Nearest
CNDDB documented nesting sites are located
in the Natividad Creek riparian corridor
northeast of Salinas and in Pinnacles National
Monument.

Sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter


striatus)

3503.5

Nests in woodlands, forages in many


habitats in winter and migration.

Winter visitor to the Monterey area. Does not


nest in the region.

Low. May forage in riparian or wooded habitat


throughout the project area.

Breeds near freshwater in dense emergent


vegetation.

Uncommon breeder in Monterey County.


Several CNNDB records in the Monterey
area. Known from Laguna Seca Recreation
Area and eastern Fort Ord.

Present. Observed at Locke-Paddon Park, which is


within the proposed new Desalinated Water Pipeline
alignment. Potential for nesting at that park and at
Laguna del Rey Park.

Breeds on cliffs or in large trees or


structures.

Does not breed locally. Regular sightings


throughout the region, most commonly in
winter and along the Carmel River and in the
vicinity of Moro Cojo and Elkhorn Sloughs.
Nearest nest site documented in CNDDB is
located 10 miles northeast of the Castroville
Pipeline alignment terminus.

Low. May forage over grasslands, open scrub, and


riparian corridors throughout the project area. However,
the project would not result in major impacts to foraging
or wintering habitat.

One nesting occurrence documented in


Coastal grasslands, marshes, dunes and
agricultural areas. Nests are scraped out of CNDDB near the mouth of the Salinas River.
the ground in dry areas among grasses
and low forbs.

Low to Moderate. May forage over scrublands near the


coast throughout the project area.

tricolored blackbird
(Agelaius tricolor)

Golden eagle
(Aquila chrysaetos)

CSSC
(nesting)

FP
(nesting and
wintering)

short-eared owl
(Asio flammeus)

CSSC
(nesting)

Burrowing owl
(Athene cunicularia)

CSSC
(nesting and
wintering)

Grassland habitat with ground squirrel


burrows (used for nesting and wintering).

Three CNDDB records from the project area


and two to the north in the vicinity of Moss
Landing and Elkhorn Ranch. Otherwise more
numerous inland from the coast. Local
records are for wintering owls. Numerous and
consistent additional sightings on Armstrong
Ranch in vicinity of Lapis Road and Del Monte
Road.

High. CNNDB records include a location along the


proposed new Desalination Pipeline alignment, the new
Monterey pipeline alignment west of Navy post-grad
school and Laguna Del Rey and southern Armstrong
Ranch. Potential to occur in suitable habitat within the
project area.

Red-tailed hawk
(Buteo jamaicensis)

3503.5
(nesting)

Almost any open habitat, including


grassland and urbanized areas. Typically
nests in mature trees. Sometimes also
nests on structures.

Ubiquitous throughout the region and


California.

High. Numerous sightings throughout the project


vicinity. Most likely to be found foraging over grasslands
and open scrub habitats. Could nest anywhere within
the project area where mature trees or suitable
structures are present.

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

F-15

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix F
Special-status Plant and Wildlife Species Considered

TABLE F-1 (Continued)


SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES CONSIDERED FOR THE MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT AREA

Name

Status*
(USFWS/
CDFW/CRPR) Habitat

Regional Occurrence

Potential for Occurrence


Within Project Area

OTHER SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES (cont.)

Birds (cont.)
Red-shouldered hawk
(Buteo lineatus)

3503.5
(nesting)

Ferruginous hawk
(Buteo regalis)

WL
(wintering)

Vauxs swift
(Chaetura vauxi)

CSSC
(nesting)

Mountain plover
(Charadrius montanus)

CSSC

Northern harrier
(Circus cyaneus)

Black swift
(Cypseloides niger)

3503.5
(nesting)

CSSC
(nesting)

White-tailed kite
(Elanus leucurus)

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

FP
(nesting)

Usually nests in large trees, often in


woodland or riparian deciduous habitats.
Forages over open grasslands and
woodlands.

Ubiquitous throughout the region and


California. More common in riparian areas or
near waterbodies.

Grasslands, sagebrush scrub, and conifer


One CNDDB occurrence documented four
forest edges at low to moderate elevations. wintering adults from 2004 in grasslands of
southern Armstrong Ranch.

High. Numerous sightings throughout the project


vicinity. Most common in riparian areas and around
waterbodies, such as Laguna Grande Park. Could nest
anywhere within the project area where mature trees
are present, most likely in riparian corridors.
Low to Moderate. The proposed new Desalination
Pipeline alignment traverses the grassland along Del
Monte Blvd. where previously documented. Project
would not have a substantial impact on (wintering)
foraging habitat.

Nests in snags in coastal coniferous


forests or, occasionally, in chimneys;
forages aerially.

No CNDDB records in the region. Relatively


uncommon sightings, primarily centered in
Pacific Grove area. Likely to be present only
during migration (spring and fall).

Low. Could occur within the project area though Project


would not have a substantial impact on foraging habitat.

Breeds in great plains, winters in Central


Valley and other flat open habitats in
California.

Rare winter visitor to Monterey County. No


CNDDB records from the region. Several
other sightings from Moro Cojo Slough to
north of project area.

Low. Could occur on agricultural fields and other open


habitats on a transient basis only.

Forages in open grasslands, marshes,


floodplains, and shrub lands. In western
states, nests on the ground in dry uplands.

A single CNDDB record from Monterey County


at Fort Hunter Liggett. Numerous additional
sightings throughout the region. Likely to forage
over a variety of open habitats, could breed in
undisturbed marshy habitats or grasslands in
the project area.

Low to Moderate. May forage over agricultural fields,


grasslands, marshlands, and sloughs throughout the
project area. May nest in open grassland, marshes, or
wetlands in the project vicinity.

Nests on wet cliffs, often behind waterfalls.


Forages aerially.

Rare and local breeding resident at Point


Lobos. Otherwise only rarely documented in
the region. Could forage near the southern
pipeline alignments.

Low potential for occurrence in project area.

Resident of river valleys, riparian


woodlands, and adjacent fields.

The species range includes the western U.S.


and the species can be found throughout
California. White-tailed kite observations are
numerous throughout Monterey County.

Moderate to High. Potential to occur in agricultural areas


and grasslands, especially near the Salinas and Carmel
rivers. Could breed locally, and forage over a variety of
habitats.

F-16

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix F
Special-status Plant and Wildlife Species Considered

TABLE F-1 (Continued)


SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES CONSIDERED FOR THE MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT AREA

Name

Status*
(USFWS/
CDFW/CRPR) Habitat

Regional Occurrence

Potential for Occurrence


Within Project Area

OTHER SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES

Birds (cont.)
California horned lark
(Eremophila alpestris actia)

Prairie falcon
(Falco mexicanus)

WL

WL/3503.5
(nesting)

American peregrine falcon


(Falco peregrinus)

FD/SD/FP

American kestrel
(Falco sparverius)

loggerhead shrike
(Lanius ludovicianus)

3503.5
(nesting)

CSSC
(nesting)

Osprey
(Pandion haliaetus)

Brown pelican
(Pelecanus occidentalis)

California yellow warbler


(Setophaga petechia
brewsteri)

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

3503.5
(nesting)

FD/SD/FP

CSSC
(nesting)

Bare dry ground and areas of short, sparse CNDDB documents three occurrences in the
vegetation where grasses are stunted such Marina and Salinas areas. Numerous more
as dunes, beaches, or grazed grasslands. occurrences in grasslands throughout the
Monterey peninsula. Could breed in the
project area.

Moderate. Potential to occur in grasslands and dune


scrub of the project area, especially in the northern
pipeline alignments. Nesting previously documented in
grasslands of southern Armstrong Ranch.

Resident in dry open country, additional


migrants in winter.

Does not breed locally. One non-specific


CNDDB record within the Spreckels topo
quadrangle east of the project area. Sighted
only uncommonly in the region.

Low. May forage in riparian or wooded habitat


throughout the project area. However, the project would
not result in conversion of substantial amounts of
foraging habitat.

Forages for other birds over a variety of


habitats. Nests primarily on rocky cliffs.

Numerous sighting throughout the project


area. One nest record from the Moss Landing
quadrangle, although the exact location is
suppressed by the CNDDB.

High potential for occurrence of foraging individuals


throughout the project area. However, the project would
not have a substantial impact on foraging habitat.

Frequents generally open grasslands,


pastures, and fields; primarily a cavity
nester.

Common visitor throughout the region,


primarily in winter. Could forage over a variety
of open habitats throughout project area.

High. May nest or forage throughout the project area.


Regularly observed at Armstrong Ranch and Laguna
Grande Park. The project would not result in major
impacts to foraging or wintering habitat.

Resident in dry open grasslands and scrub


dominated habitats.

Observed at Armstrong Ranch, Fort Ord


Dunes State Park, and Ryan Ranch in Del
Rey Oaks.

High. May occur in grassland, scrub, or oak woodland


habitat throughout the project area.

Forages and breeds near rivers and lakes.

Many observations, primarily along the


coastline. Not known to breed locally. Could
forage at local rivers, lakes, reservoirs, and
shallow marine waters.

Low. May forage in marine and other larger water


bodies and rivers throughout the project area. However,
the project would not result in major impacts to foraging
habitat.

Forages and roosts in coastal marine


habitats.

May forage in ocean waters in the vicinity of


the MRWPCA ocean outfall and the
subsurface slant wells. Brown pelicans do not
breed locally.

Low. Low potential to occur in the project area on


anything other than a transient basis due to lack of
suitable roosting habitat.

Breeds in riparian woodland and meadow


edges.

Only CNDDB record in the region is from


Camp Roberts, about 70 miles southeast of
the project area. Other observations are
primarily of migratory or wintering birds
concentrated in the riparian areas on the
Salinas River and in Laguna Grande Park.

Low. May breed in riparian areas on the Salinas River


along the Castroville Pipeline alignment. Otherwise
suitable habitat is sparse within the project area.

F-17

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix F
Special-status Plant and Wildlife Species Considered

TABLE F-1 (Continued)


SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES CONSIDERED FOR THE MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT AREA

Name

Status*
(USFWS/
CDFW/CRPR) Habitat

Regional Occurrence

Potential for Occurrence


Within Project Area

OTHER SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES (cont.)

Mammals
pallid bat
(Antrozous pallidus)

CSSC/
WBWG-H

Deserts, grasslands, shrublands,


woodlands and forests. Most common in
open, dry habitats with rocky areas for
roosting. Roosts must protect bats from
high temperatures. Very sensitive to
disturbance of roosting sites.

CNDDB records are primarily east and south


of the project area. Distribution unknown in
the project area.

Low to Moderate. No occurrences identified within


project area. Some suitable roosting habitat present
under overpasses and in trees.

Western mastiff bat


(Eumops perotis)

CSSC/
WBWG-H

Many open, semi-arid to arid habitats,


including conifer and deciduous
woodlands, coastal scrub, grasslands,
chaparral. Roosts in crevices in cliff faces,
high buildings, trees, and tunnels.

In Monterey County CNDDB records are from


Arroyo Seco in the Santa Lucia Mountains to
the south and near Soledad to the east.

Low. No occurrences identified within project area and


suitable habitat generally not present. The project would
not substantially impact foraging habitat. May occur on a
transient basis during migratory periods in spring and
fall.

Western red bat


(Lasiurus blossevillii)

CSSC/
WBWG-H

Often associated with riparian habitats and


edge habitats adjacent to streams and
open fields.

Found in coastal areas south of the San


Francisco Bay and in the Central Valley.

Low to Moderate. Suitable habitat in trees, particularly in


riparian areas, throughout the project area.

Hoary bat
(Lasiurus cinereus)

WBWG-M

Widespread throughout California though no


Prefers open habitats or habitat mosaics,
CNDDB records in the region.
with access to trees for cover and open
areas or habitat edges for feeding. Roosts in
dense foliage of medium to large trees.
Feeds primarily on moths.

Low. Project area lacks dense wooded areas suitable


for breeding. May occur on a transient basis while
foraging.

Present. Nests observed at the proposed Terminal


Reservoir site. Potential to occur in suitable habitat
within the project area.

Monterey dusky-footed woodrat


(Neotoma fuscipes luciana)

CSSC

Riparian, dense chaparral, or oak


woodlands with moderately dense
understory and abundant dead wood for
nest construction.

Endemic to western and central Monterey


County and northwestern San Luis Obispo
County.

Monterey shrew
(Sorex ornatus salarius)

CSSC

Coastal salt marshes and adjacent


sandhills, Riparian wetland, woodland and
upland communities with thick duff or
downed logs. May also occur in coast live
oak woodland, grasslands, coastal scrub,
maritime chaparral, and savannah
vegetation.

Moderate. May potentially occur in suitable habitat at


Distribution poorly known. Historical
the new Monterey Pipeline, ASR Facilities, Terminal
collections from the Pajaro River to Carmel.
More recently collected from the Salinas River Reservoir, and Interconnection Improvements sites.
delta. No CNDDB records in the region.

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

F-18

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix F
Special-status Plant and Wildlife Species Considered

TABLE F-1 (Continued)


SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES CONSIDERED FOR THE MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT AREA

Name

Status*
(USFWS/
CDFW/CRPR) Habitat

Regional Occurrence

Potential for Occurrence


Within Project Area

OTHER SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES (cont.)

Mammals (cont.)
American badger
(Taxidea taxus)

CSSC

Grasslands and other open habitats with


friable soils.

*Special-Status Species Code Designations:


Federal
FE = Federally listed as Endangered
FT = Federally listed as Threatened
FD = Federally delisted
State
SE = State listed as Endangered
ST = State listed as Threatened
SR = State listed as Rare
SD = State Delisted
FP = State listed as Fully Protected
CSSC = California Species of Special Concern
3503.5 = Section 3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code prohibits take, possession, or destruction
of any birds in the orders Falconiformes (hawks) or Strigiformes (owls), or of their nests and eggs.

Distributed throughout the region. Locally


known from Fort Ord.

Moderate. Historical occurrence in vicinity of the


northeastern portion of the proposed new Monterey
Pipeline. More recent occurrences at Fort Ord in vicinity
of proposed Terminal Reservoir and ASR Pipelines.
Potential to occur in suitable habitat within the project
area.

California Rare Plant Rank (Formerly known as CNPS List):


1A = Plants presumed extinct in California.
1B = Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere.
2A = Plants presumed extirpated in California.
2B = Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere.
3 = Plants about which more information is needed.
4 = Plants of limited distribution.
An extension reflecting the level of threat to each species is appended to each CRPR as follows:
.1 Seriously threatened in California.
.2 Moderately threatened in California.
.3 Not very threatened in California.
Western Bay Working Group (WBWG):
WBWG-H = High priority; Species that are imperiled or at a high risk of imperilment.
WBWG-M = Medium priority; Species that warrant a closer evaluation due to potential imperilment.

SOURCES: CalFlora, 2016; CDFW, 2016; CNPS, 2016; eBird, 2016; USFWS, 2016.

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

F-19

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

APPENDIX G1

Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions


Estimates
G1.1
G1.2
G1.3
G1.4

Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Summaries and Estimates


CalEEMod Output - Annual Emissions
CalEEMod Output - Maximum Daily Emissions
Health Risk Assessment

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

G1-1

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

G1.1.1 CRITERIA POLLUTANT EMISSIONS SUMMARIES


Maximum Day Total Unmitigated Construction Emissions
Emissions Source

ROG

NOx

CO

Equipment and Vehicle Exhaust

29.48

383.59

--

--

Off-gassing from Paving

4.53

Total

34.01

Fugitive Dust

PM10

PM2.5

216.91

15.16

12.76

--

263.92

36.04

--

--

--

--

383.59

216.91

279.08

48.80

Maximum Day Total Mitigated Construction Emissions


Emissions Source

ROG

NOx

CO

PM10

PM2.5

Equipment and Vehicle Exhaust

15.42

324.38

311.73

12.75

11.08

--

--

--

59.21

9.30

Off-gassing from Paving

4.53

--

--

--

--

Total

19.95

324.38

311.73

71.96

20.38

Fugitive Dust

Proposed Action (9.6 MGD) Operational Emissions


Source

ROG

NOx

CO

PM10

PM2.5

On-road Exhaust

0.09

1.46

2.36

0.10

0.04

Emergency Generator Testing


Slant Well Maintenance (off-road
equipment)

0.32

16.92

1.93

1.10

1.02

0.94

8.28

6.30

0.31

0.29

Total

1.35

26.66

10.59

1.51

1.35

Significance Criteria

137

137

550

82

55

No

No

No

No

No

Significant Impact?

Alternative 5 (6.4 MGD) Operational Emissions


Source

ROG

NOx

CO

PM10

PM2.5

On-road Exhaust

0.09

1.46

2.36

0.10

0.04

Emergency Generator Testing


Slant Well Maintenance (off-road
equipment)

0.27

14.23

1.62

0.90

0.83

0.94

8.28

6.30

0.31

0.29

Total

1.30

23.97

10.28

1.31

1.16

Significance Criteria

137

137

550

82

55

No

No

No

No

No

Significant Impact?

G1.1.2 MPWSP ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION PHASING


MPWSP Estimated Construction Phasing
2018
Jan

Feb

Mar Apr

May

Jun

Jul

2019
Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May Jun Jul

2020
Aug Sept Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan

Feb

9 Additional Slant Wells


Approx 15 months
MPWSP Desalination Plant
Approx 24 months
Source Water Pipeline (from CEMEX)
Approx 6 months
Source Water Pipeline (from Potrero)
Approx 12 months
New Desalinated Water Pipeline and New
Transmission Main Pipeline
Approx 15 months
Pipeline to the CSIP Pond
Approx 2 months
Castroville Pipeline
Approx 4 months
Brine Discharge Pipeline
Approx 3 months
ASR Pipelines (ASR Conveyance PL, ASR
Redistribution PL, ASR Pump-to-Waste)
Approx 5 months
Terminal Reservoir
Approx 15 months.
ASR Injection/Extraction Wells (ASR-5 and ASR-6
Wells)
Approx 12 months.
Main System-Hidden Hills Interconnection
Improvements
Approx 3 months
Ryan Ranch-Bishop Interconnection Improvements
Approx 4 months
Carmel Valley Pump Station
Approx 6 months
Spoils Hauling / Disposal / Pipelineacement
**Mon-Fri, 7am-7pm (24 months)

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sept Oct

Nov

Dec

G1.1.3 CONSTRUCTION WORKER AUTO AND TRUCK TRIPS

Construction
9.6 MGD Facility
Subsurface Slant Wells (9 wells)
Desalination Plant
Source Water Pipeline
Brine Discharge Pipeline
Castroville Pipeline
Pipeline to CSIP Pond
New Desalinated Water Pipeline
New Transmission Main Pipeline
Terminal Reservoir
ASR Pipelines (ASR Conveyance, ASR
Redisribution, and ASR Pump-to-Waste
pipelines)
ASR Injection/Extraction Wells
Carmel Valley Pump Station
Ryan Ranch-Bishop Interconnection
Main System to Hidden Hills

Const.
workdays

Vehicle Trips for Criteria Pollutants (per day)


Worker
Truck

Vehicle Trips Total for GHG


Worker
Truck

315
504
126
63
84
42
126
189
315

Workers
30
88
25
12
12
12
25
25
40

Trucks
20
55
12
6
6
6
12
12
25

Roundtrip
33
97
28
14
14
14
28
28
44

One-Way
66
194
56
28
28
28
56
56
88

Roundtrip
20
55
12
6
6
6
12
12
25

One-Way
40
110
24
12
12
12
24
24
50

Roundtrip
8,316
39,110
3,528
882
1,176
588
3,528
5,292
11,088

One-Way
16,632
78,221
7,056
1,764
2,352
1,176
7,056
10,584
22,176

Roundtrip
5,040
22,176
1,512
378
504
252
1,512
2,268
6,300

One-Way
10,080
44,352
3,024
756
1,008
504
3,024
4,536
12,600

105
252
126
84
63

25
25
12
12
12

12
12
6
6
6

28
28
14
14
14

56
56
28
28
28

12
12
6
6
6

24
24
12
12
12

2,940
5,645
1,411
1,176
882
Total

5,880
11,290
2,822
2,352
1,764
171,125

1,260
2,419
605
504
378
Total

2,520
4,838
1,210
1,008
756
90,216

Note: worker roundtrips per day are estimated assuming they would be equal to 110% of workers, rounded up to the nearest integer.

G1.1.4 AVERAGE DAILY OFFROAD CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT HOURS


FOR CALEEMOD INPUT AND EQUIPMENT FUEL USE ESTIMATES

Desalination Plant
Off Road Equipment
Paver

Approx. HP

Number

Hour/Day

Days

Total

Total

Average

hours

Workdays

Hours/day

160

12

21

252

504

0.5

Rollers

90

12

63

1,512

504

1.5

Excavator

200

12

42

1,008

504

1.0

Loader

90

12

42

1,008

504

1.0

Backhoe

150

12

462

11,088

504

11.0

Cranes

200

12

462

11,088

504

11.0

Graders

200

12

42

504

504

1.0

Off-Highway Trucks
Off-Highway Tractor
Forklifts

350
200
150

1
1
4

12
12
12

42
42
462

504
504
22,176

504
504
504

1.0
1.0
11.0

Water Truck

350

42

168

504

0.3

Generator

200

12

504

12,096

504

12.0

Notes: Construction would occur over 24 months with three main activities: site preperation (2 months); plant development
and construction (22 months); site paving (1 month). There would be approximately 21 workdays per month. Construction
activites would occur around the clock, with average equipment usage at 12 hours per day.

Subsurface Slant Wells


Off-Road Equipment
Bore/Drill Rigs

Approx. HP

Number

Hour/day

Total

Total

Average

Days

hours

Workdays

Hours/day

350

24

90

2,160

315

6.9

Crane

200

12

315

7,560

315

12.0

Trencher

150

12

315

3,780

315

12.0

Generator

200

12

90

2,160

315

3.4

Excavators

200

12

90

1,080

315

3.4

Notes: Construction of the 9.5 MGD project would take 15 months with drilling (10 days for each of the nine wells); well
development (10 days each well); electrical and pump-to-waste pipeline (1 month). Construction of the 6.1 MGD project
would last approximately 12 months with drilling (10 days for each of the seven wells); well development (10 days each
well); electrical and pump-to-waste pipeline (1 month). Although overall construction emissions associated with the 6.1
MGD project would be less than the emissions for the 9.5 MGD project, the avarage daily emissions shown above
represent both the 9.5 MGD and 6.1 MGD projects. There would be approximately 21 workdays per month. Drilling-related
activites would occur around the clock, with drill usage at 24 hours per day and the usage for other equipment at 12 hours
per day.

Source Water Pipeline


Off-Road Equipment
Pavers

Approx. HP

Number

Hour/day

Days

Total

Total

Average

hours

Workdays

Hours/day

160

126

756

126

6.0

Rollers

90

126

756

126

6.0

Backhoe

150

126

1,008

126

8.0

Excavators

200

126

1,008

126

8.0

Cranes

200

126

756

126

6.0

Jack-and-Bore Rig

350

10

80

126

0.6

Loader

90

126

1,008

126

8.0

Generator

200

126

1,008

126

8.0

Notes: Construction would last 6 months. There would be 10 days of jack-and-boring at the Highway 1 crossing. There
would be approximately 21 workdays per month.

Castroville Pipeline
Approx. HP
160

Number
1

Hour/day
6

Days
84

Total
hours
504

Total
Workdays
84

Average
Hours/day
6.0

Rollers

90

84

504

84

6.0

Backhoe
Excavators
Cranes
Jack-and-Bore Rig
Loader
Generator

150
200
200
350
90
200

1
1
1
1
1
1

8
8
6
8
8
8

84
84
84
10
84
84

672
672
504
80
672
672

84
84
84
84
84
84

8.0
8.0
6.0
1.0
8.0
8.0

Off-Road Equipment
Pavers

Notes: Construction would last 4 months. There would be 10 days of jack-and-boring at the State Route 183 crossing.
There would be approximately 21 workdays per month.

Brine Discharge Pipeline


Approx. HP
160

Number
1

Hour/day
6

Days
63

Total
hours
378

Total
Workdays
63

Average
Hours/day
6.0

Rollers

90

63

378

63

6.0

Backhoe
Excavators
Cranes
Loader
Generator

150
200
200
90
200

1
1
1
1
1

8
8
6
8
8

63
63
63
63
63

504
504
378
504
504

63
63
63
63
63

8.0
8.0
6.0
8.0
8.0

Off-Road Equipment
Pavers

Notes: Construction would last 3 months. There would be approximately 21 workdays per month.

CSIP Pond Pipeline


Off-Road Equipment
Pavers
Rollers
Backhoe
Excavators
Cranes
Loader
Generator

Approx. HP
160

Number
1

Hour/day
6

Days
42

Total
hours
252

Total
Workdays
42

Average
Hours/day
6.0

90

42

252

42

6.0

42
42
42
42
42

8.0
8.0
6.0
8.0
8.0

150
1
8
42
336
200
1
8
42
336
200
1
6
42
252
90
1
8
42
336
200
1
8
42
336
Notes: Construction would last 2 months. There would be approximately 21 workdays per month.

New Desalinated Water Pipeline


Off-Road Equipment
Pavers

Total
hours
756

Total
Workdays
126

Average
Hours/day
6.0

Approx. HP
160

Number
1

Hour/day
6

Days
126

Rollers

90

126

756

126

6.0

Backhoe
Excavators
Cranes
Loader
Generator

150
200
200
90
200

1
1
1
1
1

8
8
6
8
8

126
126
126
126
126

1,008
1,008
756
1,008
1,008

126
126
126
126
126

8.0
8.0
6.0
8.0
8.0

Notes: Construction would last 6 months. There would be approximately 21 workdays per month.

New Transmission Main Pipeline


Approx. HP
160
90

Number
1
1

Hour/day
6
6

Days
189
189

Total
hours
1,134
1,134

Total
Workdays
189
189

Average
Hours/day
6.0
6.0

Backhoe

150

189

1,512

189

8.0

Excavators
Cranes
Jack-and-Bore Rig
Loader
Generator

200
200
350
90
200

1
1
1
1
1

8
6
8
8
8

189
189
30
189
189

1,512
1,134
240
1,512
1,512

189
189
189
189
189

8.0
6.0
1.3
8.0
8.0

Off-Road Equipment
Pavers
Rollers

Notes: Construction would last 9 months. There would be 30 days of jack-and-boring at the two Highway 1 crossings and
the crossing of Reservation Road. There would be approximately 21 workdays per month.

Terminal Reservoir
Approx. HP

Number

Hour/Day

Days

Total
hours

Total
Workdays

Average
Hours/day

Pavers

160

21

168

315

0.5

Rollers

90

63

504

315

1.6

Excavator

42

336

315

1.1

Off Road Equipment

200

Loader

90

42

336

315

1.1

Backhoe

150

273

2,184

315

6.9

Cranes

200

273

4,368

315

6.9

Graders

200

42

336

315

1.1

Water Trucks

350

42

168

315

0.5

Off-Highway Tractor

200

42

336

315

1.1

Generator

200

315

2,520

315

8.0

Notes: Construction would last 15 months and occur with three main activities: site preperation (2 months); plant
development and construction (13 months); site paving (1 month). There would be approximately 21 workdays per month.

ASR Pipelines (ASR Conveyance, ASR Redistribution, and ASR Pump-to-Waste)


Off-Road Equipment
Pavers

Approx. HP

Number

Hour/day

Days

Total

Total

Average

hours

Workdays

Hours/day

160

105

630

105

6.0

Rollers

90

105

630

105

6.0

Backhoe

150

105

840

105

8.0

Excavators

200

105

840

105

8.0

Cranes

200

105

630

105

6.0

Loader

90

105

840

105

8.0

Generator

200

105

840

105

8.0

Notes: Construction would last 5 months. There would be approximately 21 workdays per month.

ASR Injection/Extraction Wells


Off Road Equipment
Pavers

Approx. HP

Number

Hour/Day

Days

Total

Total

Average

hours

Workdays

Hours/day

160

40

252

0.2

Rollers

90

47

376

252

1.5

Excavator

200

42

336

252

1.3

Loader

90

42

336

252

1.3

Backhoe

150

42

336

252

1.3

Drill Rig

350

24

40

960

252

3.8

Cranes

200

42

672

252

1.3

Graders

200

40

252

0.2

Off-Highway Trucks

350

42

336

252

1.3

Off-Highway Tractor

200

42

336

252

1.3

Generator

200

210

1,680

252

6.7

Notes: Construction would last 12 months. Site preperation (2 months), well and basin development (10 months); 1 week
of paving, and there would be 4 weeks of continious drilling for each well. There would be approximately 21 workdays per
month.

Carmel Valley Pump Station


Off-Road Equipment
Pavers
Rollers
Loader
Backhoe
Crane
Grader
Generator

Approx. HP
160
90
90

Number
1
1
1

Hour/day
8
8
8

Days
1
43
42

Total
hours
8
344
336

Total
Workdays
126
126
126

Average
Hours/day
0.1
2.7
2.7

150
200
200
200

1
1
1
1

8
8
8
8

42
21
5
126

336
168
40
1,008

126
126
126
126

2.7
1.3
0.3
8.0

Notes: Construction would last 6 months. There would be 2 months of site preperation, 4 months of building construction,
and 1 day of paving. There would be approximately 21 workdays per month.

Ryan Ranch-Bishop Interconnection Improvements


Off-Road Equipment
Pavers

Approx. HP

Number

Hour/day

Days

Total

Total

Average

hours

Workdays

Hours/day

160

84

504

84

6.0

Rollers

90

84

504

84

6.0

Backhoe

150

84

672

84

8.0

Excavators

200

84

672

84

8.0

Cranes

200

84

504

84

6.0

Loader

90

84

672

84

8.0

Generator

200

84

672

84

8.0

Notes: Construction would last 4 months. There would be approximately 21 workdays per month.

Main System-Hidden Hills Interconnection Improvements Construction Exhaust Emissions


Total

Total

Average

Approx. HP
160

Number
1

Hour/day
6

Days
63

hours
378

Workdays
63

Hours/day
6.0

Rollers
Backhoe
Excavators
Cranes
Loader

90
150
200
200
90

1
1
1
1
1

6
8
8
6
8

63
63
63
63
63

378
504
504
378
504

63
63
63
63
63

6.0
8.0
8.0
6.0
8.0

Generator

200

63

504

63

8.0

Total

Total

Average
Hours/day

Off-Road Equipment
Pavers

Notes: Construction would last 3 months. There would be approximately 21 workdays per month.

Slant Well Maintenance (2025/2026)


Approx. HP

Number

Hour/day

Days

hours

Workdays

200

60

480

90

5.3

200

90

540

90

6.0

Loader

90

60

480

90

5.3

Generator

200

90

720

90

8.0

Off-Road Equipment
Grader
Cranes

Notes: Construction would last 3 months. There would be approximately 21 workdays per month.

G1.1.5 EQUIPMENT AND VEHICLE FUEL USE

Off-road 2011 Model Construction Equipment Fuel Consumption Output


Calendar Year

Equipment Type
Bore/Drill Rigs

BSFC (lbs/yr)
292,968

Activity (hrs/yr)

BSFC
(gal/hr)*

7,220

5.71

696,745

28,487

3.44

2018

Air Basin
NCC

2018

NCC

Cranes

2018

NCC

Excavators

3,099,104

139,457

3.13

2018

NCC

Graders

1,167,436

41,203

3.99

2018

NCC

Off-Highway Tractors

655,307

32,668

2.82

2018

NCC

Off-Highway Trucks

3,930,849

69,534

7.96

2018

NCC

Other Construction
Equipment

877,052

33,231

3.72

2018

NCC

Pavers

206,630

10,447

2.78

2018

NCC

Rollers

535,654

47,340

1.59

2018

NCC

Rough Terrain Forklifts

581,596

39,175

2.09

2018

NCC

Tractors/Loaders/Backho
es

4,306,119

324,756

1.87

2018

NCC

Trenchers

178,019

11,828

2.12

*There is 1.874 pounds/liter of diesel, and 3.79 liters/gallon.


NCC = North Central Coast Air Basin; BSFC = brake specific fuel consumption.

Construction
Total Fuel Use During Contruction
Fuel Consumed
(av. gal/yr)

Gallons sold in
County in 2012

% Project
gall/County gal

Fuel Type

(gal/proj)

Gasoline

82,669

41,334

147,000,000

0.03%

Diesel

1,209,985

604,993

68,000,000

0.89%

Construction Equipment Total Diesel Fuel Use


Fuel Consumption

Total Hours

(gal/hr)

(hrs/project)

(gal/proj)

2.8

5,760

16,040

8,020

Rollers

1.6

8,028

12,790

6,395

Excavator

3.1

8,736

27,334

13,667

Loader

1.9

9,072

16,936

8,468

Backhoe

1.9

21,000

39,205

19,602

Cranes

3.4

29,148

100,376

50,188

Graders

4.0

920

3,670

1,835

Off-Highway Trucks

8.0

840

6,686

3,343

Off-Highway
Tractor
Forklifts

2.8
2.1

1,176
22,176

3,321
46,354

1,661
23,177

Water Truck

8.0

336

2,674

1,337

Generator

3.7

25,440

94,533

47,267

Drill Rigs

5.7

3,120

17,825

8,912

Trencher

2.1

3,780

8,010

4,005

Jack and Bore Rig

5.7

400

2,285

1,143

139,932

398,041

199,021

Off Road
Equipment
Paver

Total

Average gallons/hour

Diesel Fuel Consumed

2.8

See Appendix Section G.1.4 for detail regarding the equipment total hours estimates.

(av. gal/yr)

Construction Vehicles Total Fuel Use


Ave consum.
rate

Total Gallons

Vehicle Type

Fuel Type

Total Trips

Miles/trip

Total Miles
Travelled

Light Duty Truck

gasoline

171,125

10

1,711,248

20.7

82,669

41,334

Heavy Duty Truck

diesel

90,216

63

5,683,608

7.0

811,944

405,972

(miles/gallon)

gal/proj

diesel fuel economcy obtained from http://www.dieselforum.org/about-clean-diesel/trucking

Operation and Maintenance


Total Fuel Use During Operation and Maintenance
Fuel Consumed

Gallons sold in County in % Project


2012
gall/County gal

Fuel Type

(ave. gal/yr)

Gasoline

10,580

147,000,000

0.01%

Diesel

15,509

68,000,000

0.02%

Slant Well Maintenance Equipment Total Diesel Fuel Use


Fuel Consumption

Total Hours

(gal/hr)

(hrs/project)

(gal/eventj)

(av. gal/yr)

4.0

480

1,915

383

Cranes

3.4

540

1,860

372

Loader

1.9

480

896

179

Generator

3.7

720

2,675

535

2,220

7,346

1,469

Off Road
Equipment
Grader

Total

Average gallons/hour

Diesel Fuel Consumed

3.3

See Appendix Section G.1.4 for detail regarding the equipment total hours estimates.

Operations Vehicles Fuel Use


Ave
consumption
rate

Total
Gallons

Vehicle Type

Fuel Type

Total Trips/year

Miles/trip

Total Miles
Travelled

(miles/gallon)

gal/yr

Light Duty Truck

gasoline

21,900

10

219,000

20.7

10,580

Heavy Duty Truck

diesel

1,560

63

98,280

7.0

14,040

diesel fuel economcy obtained from http://www.dieselforum.org/about-clean-diesel/trucking

gal/year

G1.1.6 CONSTRUCTION CRITERIA POLLUTANT EXHAUST EMISSIONS


2019 Maximum Day Unmitigated Construction Exhaust Emissions (pounds)
Project Component
Desalination Plant
Subsurface Slant Wells
Source Water Pipeline
Brine Discharge Pipeline

ROG
6.39
3.57
2.51
2.34

NOx
90.11
48.28
31.10
26.99

CO
48.47
23.09
19.34
17.21

PM10
3.36
1.84
1.31
1.18

PM2.5
2.71
1.56
1.12
1.04

Castroville Pipeline
2.39
Pipeline to CSIP
2.34
New Transmission Main
2.54
Terminal Reservoir
2.40
ASR Pipelines
2.47
ASR Injection and Extraction Wells
1.45
Carmel Valley Pump Station
1.09
Total Emissions
29.48
Notes: See Esimated Construction Phasing schdule

27.59
26.99
31.52
36.30
30.74
20.36
13.62
383.59

17.61
17.21
19.62
16.99
19.10
10.73
7.56
216.91

1.19
1.18
1.32
1.29
1.30
0.70
0.51
15.16

1.06
1.04
1.13
1.01
1.10
0.55
0.44
12.76

2019 Maximum Day Mitigated Construction Exhaust Emissions (pounds)


Project Component
ROG
Desalination Plant
3.35
Subsurface Slant Wells
2.36
Source Water Pipeline
1.23
Brine Discharge Pipeline
1.06
Castroville Pipeline
1.11
Pipeline to CSIP
1.06
New Transmission Main
1.26
Terminal Reservoir
1.30
ASR Pipelines
1.20
ASR Injection and Extraction Wells
0.92
Carmel Valley Pump Station
0.58
Total Emissions
15.42
Notes: See Esimated Construction Phasing schdule

NOx
75.46
41.97
26.13
21.84
22.74
21.84
26.76
30.03
25.59
19.82
12.21
324.38

CO
66.78
33.59
27.35
24.86
25.86
24.86
28.05
23.75
26.75
17.91
11.99
311.73

PM10
2.77
1.63
1.08
0.94
0.97
0.94
1.11
1.06
1.06
0.73
0.48
12.75

PM2.5
2.26
1.40
0.96
0.88
0.91
0.88
0.99
0.83
0.94
0.61
0.42
11.08

Desalination Plant
Total Daily Construction Exhaust Emissions (pounds/day)
Emissions

ROG

NOx

CO

PM10

PM2.5

Unmitigated

6.39

90.11

48.47

3.36

2.71

Mitigated

3.35

75.46

66.78

2.77

2.26

Includes offroad and on-road emissions sources.


Average Daily Offroad Equipment Construction Exhaust Emissions
Emissions (pounds)
Offroad Equipment

ROG

NOX

CO

PM10

PM2.5

Unmitigated

5.17

56.05

34.57

2.33

2.19

Mitigated

2.13

41.40

52.88

1.74

1.74

miles/trip

ROG

NOx

See CalEEMod output for equipment use assumptions.

On-road Daily Construction Emissions


Emission Factors (grams/mile)
Vehicle Type

Trips/day

CO

PM10

Emissions (pounds/day)
PM2.5

ROG

NOx

CO

PM10

PM2.5

Light duty truck (gas)

194

10

0.0823

0.2714

2.4773

4.8E-02

2.1E-02

0.35

1.16

10.60

0.21

0.09

Heavy duty truck (diesel)

110

25

0.1428

5.4260

0.5447

1.4E-01

7.1E-02

0.87

32.90

3.30

0.82

0.43

Total

1.22

34.06

13.90

1.03

0.52

Subsurface Slant Wells


Total Daily Construction Exhaust Emissions (pounds/day)
Emissions

ROG

NOx

CO

PM10

Unmitigated

3.57

48.28

23.09

1.84

1.56

Mitigated

2.36

41.97

33.59

1.63

1.40

PM2.5

Includes offroad and on-road emissions sources.


Average Daily Offroad Equipment Construction Exhaust Emissions
Emissions (pounds)
Offroad Equipment

ROG

NOX

CO

PM10

PM2.5

Unmitigated

3.14

35.92

18.28

1.47

1.37

Mitigated

1.93

29.61

28.78

1.26

1.21

See CalEEMod output for equipment use assumptions.

On-road Daily Construction Emissions


Emission Factors (grams/mile)

Emissions (pounds/day)

Vehicle Type

Trips/day

miles/trip

ROG

NOx

CO

PM10

PM2.5

ROG

NOx

CO

PM10

PM2.5

Light duty truck (gas)

66

10

0.0823

0.2714

2.4773

4.8E-02

2.1E-02

0.12

0.39

3.60

0.07

0.03

Heavy duty truck

40

25

0.1428

5.4260

0.5447

1.4E-01

7.1E-02

0.31

11.96

1.20

0.30

0.16

Total

0.43

12.36

4.81

0.37

0.19

Source Water Pipeline


Total Daily Construction Exhaust Emissions (pounds/day)
Emissions

ROG

NOx

CO

PM10

PM2.5

Unmitigated

2.51

31.10

19.34

1.31

1.12

Mitigated

1.23

26.13

27.35

1.08

0.96

Includes offroad and on-road emissions sources.


Average Daily Offroad Equipment Construction Exhaust Emissions
Emissions (pounds)
Offroad Equipment

ROG

NOX

CO

PM10

PM2.5

Unmitigated

2.22

23.59

15.56

1.07

1.00

Mitigated

0.94

18.62

23.57

0.84

0.84

See CalEEMod output for equipment use assumptions.

On-road Daily Construction Emissions


Emission Factors (grams/mile)

Emissions (pounds/day)

Vehicle Type

Trips/day

miles/trip

ROG

NOx

CO

PM10

PM2.5

ROG

NOx

CO

PM10

PM2.5

Light duty truck (gas)

56

10

0.0823

0.2714

2.4773

4.8E-02

2.1E-02

0.10

0.34

3.06

0.06

0.03

Heavy duty truck

24

25

0.1428

5.4260

0.5447

1.4E-01

7.1E-02

0.19

7.18

0.72

0.18

0.09

Total

0.29

7.51

3.78

0.24

0.12

Brine Discharge Pipeline

Total Daily Construction Exhaust Emissions (pounds/day)


Emissions

ROG

NOx

CO

PM10

PM2.5

Unmitigated

2.34

26.99

17.21

1.18

1.04

Mitigated

1.06

21.84

24.86

0.94

0.88

Includes offroad and on-road emissions sources.

Average Daily Offroad Equipment Construction Exhaust Emissions


Emissions (pounds)
Offroad Equipment

ROG

NOX

CO

PM10

PM2.5

Unmitigated

2.19

23.23

15.32

1.06

0.98

Mitigated

0.91

18.08

22.97

0.82

0.82

See CalEEMod output for equipment use assumptions.

On-road Daily Construction Emissions


Emission Factors (grams/mile)

Emissions (pounds/day)

Vehicle Type

Trips/day

miles/trip

ROG

NOx

CO

PM10

PM2.5

ROG

NOx

CO

PM10

PM2.5

Light duty truck (gas)

28

10

0.0823

0.2714

2.4773

4.8E-02

2.1E-02

0.05

0.17

1.53

0.03

0.01

Heavy duty truck

12

25

0.1428

5.4260

0.5447

1.4E-01

7.1E-02

0.09

3.59

0.36

0.09

0.05

Total

0.15

3.76

1.89

0.12

0.06

Castroville Pipeline

Total Daily Construction Exhaust Emissions (pounds/day)


Emissions

ROG

NOx

CO

PM10

PM2.5

Unmitigated

2.39

27.59

17.61

1.19

1.06

Mitigated

1.11

22.74

25.86

0.97

0.91

Includes offroad and on-road emissions sources.

Average Daily Offroad Equipment Construction Exhaust Emissions


Emissions (pounds)
Offroad Equipment

ROG

NOX

CO

PM10

PM2.5

Unmitigated

2.24

23.83

15.72

1.07

1.00

Mitigated

0.96

18.98

23.97

0.85

0.85

See CalEEMod output for equipment use assumptions.

On-road Daily Construction Emissions


Emission Factors (grams/mile)

Emissions (pounds/day)

Vehicle Type

Trips/day

miles/trip

ROG

NOx

CO

PM10

PM2.5

ROG

NOx

CO

PM10

PM2.5

Light duty truck (gas)

28

10

0.0823

0.2714

2.4773

4.8E-02

2.1E-02

0.05

0.17

1.53

0.03

0.01

Heavy duty truck

12

25

0.1428

5.4260

0.5447

1.4E-01

7.1E-02

0.09

3.59

0.36

0.09

0.05

Total

0.15

3.76

1.89

0.12

0.06

Pipeline to CSIP

Total Daily Construction Exhaust Emissions (pounds/day)


Emissions

ROG

NOx

CO

PM10

PM2.5

Unmitigated

2.34

26.99

17.21

1.18

1.04

Mitigated

1.06

21.84

24.86

0.94

0.88

Includes offroad and on-road emissions sources.

Average Daily Offroad Equipment Construction Exhaust Emissions


Emissions (pounds)
Offroad Equipment

ROG

NOX

CO

PM10

PM2.5

Unmitigated

2.19

23.23

15.32

1.06

0.98

Mitigated

0.91

18.08

22.97

0.82

0.82

See CalEEMod output for equipment use assumptions.

On-road Daily Construction Emissions


Emission Factors (grams/mile)

Emissions (pounds/day)

Vehicle Type

Trips/day

miles/trip

ROG

NOx

CO

PM10

PM2.5

ROG

NOx

CO

PM10

PM2.5

Light duty truck (gas)

28

10

0.0823

0.2714

2.4773

4.8E-02

2.1E-02

0.05

0.17

1.53

0.03

0.01

Heavy duty truck

12

25

0.1428

5.4260

0.5447

1.4E-01

7.1E-02

0.09

3.59

0.36

0.09

0.05

Total

0.15

3.76

1.89

0.12

0.06

New Desalinated Water Pipeline (2018)

Total Daily Construction Exhaust Emissions (pounds/day)


Emissions

ROG

NOx

CO

PM10

PM2.5

Unmitigated

2.71

33.82

19.42

1.45

1.25

Mitigated

1.20

25.59

26.75

1.06

0.94

Includes offroad and on-road emissions sources.

Average Daily Offroad Equipment Construction Exhaust Emissions


Emissions (pounds)
Offroad Equipment

ROG

NOX

CO

PM10

PM2.5

Unmitigated

2.42

26.31

15.64

1.21

1.13

Mitigated

0.91

18.08

22.97

0.82

0.82

See CalEEMod output for equipment use assumptions.

On-road Daily Construction Emissions


Emission Factors (grams/mile)

Emissions (pounds/day)

Vehicle Type

Trips/day

miles/trip

ROG

NOx

CO

PM10

PM2.5

ROG

NOx

CO

PM10

PM2.5

Light duty truck (gas)

56

10

0.0823

0.2714

2.4773

4.8E-02

2.1E-02

0.10

0.34

3.06

0.06

0.03

Heavy duty truck

24

25

0.1428

5.4260

0.5447

1.4E-01

7.1E-02

0.19

7.18

0.72

0.18

0.09

Total

0.29

7.51

3.78

0.24

0.12

New Transmission Main

Total Daily Construction Exhaust Emissions (pounds/day)


Emissions

ROG

NOx

CO

PM10

PM2.5

Unmitigated

2.54

31.52

19.62

1.32

1.13

Mitigated

1.26

26.76

28.05

1.11

0.99

Includes offroad and on-road emissions sources.

Average Daily Offroad Equipment Construction Exhaust Emissions


Emissions (pounds)
Offroad Equipment

ROG

NOX

CO

PM10

PM2.5

Unmitigated

2.25

24.01

15.84

1.08

1.01

Mitigated

0.97

19.25

24.27

0.87

0.87

See CalEEMod output for equipment use assumptions.

On-road Daily Construction Emissions


Emission Factors (grams/mile)

Emissions (pounds/day)

Vehicle Type

Trips/day

miles/trip

ROG

NOx

CO

PM10

PM2.5

ROG

NOx

CO

PM10

PM2.5

Light duty truck (gas)

56

10

0.0823

0.2714

2.4773

4.8E-02

2.1E-02

0.10

0.34

3.06

0.06

0.03

Heavy duty truck

24

25

0.1428

5.4260

0.5447

1.4E-01

7.1E-02

0.19

7.18

0.72

0.18

0.09

Total

0.29

7.51

3.78

0.24

0.12

Terminal Reservoir

Total Daily Construction Exhaust Emissions (pounds/day)


Emissions

ROG

NOx

CO

PM10

PM2.5

Unmitigated

2.40

36.30

16.99

1.29

1.01

Mitigated

1.30

30.03

23.75

1.06

0.83

Includes offroad and on-road emissions sources.

Average Daily Offroad Equipment Construction Exhaust Emissions


Emissions (pounds)
Offroad Equipment

ROG

NOX

CO

PM10

PM2.5

Unmitigated

1.85

20.82

10.68

0.82

0.77

Mitigated

0.75

14.55

17.44

0.59

0.59

See CalEEMod output for equipment use assumptions.

On-road Daily Construction Emissions


Emission Factors (grams/mile)

Emissions (pounds/day)

Vehicle Type

Trips/day

miles/trip

ROG

NOx

CO

PM10

PM2.5

ROG

NOx

CO

PM10

PM2.5

Light duty truck (gas)

88

10

0.0823

0.2714

2.4773

4.8E-02

2.1E-02

0.16

0.53

4.81

0.09

0.04

Heavy duty truck

50

25

0.1428

5.4260

0.5447

1.4E-01

7.1E-02

0.39

14.95

1.50

0.37

0.20

Total

0.55

15.48

6.31

0.47

0.24

ASR Pipelines

Total Daily Construction Exhaust Emissions (pounds/day)


Emissions

ROG

NOx

CO

PM10

PM2.5

Unmitigated

2.47

30.74

19.10

1.30

1.10

Mitigated

1.20

25.59

26.75

1.06

0.94

Includes offroad and on-road emissions sources.

Average Daily Offroad Equipment Construction Exhaust Emissions


Emissions (pounds)
Offroad Equipment

ROG

NOX

CO

PM10

PM2.5

Unmitigated

2.18

23.23

15.32

1.06

0.98

Mitigated

0.91

18.08

22.97

0.82

0.82

See CalEEMod output for equipment use assumptions.

On-road Daily Construction Emissions


Emission Factors (grams/mile)

Emissions (pounds/day)

Vehicle Type

Trips/day

miles/trip

ROG

NOx

CO

PM10

PM2.5

ROG

NOx

CO

PM10

PM2.5

Light duty truck (gas)

56

10

0.0823

0.2714

2.4773

4.8E-02

2.1E-02

0.10

0.34

3.06

0.06

0.03

Heavy duty truck

24

25

0.1428

5.4260

0.5447

1.4E-01

7.1E-02

0.19

7.18

0.72

0.18

0.09

Total

0.29

7.51

3.78

0.24

0.12

ASR Injection and Extraction Wells

Total Daily Construction Exhaust Emissions (pounds/day)


Emissions

ROG

NOx

CO

PM10

PM2.5

Unmitigated

1.45

20.36

10.73

0.70

0.55

Mitigated

0.92

19.82

17.91

0.73

0.61

Includes offroad and on-road emissions sources.

Average Daily Offroad Equipment Construction Exhaust Emissions


Emissions (pounds)
Offroad Equipment

ROG

NOX

CO

PM10

PM2.5

Unmitigated

1.16

12.85

6.95

0.46

0.43

Mitigated

0.63

12.31

14.13

0.49

0.49

See CalEEMod output for equipment use assumptions.

On-road Daily Construction Emissions


Emission Factors (grams/mile)

Emissions (pounds/day)

Vehicle Type

Trips/day

miles/trip

ROG

NOx

CO

PM10

PM2.5

ROG

NOx

CO

PM10

PM2.5

Light duty truck (gas)

56

10

0.0823

0.2714

2.4773

4.8E-02

2.1E-02

0.10

0.34

3.06

0.06

0.03

Heavy duty truck

24

25

0.1428

5.4260

0.5447

1.4E-01

7.1E-02

0.19

7.18

0.72

0.18

0.09

Total

0.29

7.51

3.78

0.24

0.12

Carmel Valley Pump Station

Total Daily Construction Exhaust Emissions (pounds/day)


Emissions

ROG

NOx

CO

PM10

PM2.5

Unmitigated

1.09

13.62

7.56

0.51

0.44

Mitigated

0.58

12.21

11.99

0.48

0.42

Includes offroad and on-road emissions sources.

Average Daily Offroad Equipment Construction Exhaust Emissions


Emissions (pounds)
Offroad Equipment

ROG

NOX

CO

PM10

PM2.5

Unmitigated

0.94

9.86

5.67

0.39

0.38

Mitigated

0.43

8.45

10.10

0.36

0.36

See CalEEMod output for equipment use assumptions.

On-road Daily Construction Emissions


Emission Factors (grams/mile)

Emissions (pounds/day)

Vehicle Type

Trips/day

miles/trip

ROG

NOx

CO

PM10

PM2.5

ROG

NOx

CO

PM10

PM2.5

Light duty truck (gas)

28

10

0.0823

0.2714

2.4773

4.8E-02

2.1E-02

0.05

0.17

1.53

0.03

0.01

Heavy duty truck

12

25

0.1428

5.4260

0.5447

1.4E-01

7.1E-02

0.09

3.59

0.36

0.09

0.05

Total

0.15

3.76

1.89

0.12

0.06

Ryan Ranch-Bishop Interconnection

Total Daily Construction Exhaust Emissions (pounds/day)


Emissions

ROG

NOx

CO

PM10

PM2.5

Unmitigated

2.34

26.99

17.21

1.18

1.04

Mitigated

1.06

21.84

24.86

0.94

0.88

Includes offroad and on-road emissions sources.

Average Daily Offroad Equipment Construction Exhaust Emissions


Emissions (pounds)
Offroad Equipment

ROG

NOX

CO

PM10

PM2.5

Unmitigated

2.19

23.23

15.32

1.06

0.98

Mitigated

0.91

18.08

22.97

0.82

0.82

See CalEEMod output for equipment use assumptions.

On-road Daily Construction Emissions


Emission Factors (grams/mile)

Emissions (pounds/day)

Vehicle Type

Trips/day

miles/trip

ROG

NOx

CO

PM10

PM2.5

ROG

NOx

CO

PM10

PM2.5

Light duty truck (gas)

28

10

0.0823

0.2714

2.4773

4.8E-02

2.1E-02

0.05

0.17

1.53

0.03

0.01

Heavy duty truck

12

25

0.1428

5.4260

0.5447

1.4E-01

7.1E-02

0.09

3.59

0.36

0.09

0.05

Total

0.15

3.76

1.89

0.12

0.06

MainSystem to Hidden Hills Interconnection

Total Daily Construction Exhaust Emissions (pounds/day)


Emissions

ROG

NOx

CO

PM10

PM2.5

Unmitigated

2.34

26.99

17.21

1.18

1.04

Mitigated

1.06

21.84

24.86

0.94

0.88

Includes offroad and on-road emissions sources.

Average Daily Offroad Equipment Construction Exhaust Emissions


Emissions (pounds)
Offroad Equipment

ROG

NOX

CO

PM10

PM2.5

Unmitigated

2.19

23.23

15.32

1.06

0.98

Mitigated

0.91

18.08

22.97

0.82

0.82

See CalEEMod output for equipment use assumptions.

On-road Daily Construction Emissions


Emission Factors (grams/mile)

Emissions (pounds/day)

Vehicle Type

Trips/day

miles/trip

ROG

NOx

CO

PM10

PM2.5

ROG

NOx

CO

PM10

PM2.5

Light duty truck (gas)

28

10

0.0823

0.2714

2.4773

4.8E-02

2.1E-02

0.05

0.17

1.53

0.03

0.01

Heavy duty truck

12

25

0.1428

5.4260

0.5447

1.4E-01

7.1E-02

0.09

3.59

0.36

0.09

0.05

Total

0.15

3.76

1.89

0.12

0.06

G1.1.8 ON-ROAD OPERATIONAL CRITERIA POLLUTANT EMISSIONS


Emission Factors
Running Exhaust Emission Factors
(grams/mile)
NOx
CO
PM10
0.1896
1.6776
4.8E-02
3.6610
0.4327
1.1E-01

ROG
Vehicle Type
Light duty truck
0.0460
Heavy duty truck
0.1016
Note: derived from EMFAC 2014.
PM10 and PM2.5 emission factors include break and tire wear factors in addition to exhaust.

PM2.5
2.1E-02
5.2E-02

Daily Operational Emissions (pounds/day)


Proposed Project*
Vehicle Type
Trips/day
miles/trip
ROG
NOx
CO
PM10
Light duty truck
60
10
0.06
0.25
2.22
0.06
Heavy duty truck
6
25
0.03
1.21
0.14
0.04
Total
66
0.09
1.46
2.36
0.10
Notes: Trips are one-way; assumes 30 employees would require 2 trips per day; 3 material hauls.
Average truck trip length represents from the Santa Clara/San Benito County line (south of Gilroy) down to Seaside.
Daily trip amounts obtained from the EIR Team traffic engineer (2013).
*There would be no change in daily emissions associated with the 6.4 Variant compared to the proposed 9.6 MDG Project.
There are 453.59 grams per pound.

PM2.5
0.03
0.02
0.04

G1.1.9 ROG OFF-GASSING FROM ASPHALT PAVING


Proposed Action ROG Off-gassing from Asphalt Paving

Project Component

Area Paved
(square feet)1
(acres)2

Emission Factor
(pounds/acre) 1

Emissions
(pounds/acre) 1

ROG3

ROG

MPWSP Plant

43,560

1.00

2.62

2.62

Road to Terminal Reservoir

24,000

0.55

2.62

1.44

Pump Stations

1,800

0.04

2.62

0.11

Pipelines

6,000

0.14

2.62

0.36

Total

75,360

1.73

2.62

4.53

Notes:
1

It is assumed that 1 acre would be paved per day at the MPWSP Plant, The road to Terminal Reservoir would be
1,200 feet by 20 feet, the pump stations would result in a total of 1,800 square feet of paving, and pipeline installation
could result in up to 6,000 square feet (1,000 feet by 6 feet) of paving per day.
2
There are 43560 square feet per acre.
3

Emission factor source is from CalEEMod, 2013, and is described in terms of volatile organic compounds, which for
the purposes of this analysis is equivalent to reactive organic compounds.

G1.1.10a PROPOSED ACTION EMERGENCY GENERATOR TESTING CRITERIA POLLUTANT EMISSIONS


Criteria Pollutant Emission Factors
Emission Factors (g/bhp-hr)
NOxd
PMe
COc

HPa

Load
Factorb

HCc

1,000

0.74

0.030

2.000

0.150

Emergency Generator - at Desal Plant (Alternative 5)

804

0.74

0.030

2.000

Emergency Generator at Carmel Valley Pump Station

68

0.74

0.100

6.900

Equipment
Emergency Generator - at Desal Plant

Emission Rates (lb/hr)


ROGf

NOx

PM10

PM2.5

CO

0.230

0.062

3.263

0.245

0.226

0.375

0.150

0.230

0.050

2.623

0.197

0.182

0.302

0.150

0.761

0.014

0.765

0.017

0.015

0.084

Notes:
a
Proposed generator at desal plant horsepower is from RBF, 2013, Memorandum - MPWSP Capital and O&M Cost Estimate Update, January 9, 2013, Table 2.
b

Load factors are from CalEEMod.

Emission factors are from Caterpillar specification sheets:


Standby 800 ekW 1,000 kVA 60 Hz 1,800 rpm 480 Volts, Tier 2.
Standby 250 ekW 313 kVA 60 Hz 1,800 rpm 480 Volts, Tier 3.

Standby 50 ekW 50 kVA 60 Hz 1,800 rpm 120 Volts, Tier 3.


Emission factor adjusted per MBUAPCD BACT.

Emission factor adjusted per MBUAPCD Rule 1010.

ROG emission factor based on Offroad database for "other construction equipment". Nox emission factor is conservative; includes Nox+HC

1 kw = 1.340483 hp
A factor of 1.26639 was applied to THC to obtain ROG based on CARB (2000). A factor of 0.92 was applied to PM10 to obtain PM2.5 based on SCAQMD (2006).
Emergency Generator Criteria Pollutant Emissions
Test Duration
Equipment
Emergency Generator - at Desal Plant

Maximum Day (lbs/day)

Annual Average (lbs/day)

hrs/test

test/yr

ROG

NOx

PM10

PM2.5

CO

ROG

NOx

PM10

PM2.5

CO

4.2

12

0.26

13.70

1.03

0.95

1.58

0.01

0.45

0.03

0.03

0.05

Emergency Generator - at Desal Plant (Variant)

4.2

12

0.21

11.02

0.83

0.76

1.27

0.01

0.36

0.03

0.03

0.04

Emergency Generator at Carmel Valley Pump Station

4.2

12

0.06

3.21

0.07

0.06

0.35

0.00

0.11

0.00

0.00

0.01

Total Emergency Generator Emissions for Project

0.32

16.92

1.10

1.02

1.93

0.01

0.56

0.04

0.03

0.06

Total Emergency Generator Emissions for Alternative 5

0.27

14.23

0.90

0.83

1.62

0.01

0.47

0.03

0.03

0.05

It is assumed that each diesel generator would be tested approximately 50 hours per year (4.2 hours per test, 12 tests per year) persuant to Rule 1010.

G1.10b ALTERNATIVE 3 EMERGENCY GENERATOR TESTING CRITERIA POLLUTANT EMISSIONS


Criteria Pollutant Emission Factors

Equipment

HP

Load
Factora

13,405

0.74

MW

Emergency Generator - Natural Gas

10

BACT Emission Factor (g/bhp-hr)b


PMc
HC
NOx
CO
0.150

2.000

2.000

BACT Emission Rates (lb/hr)


ROGd

NOx

4.154

43.737

PM10

PM2.5

CO
43.737

Notes:
a
Load factors are from CalEEMod.
b
c

Emission factors are based on BACT requirements for natural gas engines:

There are no BACT emissions limits for particulate matter in natural gas exhaust, because particulate emissions emission from gas combustion is limited.

ROG emission factor based on Offroad database for "other construction equipment".

1 kw = 1.340483 hp
Emergency Generator Criteria Pollutant Emissions
Test Duration
Equipment

Maximum Day (lbs/day)

Annual Average (lbs/day)

hrs/test

hrs/yr

ROG

NOx

PM10

PM2.5

CO

ROG

NOx

PM10

PM2.5

CO

Emergency Generator 1

5.0

12

20.77

218.69

0.00

0.00

218.69

0.68

7.19

0.00

0.00

7.19

Emergency Generator 2

5.0

12

20.77

218.69

0.00

0.00

218.69

0.68

7.19

0.00

0.00

7.19

Emergency Generator 3

5.0

12

20.77

218.69

0.00

0.00

218.69

0.68

7.19

0.00

0.00

7.19

62.31

656.06

0.00

0.00

656.06

2.05

21.57

0.00

0.00

21.57

Total Emergency Generator Emissions for Project

It is assumed that each generator would be tested approximately 60 hours per year (5.0 hours per test, 12 tests per year).

G1.1.11 GHG CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS


Total Construction GHG Emissions Summary
Project Component
Desalination Plant

CO2e Emissions
(metric tons)
7,087.22

Subsurface Slant Wells

1,880.56

Source Water Pipeline

575.17

Brine Discharge Pipeline

198.02

Castroville Pipeline

271.09

Pipeline to CSIP

189.61

New Desalinated Water Pipeline

571.10

New Transmission Main

873.98

Terminal Reservoir

1,876.08

ASR Pipelines

472.24

ASR Injection and Extraction Wells

866.65

Carmel Valley Pump Station

249.65

Ryan Ranch-Bishop Interconnection

264.03

MainSystem to Hidden Hills


Interconnection
Total Emissions
Amortized Emissions (over 40 years)

198.02
15,573.42
389.34

Desalination Plant
Total Construction Emissions (metric tons)
Source
CO2e
Construction Emissions
7,087.22
Includes offroad and on-road emissions sources.
Total Offroad Equipment Emissions
Source
Off-road Equipment

2018
555.96

CO2e (metric tons)


2019
2020
1,098.33
466.00

Total
2,120.29

See CalEEMod output for equipment use assumptions.

Total On-road Construction GHG Emissions

On-road Sources
Light duty truck
Heavy duty truck

Miles/trip
10
63

Trips
78,221
44,352

Emission Factors
(gram/mile)
CO2
CH4
373.90
0.045
1,663.79
0.005

N2O
0.087
0.005

CO2
292
4,649

Total Emissions
(Metric tons)
CH4
N2O
0.04
0.07
0.01
0.01

Total

4,941

0.05

0.08

CO2e
314
4,653
4,967

See Section 5, Construction Worker Auto and Truck Trips, for trip assumptions. Emission factors are from Emfac2014 (for CO2) and TCR, 2016 (for N2O and CH4). It is assumed
that workers would commute 10 miles to the construction site and truck trips would average 63 miles one-way.

Subsurface Slant Wells


Total Construction Emissions (metric tons)
Source
CO2e
Construction Emissions
1,880.56
Includes offroad and on-road emissions sources.
Total Offroad Equipment Emissions
Source
2018
Off-road Equipment
316.87
See CalEEMod output for equipment use assumptions.

CO2e (metric tons)


2019
2020
439.44

Total
756.31

Total On-road Construction GHG Emissions


Emission Factors
(gram/mile)
CO2
CH4
373.90
0.045
1,663.79
0.005

Total Emissions
(Metric tons)
On-road Sources
Miles/trip
Trips
N2O
CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Light duty truck
10
16,632
0.087
62
0.01
0.01
67
Heavy duty truck
63
10,080
0.005
1,057
0.00
0.00
1,058
Total
1,119
0.01
0.02
1,124
See Section 5, Construction Worker Auto and Truck Trips, for trip assumptions. Emission factors are from Emfac2014 (for CO2) and TCR, 2016 (for N2O and CH4). It is assumed
that workers would commute 10 miles to the construction site and truck trips would average 63 miles one-way.

Source Water Pipeline


Total Construction Emissions (metric tons)
Source
CO2e
Construction Emissions
575.17
Includes offroad and on-road emissions sources.
Total Offroad Equipment Emissions
Source
2018
Off-road Equipment
See CalEEMod output for equipment use assumptions.

CO2e (metric tons)


2019
2020
229.61

Total
229.61

Total On-road Construction GHG Emissions

On-road Sources
Light duty truck
Heavy duty truck

Miles/trip
10
63

Trips
7,056
3,024

Emission Factors
(gram/mile)
CO2
CH4
373.90
0.045
1,663.79
0.005

N2O
0.087
0.005
Total

CO2
26
317
343

Total Emissions
(Metric tons)
CH4
N2O
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01

CO2e
28
317
346

See Section 5, Construction Worker Auto and Truck Trips, for trip assumptions. Emission factors are from Emfac2014 (for CO2) and TCR, 2016 (for N2O and CH4). It is assumed
that workers would commute 10 miles to the construction site and truck trips would average 63 miles one-way.

Brine Discharge Pipeline


Total Construction Emissions (metric tons)
Source
CO2e
Construction Emissions
198.02
Includes offroad and on-road emissions sources.
Total Offroad Equipment Emissions
Source
2018
Off-road Equipment
See CalEEMod output for equipment use assumptions.

CO2e (metric tons)


2019
2020
111.63

Total
111.63

Total On-road Construction GHG Emissions

On-road Sources
Light duty truck
Heavy duty truck

Miles/trip
10
63

Trips
1,764
756

Emission Factors
(gram/mile)
CO2
CH4
373.90
0.045
1,663.79
0.005

N2O
0.087
0.005
Total

CO2
7
79
86

Total Emissions
(Metric tons)
CH4
N2O
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

CO2e
7
79
86

See Section 5, Construction Worker Auto and Truck Trips, for trip assumptions. Emission factors are from Emfac2014 (for CO2) and TCR, 2016 (for N2O and CH4). It is assumed
that workers would commute 10 miles to the construction site and truck trips would average 63 miles one-way.

Castroville Pipeline
Total Construction Emissions (metric tons)
Source
CO2e
Construction Emissions
271.09
Includes offroad and on-road emissions sources.
Total Offroad Equipment Emissions
Source
2018
Off-road Equipment
See CalEEMod output for equipment use assumptions.

CO2e (metric tons)


2019
2020
155.90

Total
155.90

Total On-road Construction GHG Emissions

On-road Sources
Light duty truck
Heavy duty truck

Miles/trip
10
63

Trips
2,352
1,008

Emission Factors
(gram/mile)
CO2
CH4
373.90
0.045
1,663.79
0.005

N2O
0.087
0.005
Total

CO2
9
106
114

Total Emissions
(Metric tons)
CH4
N2O
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

CO2e
9
106
115

See Section 5, Construction Worker Auto and Truck Trips, for trip assumptions. Emission factors are from Emfac2014 (for CO2) and TCR, 2016 (for N2O and CH4). It is assumed
that workers would commute 10 miles to the construction site and truck trips would average 63 miles one-way.

Pipeline to CSIP
Total Construction Emissions (metric tons)
Source
CO2e
Construction Emissions
189.61
Includes offroad and on-road emissions sources.
Total Offroad Equipment Emissions
Source
2018
Off-road Equipment
See CalEEMod output for equipment use assumptions.

CO2e (metric tons)


2019
2020
74.42

Total
74.42

Total On-road Construction GHG Emissions

On-road Sources
Light duty truck
Heavy duty truck

Miles/trip
10
63

Trips
1,176
504

Emission Factors
(gram/mile)
CO2
CH4
373.90
0.045
1,663.79
0.005

N2O
0.087
0.005
Total

CO2
9
106
114

Total Emissions
(Metric tons)
CH4
N2O
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

CO2e
9
106
115

See Section 5, Construction Worker Auto and Truck Trips, for trip assumptions. Emission factors are from Emfac2014 (for CO2) and TCR, 2016 (for N2O and CH4). It is assumed
that workers would commute 10 miles to the construction site and truck trips would average 63 miles one-way.

New Desalinated Water Pipeline (2018)


Total Construction Emissions (metric tons)
Source
CO2e
Construction Emissions
571.10
Includes offroad and on-road emissions sources.
Total Offroad Equipment Emissions
Source
2018
Off-road Equipment
225.54
See CalEEMod output for equipment use assumptions.

CO2e (metric tons)


2019
2020

Total
225.54

Total On-road Construction GHG Emissions

On-road Sources
Light duty truck
Heavy duty truck

Miles/trip
10
63

Trips
7,056
3,024

Emission Factors
(gram/mile)
CO2
CH4
373.90
0.045
1,663.79
0.005

N2O
0.087
0.005

CO2
26
317

Total Emissions
(Metric tons)
CH4
N2O
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00

Total

343

0.00

0.01

CO2e
28
317
346

See Section 5, Construction Worker Auto and Truck Trips, for trip assumptions. Emission factors are from Emfac2014 (for CO2) and TCR, 2016 (for N2O and CH4). It is assumed
that workers would commute 10 miles to the construction site and truck trips would average 63 miles one-way.

New Transmission Main


Total Construction Emissions (metric tons)
Source
CO2e
Construction Emissions
873.98
Includes offroad and on-road emissions sources.
Total Offroad Equipment Emissions
Source
2018
Off-road Equipment
9.51
See CalEEMod output for equipment use assumptions.

CO2e (metric tons)


2019
2020
346.13

Total
355.64

Total On-road Construction GHG Emissions

On-road Sources
Light duty truck
Heavy duty truck

Miles/trip
10
63

Trips
10,584
4,536

Emission Factors
(gram/mile)
CO2
CH4
373.90
0.045
1,663.79
0.005

N2O
0.087
0.005

CO2
40
475

Total Emissions
(Metric tons)
CH4
N2O
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00

Total

515

0.01

0.01

CO2e
42
476
518

See Section 5, Construction Worker Auto and Truck Trips, for trip assumptions. Emission factors are from Emfac2014 (for CO2) and TCR, 2016 (for N2O and CH4). It is assumed
that workers would commute 10 miles to the construction site and truck trips would average 63 miles one-way.

Terminal Reservoir
Total Construction Emissions (metric tons)
Source
CO2e
Construction Emissions
1,876.08
Includes offroad and on-road emissions sources.
Total Offroad Equipment Emissions
Source
2018
Off-road Equipment
194.47
See CalEEMod output for equipment use assumptions.

CO2e (metric tons)


2019
2020
270.73

Total
465.20

Total On-road Construction GHG Emissions

On-road Sources
Light duty truck
Heavy duty truck

Miles/trip
10
63

Trips
22,176
12,600

Emission Factors
(gram/mile)
CO2
CH4
373.90
0.045
1,663.79
0.005

N2O
0.087
0.005

CO2
83
1,321

Total Emissions
(Metric tons)
CH4
N2O
0.01
0.02
0.00
0.00

Total

1,404

0.01

0.02

CO2e
89
1,322
1,411

See Section 5, Construction Worker Auto and Truck Trips, for trip assumptions. Emission factors are from Emfac2014 (for CO2) and TCR, 2016 (for N2O and CH4). It is assumed
that workers would commute 10 miles to the construction site and truck trips would average 63 miles one-way.

ASR Pipelines
Total Construction Emissions (metric tons)
Source
CO2e
Construction Emissions
472.24
Includes offroad and on-road emissions sources.
Total Offroad Equipment Emissions
Source
2018
Off-road Equipment
See CalEEMod output for equipment use assumptions.

CO2e (metric tons)


2019
2020
184.27

Total
184.27

Total On-road Construction GHG Emissions

On-road Sources
Light duty truck
Heavy duty truck

Miles/trip
10
63

Trips
5,880
2,520

Emission Factors
(gram/mile)
CO2
CH4
373.90
0.045
1,663.79
0.005

N2O
0.087
0.005

CO2
22
264

Total Emissions
(Metric tons)
CH4
N2O
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00

Total

286

0.00

0.01

CO2e
24
264
288

See Section 5, Construction Worker Auto and Truck Trips, for trip assumptions. Emission factors are from Emfac2014 (for CO2) and TCR, 2016 (for N2O and CH4). It is assumed
that workers would commute 10 miles to the construction site and truck trips would average 63 miles one-way.

ASR Injection and Extraction Wells


Total Construction Emissions (metric tons)
Source
CO2e
Construction Emissions
866.65
Includes offroad and on-road emissions sources.
Total Offroad Equipment Emissions
Source
2018
Off-road Equipment
163.83
See CalEEMod output for equipment use assumptions.

CO2e (metric tons)


2019
2020
149.92

Total
313.75

Total On-road Construction GHG Emissions

On-road Sources
Light duty truck
Heavy duty truck

Miles/trip
10
63

Trips
11,290
4,838

Emission Factors
(gram/mile)
CO2
CH4
373.90
0.045
1,663.79
0.005

N2O
0.087
0.005

CO2
42
507

Total Emissions
(Metric tons)
CH4
N2O
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00

Total

549

0.01

0.01

CO2e
45
508
553

See Section 5, Construction Worker Auto and Truck Trips, for trip assumptions. Emission factors are from Emfac2014 (for CO2) and TCR, 2016 (for N2O and CH4). It is assumed
that workers would commute 10 miles to the construction site and truck trips would average 63 miles one-way.

Carmel Valley Pump Station


Total Construction Emissions (metric tons)
Source
CO2e
Construction Emissions
249.65
Includes offroad and on-road emissions sources.
Total Offroad Equipment Emissions
Source
2018
Off-road Equipment
See CalEEMod output for equipment use assumptions.

CO2e (metric tons)


2019
2020
111.43

Total
111.43

Total On-road Construction GHG Emissions

On-road Sources
Light duty truck
Heavy duty truck

Miles/trip
10
63

Trips
2,822
1,210

Emission Factors
(gram/mile)
CO2
CH4
373.90
0.045
1,663.79
0.005

N2O
0.087
0.005

CO2
11
127

Total Emissions
(Metric tons)
CH4
N2O
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

Total

137

0.00

0.00

CO2e
11
127
138

See Section 5, Construction Worker Auto and Truck Trips, for trip assumptions. Emission factors are from Emfac2014 (for CO2) and TCR, 2016 (for N2O and CH4). It is assumed
that workers would commute 10 miles to the construction site and truck trips would average 63 miles one-way.

Ryan Ranch-Bishop Interconnection


Total Construction Emissions (metric tons)
Source
CO2e
Construction Emissions
264.03
Includes offroad and on-road emissions sources.
Total Offroad Equipment Emissions
Source
2018
Off-road Equipment
See CalEEMod output for equipment use assumptions.

CO2e (metric tons)


2019
2020
148.84

Total
148.84

Total On-road Construction GHG Emissions

On-road Sources
Light duty truck
Heavy duty truck

Miles/trip
10
63

Trips
2,352
1,008

Emission Factors
(gram/mile)
CO2
CH4
373.90
0.045
1,663.79
0.005

N2O
0.087
0.005

CO2
9
106

Total Emissions
(Metric tons)
CH4
N2O
0
0
0
0

Total

114

0.00

0.00

CO2e
9
106
115

See Section 5, Construction Worker Auto and Truck Trips, for trip assumptions. Emission factors are from Emfac2014 (for CO2) and TCR, 2016 (for N2O and CH4). It is assumed
that workers would commute 10 miles to the construction site and truck trips would average 63 miles one-way.

MainSystem to Hidden Hills Interconnection


Total Construction Emissions (metric tons)
Source
CO2e
Construction Emissions
198.02
Includes offroad and on-road emissions sources.
Total Offroad Equipment Emissions
Source
2018
Off-road Equipment
See CalEEMod output for equipment use assumptions.

CO2e (metric tons)


2019
2020
111.63

Total
111.63

Total On-road Construction GHG Emissions

On-road Sources
Light duty truck
Heavy duty truck

Miles/trip
10
63

Trips
1,764
756

Emission Factors
(gram/mile)
CO2
CH4
373.90
0.045
1,663.79
0.005

N2O
0.087
0.005

CO2
7
79

Total

86

Total Emissions
(Metric tons)
CH4
N2O
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00

CO2e
7
79
86

See Section 5, Construction Worker Auto and Truck Trips, for trip assumptions. Emission factors are from Emfac2014 (for CO2) and TCR, 2016 (for N2O and CH4). It is assumed
that workers would commute 10 miles to the construction site and truck trips would average 63 miles one-way.

Alternative 1 Construction Emissions Increase Compared to Proposed Project


Emissions Source
Proposed Source Water Pipeline

575.17

Alternative Source Water Pipeline

2,013.10

Amortized

CO2e

50.33

Note: the alternative pipeline length would be 3.5 times (7.7 miles / 2.2 miles) longer than the proposed pipeline length.

Alternative 5a Total Construction Emissions (2/3 of Slant Well Emissions)


Emissions Source
Equipment and Vehicle Exhaust
Amortized (40 years)
Proposed Proj. Amortized (40 years)
Emissions Decrease

CO2e
14,946.57
373.66
389
15.67

Alternative 5b Total Construction Emissions (7/9 of Slant Well Emissions and Longer Source Water Pipeline)
Emissions Source
Equipment and Vehicle Exhaust
Amortized (40 years)
Proposed Proj. Amortized (40 years)

CO2e
17,313.41
432.84
389

Emissions Increase

43.50

Increase compared to Alternantive 5a

59.17

G1.1.12 GHG OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS


Total GHG Emissions for Operations of the Proposed Action
Operational Emissions (total metric tons)
Operation Emissions
Source
CO2
N2O
CH4
CO2e
Baseline Electricity
1,508.27
0.03
0.16
1,521.11
Consumption
Electricity
Consumption with
Project
Net Increase in
Electricity
Vehicle Trips
Emergency Generator
Testing
Off-road Equipment
for Slant Well
Maintenance
(amortized over 5
years)
Degassing from
Discharge Water at
the Brine Storage
Loss of Carbon
Sequestration
Total

8,308.83

0.16

0.89

8,379.53

6,800.56

0.13

0.73

6,858.42

233.58

0.020

0.01

239.66

24.86

0.00

0.00

25.09

14.811

0.000

0.002

14.856

735.00

---

---

735.00

107.981

---

---

107.981

7,916.79

0.15

0.74

7,981.01

Total GHG Emissions for Operations of Alternative 5


Operational Emissions (total metric tons)
Operation Emissions
Source
CO2
N2O
CH4
CO2e
Baseline Electricity
Consumption
Electricity
Consumption with
Project
Net Increase in
Electricity
Vehicle Trips
Emergency Generator
Testing
Off-road Equipment
for Slant Well
Maintenance
(amortized over 5
years)
Degassing from
Discharge Water at
the Brine Storage
Basin*
Loss of Carbon
Sequestration
Total

1,508.27

0.03

0.16

1,521.11

5,764.96

0.11

0.62

5,814.02

4,256.69

0.08

0.46

4,292.91

233.58

0.020

0.01

239.66

20.32

0.00

0.00

20.50

10.368

0.000

0.002

10.399

490.00

---

---

490.00

107.981

---

---

107.981

5,118.94

0.10

0.47

5,161.46

Baseline Indirect Emissions from Electricity Consumption


GHGs from Electricity Consumption

GHG
CO2
CH4
N20

Emission
Factor
(lb/kWh)
0.29000
0.000031
0.000006

Electricity
Consumption
kWhr
11,466,000
11,466,000
11,466,000

CO2e*
metric tons
(metric tons)
1,508.27
1,508.27
0.16
4.05
0.03
8.79
Total =
1,521.11

Indirect Emissions from Electricity Consumption


GHGs from Electricity Consumption

GHG
9.6 MGD Proposed Action
CO2
CH4
N20
6.4 MGD Alternative 5
CO2
CH4
N20

Emission
Factor
(lb/kWh)

Electricity
Consumption
kWhr

CO2e*
metric tons

(metric tons)

0.29000
0.000031
0.000006

63,164,310
63,164,310
63,164,310

8,308.83
0.89
0.16
Total =

8,308.83
22.29
48.41
8,379.53

0.29000
0.000031
0.000006

43,825,643
43,825,643
43,825,643

5,764.96
0.62
0.11
Total =

5,764.96
15.47
33.59
5,814.02

Net Increase in Indirect Emissions from Electricity Consumption


GHGs from Electricity Consumption

GHG
9.6 MGD Proposed Action
CO2
CH4
N20
6.4 MGD Alternative 5
CO2
CH4
N20

Emission
Factor
(lb/kWh)

Electricity
Consumption
kWhr

0.29000
0.000031
0.000006

51,698,310
51,698,310
51,698,310

0.29000
0.000031
0.000006

32,359,643
32,359,643
32,359,643

CO2e*
metric tons
6,800.56
0.73
0.13
Total =

(metric tons)
6,800.56
18.24
39.62
6,858.42

4,256.69
4,256.69
0.46
11.42
0.08
24.80
Total =
4,292.91
Notes: The emission factor for CO2 was obtained from PG&E, 2015. Emission factors for CH4 and N2O are from TCR, 2016.
Project baseline and proposed electricity consumption estimates provided by CalAm June 17, 2016.
*Global Warming Potential for CH4 = 25; GWP for N2O = 298 (CARB, 2014).

California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2014. Updated Scoping Report. May 2014.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), 2015. Greenhouse Gas Emission Factors: Guidance for PG&E Customers, November 2015.
The Climate Registry (TCR), 2016. The Climate Registry 2016 Default Emission Factors, April 19, 2016.

Project Mobile Sources

On-road Sources

Miles/trip

One way Trips

CO2

Light duty truck (gas)


Heavy duty truck

10
63

21,900
1,560

342.04
1,614.50

Running Exhaust
Emission Factor
(grams/mile)
CH4
0.045
0.005

N2O

CO2

0.087
0.005

74.91
158.67
233.58

Total Emissions
(Metric tons)
CH4
N2O
0.010
0.001
0.01

0.019
0.000
0.020

CO2e
80.84
158.83
239.66

Notes: See Section 5, Construction Worker Auto and Truck Trips, for trip assumptions. Emission factors are from Emfac2014 (for CO2) and TCR, 2016 (for
N2O and CH4). It is assumed that 30 employees would each generate two light duty truck trips per day; 7 days per week (365 days per year), and that there
would be 3 heavy duty truck deliveries 260 days per year.

Emergency Generator Emissions


GHG Emissions Factors for Diesel Exhaust
Fuel
CO2 (g/gal)
N2O (g/gal)
CH4 (g/gal)
Diesel Fuel
10,210.00
0.26
0.58
Notes: Emission factors obtained from TCR, 2016, Tables 13.1 and 13.7.
Emergency Generator Emissions associated with the Proposed Action

Diesel Fuel Consumptionb


gal/hr
gal/yr

Total Emissions (metric tons)


N2O
CH4
CO2e

Off-Road Equipment

MaxHP

Hrs/yr

Emergency Generator
- at Desal Plant

1,000

50.00

45.40

2,270.00

23.177

0.001

0.001

23.39

Emergency Generator
- at Desal Plant
(Variant)

804

50.00

36.50

1,825.08

18.634

0.000

0.001

18.80

Emergency Generator
at Carnel Valley Pump
Station

68

50.00

3.30

165.00

1.685

0.000

0.000

1.70

2,435.00

24.86

0.00

0.00

25.09

Total Emergency
Generator Emissions
for Project

CO2

Total Emergency
Generator Emissions
for Project Variant
1,990.08
20.32
0.00
0.00
20.50
Assumed at 75 percent load with fan.
a
Proposed generator at desal plant horsepower is from RBF, 2013, Memorandum - MPWSP Capital and O&M Cost Estimate Update, January 9, 2013,
Table 2.
b
Diesel fuel consumption factors are from Caterpillar specification sheets:
Standby 800 ekW 1,000 kVA 60 Hz 1,800 rpm 480 Volts, Tier 2.
Standby 250 ekW 313 kVA 60 Hz 1,800 rpm 480 Volts, Tier 3.
Standby 50 ekW 50 kVA 60 Hz 1,800 rpm 120 Volts, Tier 3.

GHG Emissions Factors for Natural Gas


CO2
(kg/MMBtu) N2O (g/MMBtu) CH4 (g/MMBtu)
Fuel
Diesel Fuel
53.06
0.95
3.8
Notes: Emission factors obtained from TCR, 2016, Tables 13.1 and 12.5.
Emergency Generator Emissions associated with Alternative 3

Off-Road Equipment

MW

Hrs/yr

Natural Gas Consumptionb


MMBtu/yr
scf/MWhr

CO2

Total Emissions (metric tons)


N2O
CH4
CO2e

Emergency Generator
- at Desal Plant
30
60.00
10,147
18,739
994
0.018
0.071
1,001
Generators would be natural gas powered. It is assumed that 1,026 Btu/scf natural gas (TCR, 2016), and that for every 1 MW of power,
10,147 scf of natual gas would be consumed each hour for 3/4 load (DSS, 2016).
Diesel Service and Supply (DSS), 2016. Approximate Natrual Gas Consumption Chart, accessed at:
http://www.dieselserviceandsupply.com/Natural_Gas_Fuel_Consumption.aspx, on July 18, 2016.
Slant Well Maintenance (2025) emissions
Proposed Action
Source
Off-road Equipment
Amortized over 5
years

CO2
74.06
14.81

Total Emissions (metric tons)


CH4
N2O
0.00
0.01
0.00

0.00

CO2e
74.28
14.86

Alternative 5
Source
Off-road Equipment
Amortized over 5
years

CO2
51.84
10.37

Total Emissions (metric tons)


N2O
CH4
0.00
0.01
0.00

0.00

CO2e
52.00
10.40

CO2 Degassing Emissions


Source

CO2 factor
CO2
Change
metric tons/yr
metric tons
from project
Proposed Action - 9.6 MGD
735
735.00
0.00
Alternative 3
95
190.00
-545.00
95
125.40
-609.60
Alternative 4
Alternative 5 - 6.4 MGD
735
490.00
-245.00
735 metric tons represents groundwater (slant well) extraction; 95 metric tons represents open water intake.
Degassing emissions for the Alternative 3 would be open water intake (use [95 metric tons/9.6 mgd]*2).
Degassing emissions for the Alternative 4 would be open water intake (use [95 metric tons/9.6 mgd]*1.32).
Degassing emissions for the 6.4 MGD plant would be 2/3s the degasing emissions of the 9.6 MGD plant.

Long-term Carbon Sequestration


Carbon Uptake for Proposed Action
acres permanently disturbed
CO2
Vegetation Type
Grasslands
Shrub

(MT/acyr)
4.31
14.3

Desal Plant
15
0

Slant Wells
0
1

ASR Wells
0
1

Terminal
C. Valley
Reservoir Pump Sta.
0
0.1
1
0

Notes: CO2 uptake factor obtained from CAPCOA, 2013.


Acres of vegetation removal are based on values identified in EIS/EIR Section 4.6, Terrestrial Biological Resources.

Total
15.1
3
Total

CO2
(MT/yr)
65.081
42.9
107.981

Carbon Uptake for Alternative 3


acres permanently disturbed
CO2
Vegetation Type
Grasslands
Shrub

(MT/acyr)
4.31
14.3

Desal Plant
91
0

Intake Pump
Station
0
0

C. Valley
Terminal
Reservoir Pump Sta.
0
0.1
1
0

Total
91.1
2
Total
Notes: CO2 uptake factor obtained from CAPCOA, 2013.
Difference compared to project
Acres of vegetation removal are based on values identified in EIS/EIR Section 4.6, Terrestrial Biological Resources.
ASR Wells
0
1

CO2
(MT/yr)
392.641
28.6
421.241
313.26

Carbon Uptake for Alternative 4


acres permanently disturbed
CO2
Vegetation Type
Grasslands
Shrub

(MT/acyr)
4.31
14.3

Desal Plant
0
0

Intake Pump
Station
0
0

ASR Wells
0
1

Terminal
C. Valley
Reservoir Pump Sta.
0
0.1
1
0

Total
0.1
2
Total
Notes: CO2 uptake factor obtained from CAPCOA, 2013.
Difference compared to project
Acres of vegetation removal are based on values identified in EIS/EIR Section 4.6, Terrestrial Biological Resources.

Total Proposed Project Amortized Operation and Construction Emissions


Total CO2e Emissions (metric tons)
Source
Operation
Construction
Total
Proposed Project

7,981.01

389.34

Alternative 5

5,161.46

373.66

5,535.12

Difference

2,835.23

8,370.35

CO2
(MT/yr)
0.431
28.6
29.031
78.95

G1.1.13 EMFAC 2014 ON-ROAD EMISSION FACTORS


EMFAC2014 (v1.0.7) Emission Rates
Region Type: County
Region: Monterey
Calendar Year: 2018
Season: Annual
Vehicle Classification: EMFAC2011 Categories
Units: miles/day for VMT, trips/day for Trips, g/mile for RUNEX, PMBW and PMTW

Region
Monterey
Monterey

CalYr

VehClass

2018 LDT1
T7 single
2018 construction

MdlYr
Aggregated
Aggregated

Speed Fuel
Aggreg
ated
GAS
Aggreg
DSL
ated

Populati
on
VMT

ROG_
RUNE CO_RU NOx_R CO2_R PM10_ PM10_ PM10_ PM2_5_ PM2_5_ PM2_5_
X
NEX
UNEX UNEX RUNEX PMTW PMBW RUNEX PMTW PMBW

Trips

373.9

0.0036

0.008

0.0368

0.00331

0.002 0.01575

5.426 1663.8

0.0373

0.036

0.0617

0.03567

0.009 0.02646

9518.7 340980.3 57551 0.0823 2.4773 0.2714


39.989 3653.145

0 0.1428 0.5447

EMFAC2014 (v1.0.7) Emission Rates


Region Type: County
Region: Monterey
Calendar Year: 2021
Season: Annual
Vehicle Classification: EMFAC2011 Categories
Units: miles/day for VMT, trips/day for Trips, g/mile for RUNEX, PMBW and PMTW

Region
Monterey
Monterey

CalYr

VehClass

2021 LDT1
T7 single
2021 construction

MdlYr
Aggregated
Aggregated

Speed Fuel
Aggreg
GAS
ated
Aggreg
DSL
ated

Populati
on
VMT

ROG_
RUNE CO_RU NOx_R CO2_R PM10_ PM10_ PM10_ PM2_5_ PM2_5_ PM2_5_
X
NEX
UNEX UNEX RUNEX PMTW PMBW RUNEX PMTW PMBW

Trips

8117.6 303291.3 49250


41.508 3965.606

0.046 1.6776 0.1896 342.04

0 0.1016 0.4327

3.661 1614.5

0.0031

0.008

0.0368

0.00281

0.002 0.01575

0.017

0.036

0.0617

0.01624

0.009 0.02646

G1.2 CALEEMOD OUTPUT - ANNUAL EMISSIONS


CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2

Page 1 of 1

Date: 6/24/2016 3:17 PM

Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Monterey County, Annual

1.0 Project Characteristics


1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses

Size

Metric

Lot Acreage

Floor Surface Area

Population

General Heavy Industry

0.00

1000sqft

15.00

0.00

1.2 Other Project Characteristics


Urbanization

Urban

Climate Zone

Utility Company

Pacific Gas & Electric Company

CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)

641.35

Wind Speed (m/s)

CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)

2.8

0.029

Precipitation Freq (Days)

55

Operational Year

2020

N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)

0.006

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data


Project Characteristics Land Use - Land use duty entered here is not relevent to the model run, and only serves the purpose of allowing data to be entered for the construction
phase. Note that operational emissions are estimated outside of CalEEMod
Construction Phase - See Appendix Sections 5, Construction Trips, and 6, MPWSP Estimated Construction Phasing, for additional information about
phasing of construction actvitities and total workdays.
Off-road Equipment - Hour/day assumptions are presented in Appendix G.
Off-road Equipment - project specific assumptions have been entered.
Off-road Equipment - Refer to "Average Daily Offroad Construction Equipment Hours For CalEEMod" for equipment unit amounts, hours, and hp
assumptions.
Off-road Equipment - project information based on project assumptions

Off-road Equipment - Refer to "Average Daily Offroad Construction Equipment Hours for CalEEMod Input" for unit amount, hours/day, and hp assumptions.
Off-road Equipment - See "Average Daily Offroad Construction Equipment Hours for CalEEMod Input" for assumptions regarding unit amounts, hour/day,
and hp.
Off-road Equipment - See construction equipment hours assumption in Appendix G
Trips and VMT - Worker and haul trips are estimated outside of CalEEMod using Emfac 2014 emission factors
Grading - Fugitive dust emissions are estimated outside of CalEEMod.
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Mitigation for off-road equipment is to have engines that meet at least tier 3 emissions requirements.
Off-road Equipment - Slant well maintenance would occur every 5 years after start of operations.
Table Name

Column Name

Default Value

New Value

tblConstEquipMitigation

NumberOfEquipmentMitigated

0.00

6.00

tblConstEquipMitigation

NumberOfEquipmentMitigated

0.00

20.00

tblConstEquipMitigation

NumberOfEquipmentMitigated

0.00

15.00

tblConstEquipMitigation

NumberOfEquipmentMitigated

0.00

4.00

tblConstEquipMitigation

NumberOfEquipmentMitigated

0.00

18.00

tblConstEquipMitigation

NumberOfEquipmentMitigated

0.00

5.00

tblConstEquipMitigation

NumberOfEquipmentMitigated

0.00

3.00

tblConstEquipMitigation

NumberOfEquipmentMitigated

0.00

4.00

tblConstEquipMitigation

NumberOfEquipmentMitigated

0.00

15.00

tblConstEquipMitigation

NumberOfEquipmentMitigated

0.00

16.00

tblConstEquipMitigation

NumberOfEquipmentMitigated

0.00

16.00

tblConstEquipMitigation

NumberOfEquipmentMitigated

0.00

16.00

tblConstEquipMitigation

Tier

No Change

Tier 3

tblConstEquipMitigation

Tier

No Change

Tier 3

tblConstEquipMitigation

Tier

No Change

Tier 3

tblConstEquipMitigation

Tier

No Change

Tier 3

tblConstEquipMitigation

Tier

No Change

Tier 3

tblConstEquipMitigation

Tier

No Change

Tier 3

tblConstEquipMitigation

Tier

No Change

Tier 3

tblConstEquipMitigation

Tier

No Change

Tier 3

tblConstEquipMitigation

Tier

No Change

Tier 3

tblConstEquipMitigation

Tier

No Change

Tier 3

tblConstEquipMitigation

Tier

No Change

Tier 3

tblConstEquipMitigation

Tier

No Change

Tier 3

tblConstEquipMitigation

Tier

No Change

Tier 3

tblConstructionPhase

NumDays

10.00

104.00

tblConstructionPhase

NumDays

10.00

126.00

tblConstructionPhase

NumDays

10.00

126.00

tblConstructionPhase

NumDays

10.00

84.00

tblConstructionPhase

NumDays

10.00

63.00

tblConstructionPhase

NumDays

10.00

42.00

tblConstructionPhase

NumDays

10.00

84.00

tblConstructionPhase

NumDays

10.00

63.00

tblConstructionPhase

NumDays

10.00

315.00

tblConstructionPhase

NumDays

10.00

504.00

tblConstructionPhase

NumDays

10.00

126.00

tblConstructionPhase

NumDays

10.00

315.00

tblConstructionPhase

NumDays

10.00

252.00

tblConstructionPhase

NumDays

10.00

315.00

tblConstructionPhase

NumDays

10.00

189.00

tblConstructionPhase

NumDays

10.00

126.00

tblConstructionPhase

NumDays

10.00

91.00

tblConstructionPhase

PhaseEndDate

11/20/2019

8/24/2019

tblConstructionPhase

PhaseEndDate

12/19/2019

6/26/2019

tblConstructionPhase

PhaseEndDate

12/19/2019

6/26/2019

tblConstructionPhase

PhaseEndDate

10/22/2019

6/27/2019

tblConstructionPhase

PhaseEndDate

11/20/2019

6/27/2019

tblConstructionPhase

PhaseEndDate

8/26/2019

6/28/2019

tblConstructionPhase

PhaseEndDate

1/21/2020

9/25/2019

tblConstructionPhase

PhaseEndDate

8/19/2021

6/4/2020

tblConstructionPhase

PhaseEndDate

11/27/2020

12/24/2018

tblConstructionPhase

PhaseEndDate

3/9/2020

9/13/2019

tblConstructionPhase

PhaseEndDate

9/1/2020

6/18/2019

tblConstructionPhase

PhaseEndDate

9/1/2020

9/13/2019

tblConstructionPhase

PhaseEndDate

6/4/2020

9/13/2019

tblConstructionPhase

PhaseEndDate

3/9/2020

6/26/2019

tblConstructionPhase

PhaseEndDate

1/30/2020

2/4/2026

tblConstructionPhase

PhaseStartDate

6/28/2019

4/2/2019

tblConstructionPhase

PhaseStartDate

6/27/2019

1/2/2019

tblConstructionPhase

PhaseStartDate

6/27/2019

1/2/2019

tblConstructionPhase

PhaseStartDate

6/27/2019

3/2/2019

tblConstructionPhase

PhaseStartDate

8/25/2019

4/2/2019

tblConstructionPhase

PhaseStartDate

6/28/2019

5/2/2019

tblConstructionPhase

PhaseStartDate

6/29/2019

7/1/2019

tblConstructionPhase

PhaseStartDate

10/25/2019

7/1/2019

tblConstructionPhase

PhaseStartDate

9/14/2019

7/2/2018

tblConstructionPhase

PhaseStartDate

6/5/2020

7/2/2018

tblConstructionPhase

PhaseStartDate

12/25/2018

7/2/2018

tblConstructionPhase

PhaseStartDate

9/14/2019

7/2/2018

tblConstructionPhase

PhaseStartDate

6/19/2019

7/2/2018

tblConstructionPhase

PhaseStartDate

9/14/2019

12/25/2018

tblConstructionPhase

PhaseStartDate

9/14/2019

1/2/2019

tblConstructionPhase

PhaseStartDate

9/26/2019

10/1/2025

tblGrading

AcresOfGrading

2.36

0.00

tblGrading

AcresOfGrading

2.36

0.00

tblGrading

AcresOfGrading

31.50

0.00

tblGrading

AcresOfGrading

21.66

0.00

tblGrading

AcresOfGrading

3.15

0.00

tblLandUse

LotAcreage

0.00

15.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

97.00

150.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

97.00

150.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

97.00

150.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

97.00

150.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

97.00

150.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

97.00

150.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

97.00

150.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

97.00

150.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

97.00

150.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

97.00

150.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

97.00

150.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

97.00

150.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

97.00

150.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

97.00

150.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

97.00

150.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

205.00

350.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

205.00

350.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

205.00

350.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

205.00

350.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

205.00

350.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

205.00

350.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

226.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

226.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

226.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

226.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

226.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

226.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

226.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

226.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

226.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

226.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

226.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

226.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

226.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

226.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

226.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

226.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

162.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

162.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

162.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

162.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

162.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

162.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

162.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

162.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

162.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

162.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

162.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

162.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

162.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

162.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

89.00

150.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

84.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

84.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

84.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

84.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

84.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

84.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

84.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

84.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

84.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

84.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

84.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

84.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

84.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

84.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

84.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

84.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

174.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

174.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

174.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

174.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

174.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

122.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

122.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

122.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

400.00

350.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

400.00

350.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

400.00

350.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

400.00

350.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

125.00

160.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

125.00

160.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

125.00

160.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

125.00

160.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

125.00

160.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

125.00

160.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

125.00

160.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

125.00

160.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

125.00

160.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

125.00

160.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

125.00

160.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

125.00

160.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

125.00

160.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

125.00

160.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

125.00

160.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

80.00

90.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

80.00

90.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

80.00

90.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

80.00

90.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

80.00

90.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

80.00

90.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

80.00

90.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

80.00

90.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

80.00

90.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

80.00

90.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

80.00

90.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

80.00

90.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

80.00

90.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

80.00

90.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

80.00

90.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

199.00

90.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

199.00

90.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

199.00

90.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

199.00

90.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

199.00

90.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

199.00

90.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

199.00

90.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

199.00

90.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

199.00

90.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

199.00

90.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

199.00

90.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

199.00

90.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

199.00

90.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

199.00

90.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

199.00

90.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

80.00

150.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

174.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

226.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

199.00

90.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

84.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

OffRoadEquipmentType

Graders

tblOffRoadEquipment

OffRoadEquipmentType

Cranes

tblOffRoadEquipment

OffRoadEquipmentType

Rubber Tired Loaders

tblOffRoadEquipment

OffRoadEquipmentType

Generator Sets

tblOffRoadEquipment

OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount

4.00

1.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount

4.00

1.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount

4.00

1.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount

4.00

1.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount

4.00

1.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount

4.00

1.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount

4.00

1.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount

4.00

1.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount

4.00

2.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount

4.00

1.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount

4.00

1.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount

4.00

1.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount

4.00

1.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount

4.00

1.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount

4.00

1.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

PhaseName

Slant Well Maintenance

tblOffRoadEquipment

PhaseName

Slant Well Maintenance

tblOffRoadEquipment

PhaseName

Slant Well Maintenance

tblOffRoadEquipment

PhaseName

Slant Well Maintenance

tblOffRoadEquipment

UsageHours

8.00

2.70

tblOffRoadEquipment

UsageHours

8.00

2.70

tblOffRoadEquipment

UsageHours

8.00

11.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

UsageHours

8.00

6.90

tblOffRoadEquipment

UsageHours

8.00

1.30

tblProjectCharacteristics

OperationalYear

2014

2020

tblTripsAndVMT

WorkerTripNumber

18.00

0.00

tblTripsAndVMT

WorkerTripNumber

18.00

0.00

tblTripsAndVMT

WorkerTripNumber

18.00

0.00

tblTripsAndVMT

WorkerTripNumber

20.00

0.00

tblTripsAndVMT

WorkerTripNumber

18.00

0.00

tblTripsAndVMT

WorkerTripNumber

18.00

0.00

tblTripsAndVMT

WorkerTripNumber

18.00

0.00

tblTripsAndVMT

WorkerTripNumber

18.00

0.00

tblTripsAndVMT

WorkerTripNumber

18.00

0.00

tblTripsAndVMT

WorkerTripNumber

53.00

0.00

tblTripsAndVMT

WorkerTripNumber

18.00

0.00

tblTripsAndVMT

WorkerTripNumber

28.00

0.00

tblTripsAndVMT

WorkerTripNumber

30.00

0.00

tblTripsAndVMT

WorkerTripNumber

20.00

0.00

tblTripsAndVMT

WorkerTripNumber

20.00

0.00

tblTripsAndVMT

WorkerTripNumber

20.00

0.00

2.0 Emissions Summary


2.1 Overall Construction
Unmitigated Construction

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

Year

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

tons/yr

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

CH4

N2O

CO2e

MT/yr

2018

1.1309

12.7563

6.8258

0.0000

0.5368

0.5368

0.0000

0.5015

0.5015

1,702.4164

0.3429

0.0000

1,709.6169

2019

2.3570

25.5664

15.5740

0.0000

1.0914

1.0914

0.0000

1.0202

1.0202

3,866.0339

0.7642

0.0000

3,882.0818

2020

0.2644

2.7702

1.8959

0.0000

0.1143

0.1143

0.0000

0.1072

0.1072

464.2369

0.0838

0.0000

465.9964

2025

0.0310

0.2732

0.2079

0.0101

0.0101

9.5000e003

9.5000e003

74.0572

0.0106

0.0000

74.2799

2026

0.0117

0.1035

0.0787

3.8300e003

3.8300e003

3.6000e003

3.6000e003

28.0520

4.0200e003

0.0000

28.1363

Total

3.7951

41.4694

24.5822

0.0000

1.7565

1.7565

0.0000

1.6419

1.6419

6,134.7964

1.2055

0.0000

6,160.1114

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

CH4

N2O

CO2e

0.3429

0.0000

1,709.6149

Mitigated Construction

ROG

NOx

CO

Year

2018

SO2

tons/yr

0.4805

8.8508

10.4793

0.0000

0.3772

MT/yr

0.3772

0.0000

0.3745

0.3745

1,702.4144

2019

1.0566

19.9649

24.2794

0.0000

0.8650

0.8650

0.0000

0.8612

0.8612

3,866.0293

0.7642

0.0000

3,882.0772

2020

0.1195

2.3187

2.9612

0.0000

0.0974

0.0974

0.0000

0.0974

0.0974

464.2363

0.0838

0.0000

465.9959

2025

0.0186

0.3657

0.4178

0.0150

0.0150

0.0150

0.0150

74.0571

0.0106

0.0000

74.2798

2026

7.0600e003

0.1385

0.1582

5.6700e003

5.6700e003

5.6700e003

5.6700e003

28.0519

4.0200e003

0.0000

28.1363

Total

1.6822

31.6387

38.2959

0.0000

1.3602

1.3602

0.0000

1.3538

1.3538

6,134.7891

1.2055

0.0000

6,160.1040

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

CH4

N20

CO2e

55.67

23.71

-55.79

0.00

0.00

22.56

22.56

0.00

17.55

17.55

0.00

0.00

0.00

Percent
Reduction

Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2

0.00

0.00

0.00

3.0 Construction Detail


Construction Phase
Phase
Number

Phase Name

Phase Type

Start Date

End Date

Num Days Num Days


Week

Subsurface Slant Wells (9 wells) Site Preparation

7/2/2018

9/13/2019

315

Desalination Plant

Site Preparation

7/2/2018

6/4/2020

504

New Desalinated Water Pipeline Site Preparation

7/2/2018

12/24/2018

126

Terminal Reservoir

Site Preparation

7/2/2018

9/13/2019

315

ASR Injection/Extraction Wells

Site Preparation

7/2/2018

6/18/2019

252

New Monterey Pipeline

Site Preparation

7/2/2018

9/13/2019

315

New Transmission Main Pipeline Site Preparation

12/25/2018

9/13/2019

189

Source Water Pipeline

Site Preparation

1/2/2019

6/26/2019

126

Carmel Valley Pump Station

Site Preparation

1/2/2019

6/26/2019

126

10

Monterey Pump Station

Site Preparation

1/2/2019

6/26/2019

126

11

Castroville Pipeline

Site Preparation

3/2/2019

6/27/2019

84

12

ASR Pipelines (ASR


Site Preparation
Conveyance, ASR Redisribution,
Brine Discharge Pipeline
Site Preparation

4/2/2019

8/24/2019

104

4/2/2019

6/27/2019

63

13

Phase Description

14

Pipeline to CSIP Pond

Site Preparation

5/2/2019

6/28/2019

42

15

Site Preparation

7/1/2019

10/24/2019

84

16

Ryan Ranch-Bishop
Interconnection
Main System to Hidden Hills

Site Preparation

7/1/2019

9/25/2019

63

17

Slant Well Maintenance

Site Preparation

10/1/2025

2/4/2026

91

Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0


Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0
Acres of Paving: 0
Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0 (Architectural Coating sqft)
OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name

Offroad Equipment Type

Amount

Usage Hours

Horse Power

Load Factor

ASR Pipelines (ASR Conveyance, ASR Cranes


Redisribution, and ASR Pump-toWaste pipelines)

6.00

200

0.29

ASR Pipelines (ASR Conveyance, ASR Excavators


Redisribution, and ASR Pump-toWaste pipelines)

8.00

200

0.38

ASR Pipelines (ASR Conveyance, ASR Generator Sets


Redisribution, and ASR Pump-toWaste pipelines)

8.00

200

0.74

ASR Pipelines (ASR Conveyance, ASR Pavers


Redisribution, and ASR Pump-toWaste pipelines)
ASR Pipelines (ASR Conveyance, ASR Rollers
Redisribution, and ASR Pump-toWaste pipelines)
ASR Pipelines (ASR Conveyance, ASR Rubber Tired Loaders
Redisribution, and ASR Pump-toWaste pipelines)

6.00

160

0.42

6.00

90

0.38

8.00

90

0.36

ASR Pipelines (ASR Conveyance, ASR Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes


Redisribution, and ASR Pump-toWaste pipelines)

8.00

150

0.37

Subsurface Slant Wells (9 wells)

Bore/Drill Rigs

6.90

350

0.50

Subsurface Slant Wells (9 wells)

Cranes

12.00

200

0.29

Subsurface Slant Wells (9 wells)

Excavators

3.40

200

0.38

Subsurface Slant Wells (9 wells)

Generator Sets

3.40

200

0.74

Subsurface Slant Wells (9 wells)

Trenchers

12.00

150

0.50

Desalination Plant

Cranes

11.00

200

0.29

Desalination Plant

Excavators

1.00

200

0.38

Desalination Plant

Forklifts

11.00

150

0.20

Desalination Plant

Generator Sets

12.00

200

0.74

Desalination Plant

Graders

1.00

200

0.41

Desalination Plant

Off-Highway Tractors

1.00

200

0.44

Desalination Plant

Off-Highway Trucks

1.00

350

0.38

Desalination Plant

Off-Highway Trucks

0.30

350

0.38

Desalination Plant

Pavers

0.50

160

0.42

Desalination Plant

Rollers

1.50

90

0.38

Desalination Plant

Rubber Tired Loaders

1.00

90

0.36

Desalination Plant

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes

11.00

150

0.37

New Desalinated Water Pipeline

Cranes

6.00

200

0.29

New Desalinated Water Pipeline

Excavators

8.00

200

0.38

New Desalinated Water Pipeline

Generator Sets

8.00

200

0.74

New Desalinated Water Pipeline

Pavers

6.00

160

0.42

New Desalinated Water Pipeline

Rollers

6.00

90

0.38

New Desalinated Water Pipeline

Rubber Tired Loaders

8.00

90

0.36

New Desalinated Water Pipeline

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes

8.00

150

0.37

Terminal Reservoir

Cranes

6.90

200

0.29

Terminal Reservoir

Excavators

1.10

200

0.38

Terminal Reservoir

Generator Sets

8.00

200

0.74

Terminal Reservoir

Graders

1.10

200

0.41

Terminal Reservoir

Off-Highway Tractors

1.10

200

0.44

Terminal Reservoir

Off-Highway Trucks

0.50

350

0.38

Terminal Reservoir

Pavers

0.50

160

0.42

Terminal Reservoir

Rollers

1.60

90

0.38

Terminal Reservoir

Rubber Tired Loaders

1.10

90

0.36

Terminal Reservoir

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes

6.90

150

0.37

ASR Injection/Extraction Wells

Bore/Drill Rigs

3.80

350

0.50

ASR Injection/Extraction Wells

Cranes

1.30

200

0.29

ASR Injection/Extraction Wells

Excavators

1.30

200

0.38

ASR Injection/Extraction Wells

Generator Sets

6.70

200

0.74

ASR Injection/Extraction Wells

Graders

0.20

200

0.41

ASR Injection/Extraction Wells

Off-Highway Tractors

1.30

200

0.44

ASR Injection/Extraction Wells

Off-Highway Trucks

1.30

350

0.38

ASR Injection/Extraction Wells

Pavers

0.20

160

0.42

ASR Injection/Extraction Wells

Rollers

1.50

90

0.38

ASR Injection/Extraction Wells

Rubber Tired Loaders

1.30

90

0.36

ASR Injection/Extraction Wells

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes

1.30

150

0.37

New Monterey Pipeline

Bore/Drill Rigs

0.80

350

0.50

New Monterey Pipeline

Cranes

6.00

200

0.29

New Monterey Pipeline

Excavators

8.00

200

0.38

New Monterey Pipeline

Generator Sets

8.00

200

0.74

New Monterey Pipeline

Pavers

6.00

160

0.42

New Monterey Pipeline

Rollers

6.00

90

0.38

New Monterey Pipeline

Rubber Tired Loaders

8.00

90

0.36

New Monterey Pipeline

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes

8.00

150

0.37

New Transmission Main Pipeline

Bore/Drill Rigs

1.30

350

0.50

New Transmission Main Pipeline

Cranes

6.00

200

0.29

New Transmission Main Pipeline

Excavators

8.00

200

0.38

New Transmission Main Pipeline

Generator Sets

8.00

200

0.74

New Transmission Main Pipeline

Pavers

6.00

160

0.42

New Transmission Main Pipeline

Rollers

6.00

90

0.38

New Transmission Main Pipeline

Rubber Tired Loaders

8.00

90

0.36

New Transmission Main Pipeline

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes

8.00

150

0.37

Source Water Pipeline

Bore/Drill Rigs

0.60

350

0.50

Source Water Pipeline

Cranes

6.00

200

0.29

Source Water Pipeline

Excavators

8.00

200

0.38

Source Water Pipeline

Generator Sets

8.00

200

0.74

Source Water Pipeline

Pavers

6.00

160

0.42

Source Water Pipeline

Rollers

6.00

90

0.38

Source Water Pipeline

Rubber Tired Loaders

8.00

90

0.36

Source Water Pipeline

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes

8.00

150

0.37

Carmel Valley Pump Station

Cranes

1.30

200

0.29

Carmel Valley Pump Station

Generator Sets

8.00

200

0.74

Carmel Valley Pump Station

Graders

0.30

200

0.41

Carmel Valley Pump Station

Pavers

0.10

160

0.42

Carmel Valley Pump Station

Rollers

2.70

90

0.38

Carmel Valley Pump Station

Rubber Tired Loaders

2.70

90

0.36

Carmel Valley Pump Station

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes

2.70

150

0.37

Monterey Pump Station

Cranes

1.30

200

0.29

Monterey Pump Station

Generator Sets

8.00

200

0.74

Monterey Pump Station

Graders

0.30

200

0.41

Monterey Pump Station

Pavers

0.10

160

0.42

Monterey Pump Station

Rollers

2.70

90

0.38

Monterey Pump Station

Rubber Tired Loaders

2.70

90

0.36

Monterey Pump Station

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes

2.70

150

0.37

Castroville Pipeline

Bore/Drill Rigs

1.00

350

0.50

Castroville Pipeline

Cranes

6.00

200

0.29

Castroville Pipeline

Excavators

8.00

200

0.38

Castroville Pipeline

Generator Sets

8.00

200

0.74

Castroville Pipeline

Pavers

6.00

160

0.42

Castroville Pipeline

Rollers

6.00

90

0.38

Castroville Pipeline

Rubber Tired Loaders

8.00

90

0.36

Castroville Pipeline

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes

8.00

150

0.37

Brine Discharge Pipeline

Cranes

6.00

200

0.29

Brine Discharge Pipeline

Excavators

8.00

200

0.38

Brine Discharge Pipeline

Generator Sets

8.00

200

0.74

Brine Discharge Pipeline

Pavers

6.00

160

0.42

Brine Discharge Pipeline

Rollers

6.00

90

0.38

Brine Discharge Pipeline

Rubber Tired Loaders

8.00

90

0.36

Brine Discharge Pipeline

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes

8.00

150

0.37

Pipeline to CSIP Pond

Cranes

6.00

200

0.29

Pipeline to CSIP Pond

Excavators

8.00

200

0.38

Pipeline to CSIP Pond

Generator Sets

8.00

200

0.74

Pipeline to CSIP Pond

Pavers

6.00

160

0.42

Pipeline to CSIP Pond

Rollers

6.00

90

0.38

Pipeline to CSIP Pond

Rubber Tired Loaders

8.00

90

0.36

Pipeline to CSIP Pond

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes

8.00

150

0.37

Ryan Ranch-Bishop Interconnection

Cranes

6.00

200

0.29

Ryan Ranch-Bishop Interconnection

Excavators

8.00

200

0.38

Ryan Ranch-Bishop Interconnection

Generator Sets

8.00

200

0.74

Ryan Ranch-Bishop Interconnection

Pavers

6.00

160

0.42

Ryan Ranch-Bishop Interconnection

Rollers

6.00

90

0.38

Ryan Ranch-Bishop Interconnection

Rubber Tired Loaders

8.00

90

0.36

Ryan Ranch-Bishop Interconnection

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes

8.00

150

0.37

Main System to Hidden Hills

Cranes

6.00

200

0.29

Main System to Hidden Hills

Excavators

8.00

200

0.38

Main System to Hidden Hills

Generator Sets

8.00

200

0.74

Main System to Hidden Hills

Pavers

6.00

160

0.42

Main System to Hidden Hills

Rollers

6.00

90

0.38

Main System to Hidden Hills

Rubber Tired Loaders

8.00

90

0.36

Main System to Hidden Hills

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes

8.00

150

0.37

Slant Well Maintenance

Graders

5.30

200

0.41

Slant Well Maintenance

Cranes

6.00

200

0.29

Slant Well Maintenance

Rubber Tired Loaders

5.30

90

0.36

Slant Well Maintenance

Generator Sets

8.00

200

0.74

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction


Use Cleaner Engines for Construction Equipment

3.2 Subsurface Slant Wells (9 wells) - 2018


Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

Category

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

tons/yr

Fugitive Dust

0.0000

Off-Road

0.2221

2.6032

1.2372

Total

0.2221

2.6032

1.2372

CH4

N2O

CO2e

MT/yr

0.0000

0.0000

0.1067

0.1067

0.0000

0.1067

0.1067

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0990

0.0990

315.2462

0.0775

0.0000

316.8727

0.0000

0.0990

0.0990

315.2462

0.0775

0.0000

316.8727

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

CH4

N2O

CO2e

Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

Category

SO2

tons/yr

Fugitive Dust

0.0000

Off-Road

0.1281

1.9610

1.8838

Total

0.1281

1.9610

1.8838

0.0000

MT/yr

0.0000

0.0000

0.0831

0.0831

0.0831

0.0831

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0804

0.0804

315.2458

0.0775

0.0000

316.8723

0.0804

0.0804

315.2458

0.0775

0.0000

316.8723

3.2 Subsurface Slant Wells (9 wells) - 2019


Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

Category

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

tons/yr

Fugitive Dust

0.0000

Off-Road

0.2888

3.3046

1.6818

Total

0.2888

3.3046

1.6818

CH4

N2O

CO2e

MT/yr

0.0000

0.0000

0.1357

0.1357

0.0000

0.1357

0.1357

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.1259

0.1259

437.1615

0.1085

0.0000

439.4408

0.0000

0.1259

0.1259

437.1615

0.1085

0.0000

439.4408

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

CH4

N2O

CO2e

Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

Category

SO2

tons/yr

Fugitive Dust

0.0000

Off-Road

0.1780

2.7237

2.6478

Total

0.1780

2.7237

2.6478

0.0000

MT/yr

0.0000

0.0000

0.1155

0.1155

0.1155

0.1155

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.1117

0.1117

437.1610

0.1085

0.0000

439.4403

0.1117

0.1117

437.1610

0.1085

0.0000

439.4403

3.3 Desalination Plant - 2018


Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

Category

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

tons/yr

Fugitive Dust

0.0000

Off-Road

0.3732

4.1697

2.3235

Total

0.3732

4.1697

2.3235

CH4

N2O

CO2e

MT/yr

0.0000

0.0000

0.1750

0.1750

0.0000

0.1750

0.1750

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.1640

0.1640

553.8724

0.0994

0.0000

555.9601

0.0000

0.1640

0.1640

553.8724

0.0994

0.0000

555.9601

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

CH4

N2O

CO2e

Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

Category

SO2

tons/yr

Fugitive Dust

0.0000

Off-Road

0.1398

2.7120

3.4635

Total

0.1398

2.7120

3.4635

3.3 Desalination Plant - 2019


Unmitigated Construction On-Site

0.0000

MT/yr

0.0000

0.0000

0.1139

0.1139

0.1139

0.1139

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.1139

0.1139

553.8718

0.0994

0.0000

555.9594

0.1139

0.1139

553.8718

0.0994

0.0000

555.9594

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

Category

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

tons/yr

Fugitive Dust

0.0000

Off-Road

0.6746

7.3146

4.5108

Total

0.6746

7.3146

4.5108

CH4

N2O

CO2e

MT/yr

0.0000

0.0000

0.3046

0.3046

0.0000

0.3046

0.3046

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.2855

0.2855

1,094.1864

0.1971

0.0000

1,098.3257

0.0000

0.2855

0.2855

1,094.1864

0.1971

0.0000

1,098.3257

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

CH4

N2O

CO2e

Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

Category

SO2

tons/yr

Fugitive Dust

0.0000

Off-Road

0.2784

5.4033

6.9005

Total

0.2784

5.4033

6.9005

0.0000

MT/yr

0.0000

0.0000

0.2270

0.2270

0.2270

0.2270

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.2270

0.2270

1,094.1851

0.1971

0.0000

1,098.3244

0.2270

0.2270

1,094.1851

0.1971

0.0000

1,098.3244

3.3 Desalination Plant - 2020


Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

Category

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

tons/yr

Fugitive Dust

0.0000

Off-Road

0.2644

2.7702

1.8959

Total

0.2644

2.7702

1.8959

CH4

N2O

CO2e

MT/yr

0.0000

0.0000

0.1143

0.1143

0.0000

0.1143

0.1143

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.1072

0.1072

464.2369

0.0838

0.0000

465.9964

0.0000

0.1072

0.1072

464.2369

0.0838

0.0000

465.9964

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

CH4

N2O

CO2e

Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

Category

SO2

tons/yr

Fugitive Dust

0.0000

Off-Road

0.1195

2.3187

2.9612

Total

0.1195

2.3187

2.9612

0.0000

MT/yr

0.0000

0.0000

0.0974

0.0974

0.0974

0.0974

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0974

0.0974

464.2363

0.0838

0.0000

465.9959

0.0974

0.0974

464.2363

0.0838

0.0000

465.9959

3.4 New Desalinated Water Pipeline - 2018


Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

Category

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

tons/yr

Fugitive Dust

0.0000

Off-Road

0.1522

1.6574

0.9851

Total

0.1522

1.6574

0.9851

CH4

N2O

CO2e

MT/yr

0.0000

0.0000

0.0761

0.0761

0.0000

0.0761

0.0761

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0709

0.0709

224.5592

0.0465

0.0000

225.5357

0.0000

0.0709

0.0709

224.5592

0.0465

0.0000

225.5357

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

CH4

N2O

CO2e

Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

Category

SO2

tons/yr

Fugitive Dust

0.0000

Off-Road

0.0575

1.1393

1.4468

Total

0.0575

1.1393

1.4468

0.0000

MT/yr

0.0000

0.0000

0.0517

0.0517

0.0517

0.0517

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0517

0.0517

224.5589

0.0465

0.0000

225.5354

0.0517

0.0517

224.5589

0.0465

0.0000

225.5354

3.5 Terminal Reservoir - 2018


Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

Category

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

tons/yr

Fugitive Dust

0.0000

Off-Road

0.1337

1.5449

0.7289

Total

0.1337

1.5449

0.7289

CH4

N2O

CO2e

MT/yr

0.0000

0.0000

0.0617

0.0617

0.0000

0.0617

0.0617

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0577

0.0577

193.7106

0.0360

0.0000

194.4658

0.0000

0.0577

0.0577

193.7106

0.0360

0.0000

194.4658

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

CH4

N2O

CO2e

Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

Category

SO2

tons/yr

Fugitive Dust

0.0000

Off-Road

0.0490

0.9530

1.1424

Total

0.0490

0.9530

1.1424

0.0000

MT/yr

0.0000

0.0000

0.0387

0.0387

0.0387

0.0387

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0387

0.0387

193.7103

0.0360

0.0000

194.4656

0.0387

0.0387

193.7103

0.0360

0.0000

194.4656

3.5 Terminal Reservoir - 2019


Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

Category

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

tons/yr

Fugitive Dust

0.0000

Off-Road

0.1699

1.9153

0.9830

Total

0.1699

1.9153

0.9830

CH4

N2O

CO2e

MT/yr

0.0000

0.0000

0.0755

0.0755

0.0000

0.0755

0.0755

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0707

0.0707

269.6703

0.0503

0.0000

270.7264

0.0000

0.0707

0.0707

269.6703

0.0503

0.0000

270.7264

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

CH4

N2O

CO2e

Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

Category

SO2

tons/yr

Fugitive Dust

0.0000

Off-Road

0.0688

1.3386

1.6046

Total

0.0688

1.3386

1.6046

0.0000

MT/yr

0.0000

0.0000

0.0544

0.0544

0.0544

0.0544

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0544

0.0544

269.6700

0.0503

0.0000

270.7260

0.0544

0.0544

269.6700

0.0503

0.0000

270.7260

3.6 ASR Injection/Extraction Wells - 2018


Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

Category

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

tons/yr

Fugitive Dust

0.0000

Off-Road

0.0826

0.9548

0.4657

Total

0.0826

0.9548

0.4657

CH4

N2O

CO2e

MT/yr

0.0000

0.0000

0.0342

0.0342

0.0000

0.0342

0.0342

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0323

0.0323

163.1867

0.0304

0.0000

163.8254

0.0000

0.0323

0.0323

163.1867

0.0304

0.0000

163.8254

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

CH4

N2O

CO2e

Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

Category

SO2

tons/yr

Fugitive Dust

0.0000

Off-Road

0.0414

0.8060

0.9253

Total

0.0414

0.8060

0.9253

0.0000

MT/yr

0.0000

0.0000

0.0321

0.0321

0.0321

0.0321

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0321

0.0321

163.1865

0.0304

0.0000

163.8252

0.0321

0.0321

163.1865

0.0304

0.0000

163.8252

3.6 ASR Injection/Extraction Wells - 2019


Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

Category

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

tons/yr

Fugitive Dust

0.0000

Off-Road

0.0703

0.7776

0.4206

Total

0.0703

0.7776

0.4206

CH4

N2O

CO2e

MT/yr

0.0000

0.0000

0.0278

0.0278

0.0000

0.0278

0.0278

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0262

0.0262

149.3307

0.0280

0.0000

149.9177

0.0000

0.0262

0.0262

149.3307

0.0280

0.0000

149.9177

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

CH4

N2O

CO2e

Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

Category

SO2

tons/yr

Fugitive Dust

0.0000

Off-Road

0.0382

0.7445

0.8547

Total

0.0382

0.7445

0.8547

0.0000

MT/yr

0.0000

0.0000

0.0296

0.0296

0.0296

0.0296

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0296

0.0296

149.3305

0.0280

0.0000

149.9175

0.0296

0.0296

149.3305

0.0280

0.0000

149.9175

3.7 New Monterey Pipeline - 2018


Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

Category

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

tons/yr

Fugitive Dust

0.0000

Off-Road

0.1609

1.7584

1.0450

Total

0.1609

1.7584

1.0450

CH4

N2O

CO2e

MT/yr

0.0000

0.0000

0.0801

0.0801

0.0000

0.0801

0.0801

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0747

0.0747

242.3778

0.0511

0.0000

243.4513

0.0000

0.0747

0.0747

242.3778

0.0511

0.0000

243.4513

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

CH4

N2O

CO2e

Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

Category

SO2

tons/yr

Fugitive Dust

0.0000

Off-Road

0.0622

1.2314

1.5568

Total

0.0622

1.2314

1.5568

0.0000

MT/yr

0.0000

0.0000

0.0556

0.0556

0.0556

0.0556

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0556

0.0556

242.3775

0.0511

0.0000

243.4510

0.0556

0.0556

242.3775

0.0511

0.0000

243.4510

3.7 New Monterey Pipeline - 2019


Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

Category

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

tons/yr

Fugitive Dust

0.0000

Off-Road

0.2050

2.1813

1.4389

Total

0.2050

2.1813

1.4389

CH4

N2O

CO2e

MT/yr

0.0000

0.0000

0.0985

0.0985

0.0000

0.0985

0.0985

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0919

0.0919

336.8918

0.0716

0.0000

338.3945

0.0000

0.0919

0.0919

336.8918

0.0716

0.0000

338.3945

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

CH4

N2O

CO2e

Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

Category

SO2

tons/yr

Fugitive Dust

0.0000

Off-Road

0.0874

1.7296

2.1866

Total

0.0874

1.7296

2.1866

0.0000

MT/yr

0.0000

0.0000

0.0780

0.0780

0.0780

0.0780

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0780

0.0780

336.8914

0.0716

0.0000

338.3941

0.0780

0.0780

336.8914

0.0716

0.0000

338.3941

3.8 New Transmission Main Pipeline - 2018


Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

Category

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

tons/yr

Fugitive Dust

0.0000

Off-Road

6.2100e003

0.0680

0.0404

Total

6.2100e003

0.0680

0.0404

CH4

N2O

CO2e

MT/yr

0.0000

0.0000

3.0800e003

3.0800e003

0.0000

3.0800e003

3.0800e003

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

2.8700e003

2.8700e003

9.4636

2.0200e003

0.0000

9.5059

0.0000

2.8700e003

2.8700e003

9.4636

2.0200e003

0.0000

9.5059

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

CH4

N2O

CO2e

Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

Category

SO2

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

tons/yr

Fugitive Dust

0.0000

Off-Road

2.4300e003

0.0481

0.0607

Total

2.4300e003

0.0481

0.0607

0.0000

MT/yr

0.0000

0.0000

2.1600e003

2.1600e003

2.1600e003

2.1600e003

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

2.1600e003

2.1600e003

9.4635

2.0200e003

0.0000

9.5059

2.1600e003

2.1600e003

9.4635

2.0200e003

0.0000

9.5059

3.8 New Transmission Main Pipeline - 2019


Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

Category

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

tons/yr

Fugitive Dust

0.0000

Off-Road

0.2073

2.2088

1.4572

Total

0.2073

2.2088

1.4572

CH4

N2O

CO2e

MT/yr

0.0000

0.0000

0.0994

0.0994

0.0000

0.0994

0.0994

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0926

0.0926

344.5722

0.0740

0.0000

346.1260

0.0000

0.0926

0.0926

344.5722

0.0740

0.0000

346.1260

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

CH4

N2O

CO2e

Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

Category

SO2

tons/yr

Fugitive Dust

0.0000

Off-Road

0.0896

1.7708

2.2328

Total

0.0896

1.7708

2.2328

0.0000

MT/yr

0.0000

0.0000

0.0796

0.0796

0.0796

0.0796

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0796

0.0796

344.5718

0.0740

0.0000

346.1256

0.0796

0.0796

344.5718

0.0740

0.0000

346.1256

3.9 Source Water Pipeline - 2019


Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

Category

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

tons/yr

Fugitive Dust

0.0000

Off-Road

0.1397

1.4862

0.9803

Total

0.1397

1.4862

0.9803

CH4

N2O

CO2e

MT/yr

0.0000

0.0000

0.0672

0.0672

0.0000

0.0672

0.0672

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0627

0.0627

228.5939

0.0483

0.0000

229.6089

0.0000

0.0627

0.0627

228.5939

0.0483

0.0000

229.6089

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

CH4

N2O

CO2e

Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

Category

SO2

tons/yr

Fugitive Dust

0.0000

Off-Road

0.0593

1.1731

1.4847

Total

0.0593

1.1731

1.4847

0.0000

MT/yr

0.0000

0.0000

0.0530

0.0530

0.0530

0.0530

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0530

0.0530

228.5936

0.0483

0.0000

229.6086

0.0530

0.0530

228.5936

0.0483

0.0000

229.6086

3.10 Carmel Valley Pump Station - 2019


Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

Category

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

tons/yr

Fugitive Dust

0.0000

Off-Road

0.0590

0.6210

0.3571

Total

0.0590

0.6210

0.3571

CH4

N2O

CO2e

MT/yr

0.0000

0.0000

0.0248

0.0248

0.0000

0.0248

0.0248

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0237

0.0237

111.1949

0.0112

0.0000

111.4299

0.0000

0.0237

0.0237

111.1949

0.0112

0.0000

111.4299

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

CH4

N2O

CO2e

Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

Category

SO2

tons/yr

Fugitive Dust

0.0000

Off-Road

0.0270

0.5326

0.6365

Total

0.0270

0.5326

0.6365

0.0000

MT/yr

0.0000

0.0000

0.0229

0.0229

0.0229

0.0229

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0229

0.0229

111.1947

0.0112

0.0000

111.4298

0.0229

0.0229

111.1947

0.0112

0.0000

111.4298

3.11 Monterey Pump Station - 2019


Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

Category

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

tons/yr

Fugitive Dust

0.0000

Off-Road

0.0590

0.6210

0.3571

Total

0.0590

0.6210

0.3571

CH4

N2O

CO2e

MT/yr

0.0000

0.0000

0.0248

0.0248

0.0000

0.0248

0.0248

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0237

0.0237

111.1949

0.0112

0.0000

111.4299

0.0000

0.0237

0.0237

111.1949

0.0112

0.0000

111.4299

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

CH4

N2O

CO2e

Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

Category

SO2

tons/yr

Fugitive Dust

0.0000

Off-Road

0.0270

0.5326

0.6365

Total

0.0270

0.5326

0.6365

0.0000

MT/yr

0.0000

0.0000

0.0229

0.0229

0.0229

0.0229

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0229

0.0229

111.1947

0.0112

0.0000

111.4298

0.0229

0.0229

111.1947

0.0112

0.0000

111.4298

3.12 Castroville Pipeline - 2019


Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

Category

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

tons/yr

Fugitive Dust

0.0000

Off-Road

0.0940

1.0008

0.6602

Total

0.0940

1.0008

0.6602

CH4

N2O

CO2e

MT/yr

0.0000

0.0000

0.0451

0.0451

0.0000

0.0451

0.0451

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0421

0.0421

155.2010

0.0331

0.0000

155.8963

0.0000

0.0421

0.0421

155.2010

0.0331

0.0000

155.8963

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

CH4

N2O

CO2e

Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

Category

SO2

tons/yr

Fugitive Dust

0.0000

Off-Road

0.0403

0.7971

1.0067

Total

0.0403

0.7971

1.0067

0.0000

MT/yr

0.0000

0.0000

0.0359

0.0359

0.0359

0.0359

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0359

0.0359

155.2008

0.0331

0.0000

155.8961

0.0359

0.0359

155.2008

0.0331

0.0000

155.8961

3.13 ASR Pipelines (ASR Conveyance, ASR Redisribution, and


ASR P
W
i On-Site
li
) 2019
Unmitigated
Construction

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

Category

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

tons/yr

Fugitive Dust

0.0000

Off-Road

0.1138

1.2080

0.7967

Total

0.1138

1.2080

0.7967

CH4

N2O

CO2e

MT/yr

0.0000

0.0000

0.0549

0.0549

0.0000

0.0549

0.0549

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0512

0.0512

183.4713

0.0383

0.0000

184.2745

0.0000

0.0512

0.0512

183.4713

0.0383

0.0000

184.2745

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

CH4

N2O

CO2e

Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

Category

SO2

tons/yr

Fugitive Dust

0.0000

Off-Road

0.0475

0.9404

1.1942

Total

0.0475

0.9404

1.1942

0.0000

MT/yr

0.0000

0.0000

0.0427

0.0427

0.0427

0.0427

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0427

0.0427

183.4711

0.0383

0.0000

184.2743

0.0427

0.0427

183.4711

0.0383

0.0000

184.2743

3.14 Brine Discharge Pipeline - 2019


Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

Category

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

tons/yr

Fugitive Dust

0.0000

Off-Road

0.0689

0.7318

0.4826

Total

0.0689

0.7318

0.4826

CH4

N2O

CO2e

MT/yr

0.0000

0.0000

0.0333

0.0333

0.0000

0.0333

0.0333

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0310

0.0310

111.1413

0.0232

0.0000

111.6278

0.0000

0.0310

0.0310

111.1413

0.0232

0.0000

111.6278

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

CH4

N2O

CO2e

Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

Category

SO2

tons/yr

Fugitive Dust

0.0000

Off-Road

0.0288

0.5697

0.7234

Total

0.0288

0.5697

0.7234

0.0000

MT/yr

0.0000

0.0000

0.0259

0.0259

0.0259

0.0259

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0259

0.0259

111.1411

0.0232

0.0000

111.6277

0.0259

0.0259

111.1411

0.0232

0.0000

111.6277

3.15 Pipeline to CSIP Pond - 2019


Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

Category

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

tons/yr

Fugitive Dust

0.0000

Off-Road

0.0460

0.4879

0.3217

Total

0.0460

0.4879

0.3217

CH4

N2O

CO2e

MT/yr

0.0000

0.0000

0.0222

0.0222

0.0000

0.0222

0.0222

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0207

0.0207

74.0942

0.0155

0.0000

74.4186

0.0000

0.0207

0.0207

74.0942

0.0155

0.0000

74.4186

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

CH4

N2O

CO2e

Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

Category

SO2

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

tons/yr

Fugitive Dust

0.0000

Off-Road

0.0192

0.3798

0.4823

Total

0.0192

0.3798

0.4823

0.0000

MT/yr

0.0000

0.0000

0.0172

0.0172

0.0172

0.0172

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0172

0.0172

74.0941

0.0155

0.0000

74.4185

0.0172

0.0172

74.0941

0.0155

0.0000

74.4185

3.16 Ryan Ranch-Bishop Interconnection - 2019


Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

Category

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

tons/yr

Fugitive Dust

0.0000

Off-Road

0.0919

0.9757

0.6435

Total

0.0919

0.9757

0.6435

CH4

N2O

CO2e

MT/yr

0.0000

0.0000

0.0444

0.0444

0.0000

0.0444

0.0444

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0414

0.0414

148.1884

0.0309

0.0000

148.8371

0.0000

0.0414

0.0414

148.1884

0.0309

0.0000

148.8371

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

CH4

N2O

CO2e

Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

Category

SO2

tons/yr

Fugitive Dust

0.0000

Off-Road

0.0384

0.7595

0.9645

Total

0.0384

0.7595

0.9645

0.0000

MT/yr

0.0000

0.0000

0.0345

0.0345

0.0345

0.0345

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0345

0.0345

148.1882

0.0309

0.0000

148.8369

0.0345

0.0345

148.1882

0.0309

0.0000

148.8369

3.17 Main System to Hidden Hills - 2019


Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

Category

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

tons/yr

Fugitive Dust

0.0000

Off-Road

0.0689

0.7318

0.4826

Total

0.0689

0.7318

0.4826

CH4

N2O

CO2e

MT/yr

0.0000

0.0000

0.0333

0.0333

0.0000

0.0333

0.0333

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0310

0.0310

111.1413

0.0232

0.0000

111.6278

0.0000

0.0310

0.0310

111.1413

0.0232

0.0000

111.6278

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

CH4

N2O

CO2e

Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

Category

SO2

tons/yr

Fugitive Dust

0.0000

Off-Road

0.0288

0.5697

0.7234

Total

0.0288

0.5697

0.7234

0.0000

MT/yr

0.0000

0.0000

0.0259

0.0259

0.0259

0.0259

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0259

0.0259

111.1411

0.0232

0.0000

111.6277

0.0259

0.0259

111.1411

0.0232

0.0000

111.6277

3.18 Slant Well Maintenance - 2025


Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

Category

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

tons/yr

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

CH4

N2O

CO2e

MT/yr

Off-Road

0.0310

0.2732

0.2079

0.0101

0.0101

9.5000e003

9.5000e003

74.0572

0.0106

0.0000

74.2799

Total

0.0310

0.2732

0.2079

0.0101

0.0101

9.5000e003

9.5000e003

74.0572

0.0106

0.0000

74.2799

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

CH4

N2O

CO2e

Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

Category

SO2

Fugitive
PM10

Fugitive
PM2.5

tons/yr

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

MT/yr

Off-Road

0.0186

0.3657

0.4178

0.0150

0.0150

0.0150

0.0150

74.0571

0.0106

0.0000

74.2798

Total

0.0186

0.3657

0.4178

0.0150

0.0150

0.0150

0.0150

74.0571

0.0106

0.0000

74.2798

3.18 Slant Well Maintenance - 2026


Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

Category

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

tons/yr

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

CH4

N2O

CO2e

MT/yr

Off-Road

0.0117

0.1035

0.0787

3.8300e003

3.8300e003

3.6000e003

3.6000e003

28.0520

4.0200e003

0.0000

28.1363

Total

0.0117

0.1035

0.0787

3.8300e003

3.8300e003

3.6000e003

3.6000e003

28.0520

4.0200e003

0.0000

28.1363

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

CH4

N2O

CO2e

Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

Category

SO2

Fugitive
PM10

Fugitive
PM2.5

tons/yr

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

MT/yr

Off-Road

7.0600e003

0.1385

0.1582

5.6700e003

5.6700e003

5.6700e003

5.6700e003

28.0519

4.0200e003

0.0000

28.1363

Total

7.0600e003

0.1385

0.1582

5.6700e003

5.6700e003

5.6700e003

5.6700e003

28.0519

4.0200e003

0.0000

28.1363

G1.3 CALEEMOD OUTPUT - MAXIMUM DAILY


CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2

Page 1 of 1

Date: 6/24/2016 2:55 PM

Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Monterey County, Summer

1.0 Project Characteristics


1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses

Size

Metric

Lot Acreage

Floor Surface Area

Population

General Heavy Industry

0.00

1000sqft

15.00

0.00

1.2 Other Project Characteristics


Urbanization

Urban

Climate Zone

Utility Company

Pacific Gas & Electric Company

CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)

641.35

Wind Speed (m/s)

CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)

2.8

0.029

Precipitation Freq (Days)

55

Operational Year

2020

N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)

0.006

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data


Project Characteristics Land Use - Land use duty entered here is not relevent to the model run, and only serves the purpose of allowing data to be entered for the construction
phase. Note that operational emissions are estimated outside of CalEEMod
Construction Phase - See Appendix Sections 5, Construction Trips, and 6, MPWSP Estimated Construction Phasing, for additional information about
phasing of construction actvitities and total workdays.
Off-road Equipment - Hour/day assumptions are presented in Appendix G.
Off-road Equipment - project specific assumptions have been entered.
Off-road Equipment - Refer to "Average Daily Offroad Construction Equipment Hours For CalEEMod" for equipment unit amounts, hours, and hp
assumptions.
Off-road Equipment - project information based on project assumptions

Off-road Equipment - Refer to "Average Daily Offroad Construction Equipment Hours for CalEEMod Input" for unit amount, hours/day, and hp assumptions.
Off-road Equipment - See "Average Daily Offroad Construction Equipment Hours for CalEEMod Input" for assumptions regarding unit amounts, hour/day,
and hp.
Off-road Equipment - See construction equipment hours assumption in Appendix G
Trips and VMT - Worker and haul trips are estimated outside of CalEEMod using Emfac 2014 emission factors
Grading - Fugitive dust emissions are estimated outside of CalEEMod.
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Mitigation for off-road equipment is to have engines that meet at least tier 3 emissions requirements.
Off-road Equipment - Slant well maintenance would occur every 5 years after start of operations.
Table Name

Column Name

Default Value

New Value

tblConstEquipMitigation

NumberOfEquipmentMitigated

0.00

6.00

tblConstEquipMitigation

NumberOfEquipmentMitigated

0.00

20.00

tblConstEquipMitigation

NumberOfEquipmentMitigated

0.00

15.00

tblConstEquipMitigation

NumberOfEquipmentMitigated

0.00

4.00

tblConstEquipMitigation

NumberOfEquipmentMitigated

0.00

18.00

tblConstEquipMitigation

NumberOfEquipmentMitigated

0.00

5.00

tblConstEquipMitigation

NumberOfEquipmentMitigated

0.00

3.00

tblConstEquipMitigation

NumberOfEquipmentMitigated

0.00

4.00

tblConstEquipMitigation

NumberOfEquipmentMitigated

0.00

15.00

tblConstEquipMitigation

NumberOfEquipmentMitigated

0.00

16.00

tblConstEquipMitigation

NumberOfEquipmentMitigated

0.00

16.00

tblConstEquipMitigation

NumberOfEquipmentMitigated

0.00

16.00

tblConstEquipMitigation

Tier

No Change

Tier 3

tblConstEquipMitigation

Tier

No Change

Tier 3

tblConstEquipMitigation

Tier

No Change

Tier 3

tblConstEquipMitigation

Tier

No Change

Tier 3

tblConstEquipMitigation

Tier

No Change

Tier 3

tblConstEquipMitigation

Tier

No Change

Tier 3

tblConstEquipMitigation

Tier

No Change

Tier 3

tblConstEquipMitigation

Tier

No Change

Tier 3

tblConstEquipMitigation

Tier

No Change

Tier 3

tblConstEquipMitigation

Tier

No Change

Tier 3

tblConstEquipMitigation

Tier

No Change

Tier 3

tblConstEquipMitigation

Tier

No Change

Tier 3

tblConstEquipMitigation

Tier

No Change

Tier 3

tblConstructionPhase

NumDays

10.00

104.00

tblConstructionPhase

NumDays

10.00

126.00

tblConstructionPhase

NumDays

10.00

126.00

tblConstructionPhase

NumDays

10.00

84.00

tblConstructionPhase

NumDays

10.00

63.00

tblConstructionPhase

NumDays

10.00

42.00

tblConstructionPhase

NumDays

10.00

84.00

tblConstructionPhase

NumDays

10.00

63.00

tblConstructionPhase

NumDays

10.00

315.00

tblConstructionPhase

NumDays

10.00

504.00

tblConstructionPhase

NumDays

10.00

126.00

tblConstructionPhase

NumDays

10.00

315.00

tblConstructionPhase

NumDays

10.00

252.00

tblConstructionPhase

NumDays

10.00

315.00

tblConstructionPhase

NumDays

10.00

189.00

tblConstructionPhase

NumDays

10.00

126.00

tblConstructionPhase

NumDays

10.00

91.00

tblConstructionPhase

PhaseEndDate

11/20/2019

8/24/2019

tblConstructionPhase

PhaseEndDate

12/19/2019

6/26/2019

tblConstructionPhase

PhaseEndDate

12/19/2019

6/26/2019

tblConstructionPhase

PhaseEndDate

10/22/2019

6/27/2019

tblConstructionPhase

PhaseEndDate

11/20/2019

6/27/2019

tblConstructionPhase

PhaseEndDate

8/26/2019

6/28/2019

tblConstructionPhase

PhaseEndDate

1/21/2020

9/25/2019

tblConstructionPhase

PhaseEndDate

8/19/2021

6/4/2020

tblConstructionPhase

PhaseEndDate

11/27/2020

12/24/2018

tblConstructionPhase

PhaseEndDate

3/9/2020

9/13/2019

tblConstructionPhase

PhaseEndDate

9/1/2020

6/18/2019

tblConstructionPhase

PhaseEndDate

9/1/2020

9/13/2019

tblConstructionPhase

PhaseEndDate

6/4/2020

9/13/2019

tblConstructionPhase

PhaseEndDate

3/9/2020

6/26/2019

tblConstructionPhase

PhaseEndDate

1/30/2020

2/4/2026

tblConstructionPhase

PhaseStartDate

6/28/2019

4/2/2019

tblConstructionPhase

PhaseStartDate

6/27/2019

1/2/2019

tblConstructionPhase

PhaseStartDate

6/27/2019

1/2/2019

tblConstructionPhase

PhaseStartDate

6/27/2019

3/2/2019

tblConstructionPhase

PhaseStartDate

8/25/2019

4/2/2019

tblConstructionPhase

PhaseStartDate

6/28/2019

5/2/2019

tblConstructionPhase

PhaseStartDate

6/29/2019

7/1/2019

tblConstructionPhase

PhaseStartDate

10/25/2019

7/1/2019

tblConstructionPhase

PhaseStartDate

9/14/2019

7/2/2018

tblConstructionPhase

PhaseStartDate

6/5/2020

7/2/2018

tblConstructionPhase

PhaseStartDate

12/25/2018

7/2/2018

tblConstructionPhase

PhaseStartDate

9/14/2019

7/2/2018

tblConstructionPhase

PhaseStartDate

6/19/2019

7/2/2018

tblConstructionPhase

PhaseStartDate

9/14/2019

12/25/2018

tblConstructionPhase

PhaseStartDate

9/14/2019

1/2/2019

tblConstructionPhase

PhaseStartDate

9/26/2019

10/1/2025

tblGrading

AcresOfGrading

2.36

0.00

tblGrading

AcresOfGrading

2.36

0.00

tblGrading

AcresOfGrading

31.50

0.00

tblGrading

AcresOfGrading

21.66

0.00

tblGrading

AcresOfGrading

3.15

0.00

tblLandUse

LotAcreage

0.00

15.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

97.00

150.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

97.00

150.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

97.00

150.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

97.00

150.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

97.00

150.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

97.00

150.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

97.00

150.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

97.00

150.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

97.00

150.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

97.00

150.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

97.00

150.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

97.00

150.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

97.00

150.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

97.00

150.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

97.00

150.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

205.00

350.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

205.00

350.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

205.00

350.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

205.00

350.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

205.00

350.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

205.00

350.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

226.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

226.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

226.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

226.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

226.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

226.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

226.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

226.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

226.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

226.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

226.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

226.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

226.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

226.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

226.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

226.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

162.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

162.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

162.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

162.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

162.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

162.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

162.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

162.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

162.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

162.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

162.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

162.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

162.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

162.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

89.00

150.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

84.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

84.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

84.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

84.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

84.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

84.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

84.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

84.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

84.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

84.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

84.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

84.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

84.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

84.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

84.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

84.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

174.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

174.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

174.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

174.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

174.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

122.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

122.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

122.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

400.00

350.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

400.00

350.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

400.00

350.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

400.00

350.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

125.00

160.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

125.00

160.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

125.00

160.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

125.00

160.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

125.00

160.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

125.00

160.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

125.00

160.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

125.00

160.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

125.00

160.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

125.00

160.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

125.00

160.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

125.00

160.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

125.00

160.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

125.00

160.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

125.00

160.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

80.00

90.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

80.00

90.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

80.00

90.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

80.00

90.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

80.00

90.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

80.00

90.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

80.00

90.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

80.00

90.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

80.00

90.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

80.00

90.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

80.00

90.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

80.00

90.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

80.00

90.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

80.00

90.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

80.00

90.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

199.00

90.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

199.00

90.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

199.00

90.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

199.00

90.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

199.00

90.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

199.00

90.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

199.00

90.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

199.00

90.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

199.00

90.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

199.00

90.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

199.00

90.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

199.00

90.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

199.00

90.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

199.00

90.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

199.00

90.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

80.00

150.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

174.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

226.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

199.00

90.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

HorsePower

84.00

200.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

OffRoadEquipmentType

Graders

tblOffRoadEquipment

OffRoadEquipmentType

Cranes

tblOffRoadEquipment

OffRoadEquipmentType

Rubber Tired Loaders

tblOffRoadEquipment

OffRoadEquipmentType

Generator Sets

tblOffRoadEquipment

OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount

4.00

1.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount

4.00

1.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount

4.00

1.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount

4.00

1.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount

4.00

1.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount

4.00

1.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount

4.00

1.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount

4.00

1.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount

4.00

2.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount

4.00

1.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount

4.00

1.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount

4.00

1.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount

4.00

1.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount

4.00

1.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount

4.00

1.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

PhaseName

Slant Well Maintenance

tblOffRoadEquipment

PhaseName

Slant Well Maintenance

tblOffRoadEquipment

PhaseName

Slant Well Maintenance

tblOffRoadEquipment

PhaseName

tblOffRoadEquipment

UsageHours

8.00

2.70

tblOffRoadEquipment

UsageHours

8.00

2.70

tblOffRoadEquipment

UsageHours

8.00

11.00

tblOffRoadEquipment

UsageHours

8.00

6.90

tblOffRoadEquipment

UsageHours

8.00

1.30

tblProjectCharacteristics

OperationalYear

2014

2020

tblTripsAndVMT

WorkerTripNumber

18.00

0.00

tblTripsAndVMT

WorkerTripNumber

18.00

0.00

tblTripsAndVMT

WorkerTripNumber

18.00

0.00

tblTripsAndVMT

WorkerTripNumber

20.00

0.00

tblTripsAndVMT

WorkerTripNumber

18.00

0.00

tblTripsAndVMT

WorkerTripNumber

18.00

0.00

tblTripsAndVMT

WorkerTripNumber

18.00

0.00

tblTripsAndVMT

WorkerTripNumber

18.00

0.00

tblTripsAndVMT

WorkerTripNumber

18.00

0.00

tblTripsAndVMT

WorkerTripNumber

53.00

0.00

tblTripsAndVMT

WorkerTripNumber

18.00

0.00

tblTripsAndVMT

WorkerTripNumber

28.00

0.00

tblTripsAndVMT

WorkerTripNumber

30.00

0.00

tblTripsAndVMT

WorkerTripNumber

20.00

0.00

tblTripsAndVMT

WorkerTripNumber

20.00

0.00

tblTripsAndVMT

WorkerTripNumber

20.00

0.00

2.0 Emissions Summary

2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)


Unmitigated Construction

Slant Well Maintenance

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

Year

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

lb/day

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

CH4

N2O

CO2e

lb/day

2018

17.3311

195.5940

104.7080

0.0000

8.2213

8.2213

0.0000

7.6792

7.6792

28,884.573
5

5.8434

0.0000

29,007.283
7

2019

28.6902

310.1877

190.5386

0.0000

13.3359

13.3359

0.0000

12.4653

12.4653

52,229.308
6

10.3598

0.0000

52,446.865
2

2020

4.7220

49.4671

33.8553

0.0000

2.0418

2.0418

0.0000

1.9142

1.9142

9,138.0993

1.6493

0.0000

9,172.7340

2025

0.9391

8.2777

6.2987

0.0000

0.3066

0.3066

0.0000

0.2879

0.2879

2,473.7608

0.3542

0.0000

2,481.1996

2026

0.9391

8.2777

6.2987

0.0000

0.3066

0.3066

0.0000

0.2879

0.2879

2,473.7608

0.3542

0.0000

2,481.1996

Total

52.6215

571.8041

341.6992

0.0000

24.2121

24.2121

0.0000

22.6345

22.6345

95,199.502
8

18.5609

0.0000

95,589.282
2

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

CH4

N2O

CO2e

Mitigated Construction

ROG

NOx

CO

Year

SO2

lb/day

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

lb/day

2018

7.3930

136.2462

161.2444

0.0000

5.8015

5.8015

0.0000

5.7600

5.7600

28,884.573
4

5.8434

0.0000

29,007.283
7

2019

12.8692

244.6743

297.9042

0.0000

10.6751

10.6751

0.0000

10.6347

10.6347

52,229.308
5

10.3598

0.0000

52,446.865
2

2020

2.1336

41.4047

52.8777

0.0000

1.7393

1.7393

0.0000

1.7393

1.7393

9,138.0993

1.6493

0.0000

9,172.7340

2025

0.5650

11.0824

12.6594

0.0000

0.4539

0.4539

0.0000

0.4539

0.4539

2,473.7608

0.3542

0.0000

2,481.1996

2026

0.5650

11.0824

12.6594

0.0000

0.4539

0.4539

0.0000

0.4539

0.4539

2,473.7608

0.3542

0.0000

2,481.1996

Total

23.5257

444.4900

537.3450

0.0000

19.1236

19.1236

0.0000

19.0417

19.0417

95,199.502
8

18.5609

0.0000

95,589.282
1

Percent
Reduction

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

55.29

22.27

-57.26

0.00

0.00

21.02

21.02

0.00

15.87

15.87

Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2

0.00

0.00

0.00

CH4

N20

CO2e

0.00

0.00

0.00

3.0 Construction Detail


Construction Phase
Phase
Number

Phase Name

Phase Type

Start Date

End Date

Num Days Num Days


Week

Subsurface Slant Wells (9 wells) Site Preparation

7/2/2018

9/13/2019

315

Desalination Plant

Site Preparation

7/2/2018

6/4/2020

504

New Desalinated Water Pipeline Site Preparation

7/2/2018

12/24/2018

126

Terminal Reservoir

Site Preparation

7/2/2018

9/13/2019

315

ASR Injection/Extraction Wells

Site Preparation

7/2/2018

6/18/2019

252

New Monterey Pipeline

Site Preparation

7/2/2018

9/13/2019

315

New Transmission Main Pipeline Site Preparation

12/25/2018

9/13/2019

189

Source Water Pipeline

Site Preparation

1/2/2019

6/26/2019

126

Carmel Valley Pump Station

Site Preparation

1/2/2019

6/26/2019

126

10

Monterey Pump Station

Site Preparation

1/2/2019

6/26/2019

126

11

Castroville Pipeline

Site Preparation

3/2/2019

6/27/2019

84

12

4/2/2019

8/24/2019

104

13

ASR Pipelines (ASR


Site Preparation
Conveyance, ASR Redisribution,
d ASR
P
tPipeline
W t
Brine
Discharge
Site Preparation

4/2/2019

6/27/2019

63

14

Pipeline to CSIP Pond

Site Preparation

5/2/2019

6/28/2019

42

15

Ryan Ranch-Bishop
Interconnection

Site Preparation

7/1/2019

10/24/2019

84

16

Main System to Hidden Hills

Site Preparation

7/1/2019

9/25/2019

63

17

Slant Well Maintenance

Site Preparation

10/1/2025

2/4/2026

91

Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0


Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0

Phase Description

Acres of Paving: 0
Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0 (Architectural Coating sqft)
OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name

Offroad Equipment Type

Amount

Usage Hours

Horse Power

Load Factor

ASR Pipelines (ASR Conveyance, ASR


Redisribution, and ASR Pump-to-Waste
ASR Pipelines (ASR Conveyance, ASR
Redisribution, and ASR Pump-to-Waste
ASR Pipelines (ASR Conveyance, ASR
Redisribution, and ASR Pump-to-Waste
ASR Pipelines (ASR Conveyance, ASR
Redisribution, and ASR Pump-to-Waste
ASR Pipelines (ASR Conveyance, ASR
Redisribution, and ASR Pump-to-Waste
ASR Pipelines (ASR Conveyance, ASR
Redisribution, and ASR Pump-to-Waste
ASR Pipelines (ASR Conveyance, ASR
Redisribution, and ASR Pump-to-Waste
Subsurface Slant Wells (9 wells)

Cranes

6.00

200

0.29

Excavators

8.00

200

0.38

Generator Sets

8.00

200

0.74

Pavers

6.00

160

0.42

Rollers

6.00

90

0.38

Rubber Tired Loaders

8.00

90

0.36

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes

8.00

150

0.37

Bore/Drill Rigs

6.90

350

0.50

Subsurface Slant Wells (9 wells)

Cranes

12.00

200

0.29

Subsurface Slant Wells (9 wells)

Excavators

3.40

200

0.38

Subsurface Slant Wells (9 wells)

Generator Sets

3.40

200

0.74

Subsurface Slant Wells (9 wells)

Trenchers

12.00

150

0.50

Desalination Plant

Cranes

11.00

200

0.29

Desalination Plant

Excavators

1.00

200

0.38

Desalination Plant

Forklifts

11.00

150

0.20

Desalination Plant

Generator Sets

12.00

200

0.74

Desalination Plant

Graders

1.00

200

0.41

Desalination Plant

Off-Highway Tractors

1.00

200

0.44

Desalination Plant

Off-Highway Trucks

1.00

350

0.38

Desalination Plant

Off-Highway Trucks

0.30

350

0.38

Desalination Plant

Pavers

0.50

160

0.42

Desalination Plant

Rollers

1.50

90

0.38

Desalination Plant

Rubber Tired Loaders

1.00

90

0.36

Desalination Plant

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes

11.00

150

0.37

New Desalinated Water Pipeline

Cranes

6.00

200

0.29

New Desalinated Water Pipeline

Excavators

8.00

200

0.38

New Desalinated Water Pipeline

Generator Sets

8.00

200

0.74

New Desalinated Water Pipeline

Pavers

6.00

160

0.42

New Desalinated Water Pipeline

Rollers

6.00

90

0.38

New Desalinated Water Pipeline

Rubber Tired Loaders

8.00

90

0.36

New Desalinated Water Pipeline

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes

8.00

150

0.37

Terminal Reservoir

Cranes

6.90

200

0.29

Terminal Reservoir

Excavators

1.10

200

0.38

Terminal Reservoir

Generator Sets

8.00

200

0.74

Terminal Reservoir

Graders

1.10

200

0.41

Terminal Reservoir

Off-Highway Tractors

1.10

200

0.44

Terminal Reservoir

Off-Highway Trucks

0.50

350

0.38

Terminal Reservoir

Pavers

0.50

160

0.42

Terminal Reservoir

Rollers

1.60

90

0.38

Terminal Reservoir

Rubber Tired Loaders

1.10

90

0.36

Terminal Reservoir

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes

6.90

150

0.37

ASR Injection/Extraction Wells

Bore/Drill Rigs

3.80

350

0.50

ASR Injection/Extraction Wells

Cranes

1.30

200

0.29

ASR Injection/Extraction Wells

Excavators

1.30

200

0.38

ASR Injection/Extraction Wells

Generator Sets

6.70

200

0.74

ASR Injection/Extraction Wells

Graders

0.20

200

0.41

ASR Injection/Extraction Wells

Off-Highway Tractors

1.30

200

0.44

ASR Injection/Extraction Wells

Off-Highway Trucks

1.30

350

0.38

ASR Injection/Extraction Wells

Pavers

0.20

160

0.42

ASR Injection/Extraction Wells

Rollers

1.50

90

0.38

ASR Injection/Extraction Wells

Rubber Tired Loaders

1.30

90

0.36

ASR Injection/Extraction Wells

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes

1.30

150

0.37

New Monterey Pipeline

Bore/Drill Rigs

0.80

350

0.50

New Monterey Pipeline

Cranes

6.00

200

0.29

New Monterey Pipeline

Excavators

8.00

200

0.38

New Monterey Pipeline

Generator Sets

8.00

200

0.74

New Monterey Pipeline

Pavers

6.00

160

0.42

New Monterey Pipeline

Rollers

6.00

90

0.38

New Monterey Pipeline

Rubber Tired Loaders

8.00

90

0.36

New Monterey Pipeline

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes

8.00

150

0.37

New Transmission Main Pipeline

Bore/Drill Rigs

1.30

350

0.50

New Transmission Main Pipeline

Cranes

6.00

200

0.29

New Transmission Main Pipeline

Excavators

8.00

200

0.38

New Transmission Main Pipeline

Generator Sets

8.00

200

0.74

New Transmission Main Pipeline

Pavers

6.00

160

0.42

New Transmission Main Pipeline

Rollers

6.00

90

0.38

New Transmission Main Pipeline

Rubber Tired Loaders

8.00

90

0.36

New Transmission Main Pipeline

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes

8.00

150

0.37

Source Water Pipeline

Bore/Drill Rigs

0.60

350

0.50

Source Water Pipeline

Cranes

6.00

200

0.29

Source Water Pipeline

Excavators

8.00

200

0.38

Source Water Pipeline

Generator Sets

8.00

200

0.74

Source Water Pipeline

Pavers

6.00

160

0.42

Source Water Pipeline

Rollers

6.00

90

0.38

Source Water Pipeline

Rubber Tired Loaders

8.00

90

0.36

Source Water Pipeline

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes

8.00

150

0.37

Carmel Valley Pump Station

Cranes

1.30

200

0.29

Carmel Valley Pump Station

Generator Sets

8.00

200

0.74

Carmel Valley Pump Station

Graders

0.30

200

0.41

Carmel Valley Pump Station

Pavers

0.10

160

0.42

Carmel Valley Pump Station

Rollers

2.70

90

0.38

Carmel Valley Pump Station

Rubber Tired Loaders

2.70

90

0.36

Carmel Valley Pump Station

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes

2.70

150

0.37

Monterey Pump Station

Cranes

1.30

200

0.29

Monterey Pump Station

Generator Sets

8.00

200

0.74

Monterey Pump Station

Graders

0.30

200

0.41

Monterey Pump Station

Pavers

0.10

160

0.42

Monterey Pump Station

Rollers

2.70

90

0.38

Monterey Pump Station

Rubber Tired Loaders

2.70

90

0.36

Monterey Pump Station

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes

2.70

150

0.37

Castroville Pipeline

Bore/Drill Rigs

1.00

350

0.50

Castroville Pipeline

Cranes

6.00

200

0.29

Castroville Pipeline

Excavators

8.00

200

0.38

Castroville Pipeline

Generator Sets

8.00

200

0.74

Castroville Pipeline

Pavers

6.00

160

0.42

Castroville Pipeline

Rollers

6.00

90

0.38

Castroville Pipeline

Rubber Tired Loaders

8.00

90

0.36

Castroville Pipeline

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes

8.00

150

0.37

Brine Discharge Pipeline

Cranes

6.00

200

0.29

Brine Discharge Pipeline

Excavators

8.00

200

0.38

Brine Discharge Pipeline

Generator Sets

8.00

200

0.74

Brine Discharge Pipeline

Pavers

6.00

160

0.42

Brine Discharge Pipeline

Rollers

6.00

90

0.38

Brine Discharge Pipeline

Rubber Tired Loaders

8.00

90

0.36

Brine Discharge Pipeline

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes

8.00

150

0.37

Pipeline to CSIP Pond

Cranes

6.00

200

0.29

Pipeline to CSIP Pond

Excavators

8.00

200

0.38

Pipeline to CSIP Pond

Generator Sets

8.00

200

0.74

Pipeline to CSIP Pond

Pavers

6.00

160

0.42

Pipeline to CSIP Pond

Rollers

6.00

90

0.38

Pipeline to CSIP Pond

Rubber Tired Loaders

8.00

90

0.36

Pipeline to CSIP Pond

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes

8.00

150

0.37

Ryan Ranch-Bishop Interconnection

Cranes

6.00

200

0.29

Ryan Ranch-Bishop Interconnection

Excavators

8.00

200

0.38

Ryan Ranch-Bishop Interconnection

Generator Sets

8.00

200

0.74

Ryan Ranch-Bishop Interconnection

Pavers

6.00

160

0.42

Ryan Ranch-Bishop Interconnection

Rollers

6.00

90

0.38

Ryan Ranch-Bishop Interconnection

Rubber Tired Loaders

8.00

90

0.36

Ryan Ranch-Bishop Interconnection

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes

8.00

150

0.37

Main System to Hidden Hills

Cranes

6.00

200

0.29

Main System to Hidden Hills

Excavators

8.00

200

0.38

Main System to Hidden Hills

Generator Sets

8.00

200

0.74

Main System to Hidden Hills

Pavers

6.00

160

0.42

Main System to Hidden Hills

Rollers

6.00

90

0.38

Main System to Hidden Hills

Rubber Tired Loaders

8.00

90

0.36

Main System to Hidden Hills

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes

8.00

150

0.37

Slant Well Maintenance

Graders

5.30

200

0.41

Slant Well Maintenance

Cranes

6.00

200

0.29

Slant Well Maintenance

Rubber Tired Loaders

5.30

90

0.36

Slant Well Maintenance

Generator Sets

8.00

200

0.74

Trips and VMT


Phase Name

ASR Pipelines (ASR


Conveyance, ASR
Subsurface Slant
Wells (9 wells)
Desalination Plant

Offroad Equipment
Count

Worker Trip
Number

Vendor Trip Hauling Trip


Number
Number

Worker Trip
Length

Vendor Trip
Length

Hauling Trip
Length

Worker Vehicle
Class

Vendor
Hauling
Vehicle Class Vehicle Class

0.00

0.00

0.00

10.80

7.30

20.00 LD_Mix

HDT_Mix

HHDT

0.00

0.00

0.00

10.80

7.30

20.00 LD_Mix

HDT_Mix

HHDT

21

0.00

0.00

0.00

10.80

7.30

20.00 LD_Mix

HDT_Mix

HHDT

0.00

0.00

0.00

10.80

7.30

20.00 LD_Mix

HDT_Mix

HHDT

11

0.00

0.00

0.00

10.80

7.30

20.00 LD_Mix

HDT_Mix

HHDT

ASR
Injection/Extraction
New Monterey Pipeline

12

0.00

0.00

0.00

10.80

7.30

20.00 LD_Mix

HDT_Mix

HHDT

0.00

0.00

0.00

10.80

7.30

20.00 LD_Mix

HDT_Mix

HHDT

New Transmission
Main Pipeline
Source Water Pipeline

0.00

0.00

0.00

10.80

7.30

20.00 LD_Mix

HDT_Mix

HHDT

0.00

0.00

0.00

10.80

7.30

20.00 LD_Mix

HDT_Mix

HHDT

Carmel Valley Pump


Station
Monterey Pump
Station

0.00

0.00

0.00

10.80

7.30

20.00 LD_Mix

HDT_Mix

HHDT

0.00

0.00

0.00

10.80

7.30

20.00 LD_Mix

HDT_Mix

HHDT

New Desalinated
Water Pipeline
Terminal Reservoir

Castroville Pipeline

0.00

0.00

0.00

10.80

7.30

20.00 LD_Mix

HDT_Mix

HHDT

Brine Discharge
Pipeline
Pipeline to CSIP Pond

0.00

0.00

0.00

10.80

7.30

20.00 LD_Mix

HDT_Mix

HHDT

0.00

0.00

0.00

10.80

7.30

20.00 LD_Mix

HDT_Mix

HHDT

Ryan Ranch-Bishop
Interconnection
Main System to
Hidden Hills

0.00

0.00

0.00

10.80

7.30

20.00 LD_Mix

HDT_Mix

HHDT

0.00

0.00

0.00

10.80

7.30

20.00 LD_Mix

HDT_Mix

HHDT

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction


Use Cleaner Engines for Construction Equipment

3.2 Subsurface Slant Wells (9 wells) - 2018


Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

Category

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

lb/day

Fugitive Dust

0.0000

Off-Road

3.3913

39.7433

18.8891

Total

3.3913

39.7433

18.8891

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

CH4

N2O

CO2e

lb/day

0.0000

0.0000

1.6290

1.6290

0.0000

1.6290

1.6290

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

1.5114

1.5114

5,305.3354

1.3035

5,332.7081

0.0000

1.5114

1.5114

5,305.3354

1.3035

5,332.7081

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

Category

lb/day

Fugitive Dust
Off-Road

SO2

0.0000
1.9556

29.9385

28.7602

CH4

N2O

CO2e

lb/day

0.0000

0.0000

1.2682

1.2682

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

1.2267

1.2267

5,305.3354

0.0000
1.3035

5,332.7081

Total

1.9556

29.9385

28.7602

0.0000

1.2682

1.2682

0.0000

1.2267

1.2267

5,305.3354

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

1.3035

5,332.7081

3.2 Subsurface Slant Wells (9 wells) - 2019


Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

Category

Fugitive
PM10

lb/day

Fugitive Dust

0.0000

Off-Road

3.1394

35.9193

18.2804

Total

3.1394

35.9193

18.2804

CH4

N2O

CO2e

lb/day

0.0000

0.0000

1.4749

1.4749

0.0000

1.4749

1.4749

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

1.3683

1.3683

5,237.9141

1.3004

5,265.2233

0.0000

1.3683

1.3683

5,237.9141

1.3004

5,265.2233

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

Category

SO2

lb/day

Fugitive Dust

0.0000

Off-Road

1.9347

29.6058

28.7803

Total

1.9347

29.6058

28.7803

0.0000

CH4

N2O

CO2e

lb/day

0.0000

0.0000

1.2550

1.2550

1.2550

1.2550

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

1.2146

1.2146

5,237.9141

1.3004

5,265.2233

1.2146

1.2146

5,237.9141

1.3004

5,265.2233

3.3 Desalination Plant - 2018


Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

Category

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

lb/day

Fugitive Dust

0.0000

Off-Road

5.6982

63.6594

35.4732

Total

5.6982

63.6594

35.4732

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

CH4

N2O

CO2e

lb/day

0.0000

0.0000

2.6719

2.6719

0.0000

2.6719

2.6719

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

2.5032

2.5032

9,321.2187

1.6730

9,356.3521

0.0000

2.5032

2.5032

9,321.2187

1.6730

9,356.3521

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

Category

SO2

lb/day

Fugitive Dust

0.0000

Off-Road

2.1336

41.4047

52.8777

Total

2.1336

41.4047

52.8777

0.0000

CH4

N2O

CO2e

lb/day

0.0000

0.0000

1.7393

1.7393

1.7393

1.7393

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

1.7393

1.7393

9,321.2187

1.6730

9,356.3521

1.7393

1.7393

9,321.2187

1.6730

9,356.3521

3.3 Desalination Plant - 2019


Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

Category

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

lb/day

Fugitive Dust

0.0000

Off-Road

5.1696

56.0509

34.5658

Total

5.1696

56.0509

34.5658

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

CH4

N2O

CO2e

lb/day

0.0000

0.0000

2.3344

2.3344

0.0000

2.3344

2.3344

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

2.1878

2.1878

9,242.4063

1.6650

9,277.3708

0.0000

2.1878

2.1878

9,242.4063

1.6650

9,277.3708

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

Category

SO2

lb/day

Fugitive Dust

0.0000

Off-Road

2.1336

41.4047

52.8777

Total

2.1336

41.4047

52.8777

0.0000

CH4

N2O

CO2e

lb/day

0.0000

0.0000

1.7393

1.7393

1.7393

1.7393

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

1.7393

1.7393

9,242.4063

1.6650

9,277.3708

1.7393

1.7393

9,242.4063

1.6650

9,277.3708

3.3 Desalination Plant - 2020


Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

Category

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

lb/day

Fugitive Dust

0.0000

Off-Road

4.7220

49.4671

33.8553

Total

4.7220

49.4671

33.8553

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

CH4

N2O

CO2e

lb/day

0.0000

0.0000

2.0418

2.0418

0.0000

2.0418

2.0418

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

1.9142

1.9142

9,138.0993

1.6493

9,172.7340

0.0000

1.9142

1.9142

9,138.0993

1.6493

9,172.7340

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

Category

SO2

lb/day

Fugitive Dust

0.0000

Off-Road

2.1336

41.4047

52.8777

Total

2.1336

41.4047

52.8777

0.0000

CH4

N2O

CO2e

lb/day

0.0000

0.0000

1.7393

1.7393

1.7393

1.7393

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

1.7393

1.7393

9,138.0993

1.6493

9,172.7340

1.7393

1.7393

9,138.0993

1.6493

9,172.7340

3.4 New Desalinated Water Pipeline - 2018


Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

Category

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

lb/day

Fugitive Dust

0.0000

Off-Road

2.4151

26.3073

15.6357

Total

2.4151

26.3073

15.6357

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

CH4

N2O

CO2e

lb/day

0.0000

0.0000

1.2071

1.2071

0.0000

1.2071

1.2071

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

1.1256

1.1256

3,929.1136

0.8136

3,946.1989

0.0000

1.1256

1.1256

3,929.1136

0.8136

3,946.1989

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

Category

SO2

lb/day

Fugitive Dust

0.0000

Off-Road

0.9131

18.0840

22.9654

Total

0.9131

18.0840

22.9654

0.0000

CH4

N2O

CO2e

lb/day

0.0000

0.0000

0.8209

0.8209

0.8209

0.8209

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.8209

0.8209

3,929.1136

0.8136

3,946.1989

0.8209

0.8209

3,929.1136

0.8136

3,946.1989

3.5 Terminal Reservoir - 2018


Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

Category

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

lb/day

Fugitive Dust

0.0000

Off-Road

2.0414

23.5861

11.1282

Total

2.0414

23.5861

11.1282

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

CH4

N2O

CO2e

lb/day

0.0000

0.0000

0.9416

0.9416

0.0000

0.9416

0.9416

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.8813

0.8813

3,259.9898

0.6053

3,272.7006

0.0000

0.8813

0.8813

3,259.9898

0.6053

3,272.7006

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

Category

SO2

lb/day

Fugitive Dust

0.0000

Off-Road

0.7483

14.5502

17.4418

Total

0.7483

14.5502

17.4418

0.0000

CH4

N2O

CO2e

lb/day

0.0000

0.0000

0.5915

0.5915

0.5915

0.5915

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.5915

0.5915

3,259.9898

0.6053

3,272.7006

0.5915

0.5915

3,259.9898

0.6053

3,272.7006

3.5 Terminal Reservoir - 2019


Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

Category

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

lb/day

Fugitive Dust

0.0000

Off-Road

1.8470

20.8183

10.6848

Total

1.8470

20.8183

10.6848

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

CH4

N2O

CO2e

lb/day

0.0000

0.0000

0.8208

0.8208

0.0000

0.8208

0.8208

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.7685

0.7685

3,231.0936

0.6025

3,243.7470

0.0000

0.7685

0.7685

3,231.0936

0.6025

3,243.7470

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

Category

SO2

lb/day

Fugitive Dust

0.0000

Off-Road

0.7483

14.5502

17.4418

Total

0.7483

14.5502

17.4418

0.0000

CH4

N2O

CO2e

lb/day

0.0000

0.0000

0.5915

0.5915

0.5915

0.5915

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.5915

0.5915

3,231.0936

0.6025

3,243.7470

0.5915

0.5915

3,231.0936

0.6025

3,243.7470

3.6 ASR Injection/Extraction Wells - 2018


Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

Category

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

lb/day

Fugitive Dust

0.0000

Off-Road

1.2607

14.5764

7.1100

Total

1.2607

14.5764

7.1100

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

CH4

N2O

CO2e

lb/day

0.0000

0.0000

0.5223

0.5223

0.0000

0.5223

0.5223

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.4931

0.4931

2,746.2975

0.5119

2,757.0478

0.0000

0.4931

0.4931

2,746.2975

0.5119

2,757.0478

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

Category

SO2

lb/day

Fugitive Dust

0.0000

Off-Road

0.6320

12.3051

14.1274

Total

0.6320

12.3051

14.1274

0.0000

CH4

N2O

CO2e

lb/day

0.0000

0.0000

0.4894

0.4894

0.4894

0.4894

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.4894

0.4894

2,746.2975

0.5119

2,757.0478

0.4894

0.4894

2,746.2975

0.5119

2,757.0478

3.6 ASR Injection/Extraction Wells - 2019


Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

Category

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

lb/day

Fugitive Dust

0.0000

Off-Road

1.1614

12.8523

6.9516

Total

1.1614

12.8523

6.9516

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

CH4

N2O

CO2e

lb/day

0.0000

0.0000

0.4592

0.4592

0.0000

0.4592

0.4592

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.4337

0.4337

2,720.8085

0.5093

2,731.5038

0.0000

0.4337

0.4337

2,720.8085

0.5093

2,731.5038

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

Category

SO2

lb/day

Fugitive Dust

0.0000

Off-Road

0.6320

12.3051

14.1274

Total

0.6320

12.3051

14.1274

0.0000

CH4

N2O

CO2e

lb/day

0.0000

0.0000

0.4894

0.4894

0.4894

0.4894

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.4894

0.4894

2,720.8085

0.5093

2,731.5038

0.4894

0.4894

2,720.8085

0.5093

2,731.5038

3.7 New Monterey Pipeline - 2018


Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

Category

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

lb/day

Fugitive Dust

0.0000

Off-Road

2.4568

26.8461

15.9542

Total

2.4568

26.8461

15.9542

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

CH4

N2O

CO2e

lb/day

0.0000

0.0000

1.2232

1.2232

0.0000

1.2232

1.2232

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

1.1404

1.1404

4,079.0202

0.8603

4,097.0855

0.0000

1.1404

1.1404

4,079.0202

0.8603

4,097.0855

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

Category

SO2

lb/day

Fugitive Dust

0.0000

Off-Road

0.9502

18.8001

23.7679

Total

0.9502

18.8001

23.7679

0.0000

CH4

N2O

CO2e

lb/day

0.0000

0.0000

0.8481

0.8481

0.8481

0.8481

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.8481

0.8481

4,079.0202

0.8603

4,097.0855

0.8481

0.8481

4,079.0202

0.8603

4,097.0855

3.7 New Monterey Pipeline - 2019


Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

Category

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

lb/day

Fugitive Dust

0.0000

Off-Road

2.2280

23.7098

15.6398

Total

2.2280

23.7098

15.6398

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

CH4

N2O

CO2e

lb/day

0.0000

0.0000

1.0707

1.0707

0.0000

1.0707

1.0707

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.9984

0.9984

4,036.5178

0.8574

4,054.5226

0.0000

0.9984

0.9984

4,036.5178

0.8574

4,054.5226

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

Category

SO2

lb/day

Fugitive Dust

0.0000

Off-Road

0.9502

18.8001

23.7679

Total

0.9502

18.8001

23.7679

0.0000

CH4

N2O

CO2e

lb/day

0.0000

0.0000

0.8481

0.8481

0.8481

0.8481

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.8481

0.8481

4,036.5178

0.8574

4,054.5226

0.8481

0.8481

4,036.5178

0.8574

4,054.5226

3.8 New Transmission Main Pipeline - 2018


Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

Category

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

lb/day

Fugitive Dust

0.0000

Off-Road

2.4828

27.1828

16.1533

Total

2.4828

27.1828

16.1533

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

CH4

N2O

CO2e

lb/day

0.0000

0.0000

1.2333

1.2333

0.0000

1.2333

1.2333

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

1.1497

1.1497

4,172.7119

0.8894

4,191.3897

0.0000

1.1497

1.1497

4,172.7119

0.8894

4,191.3897

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

Category

SO2

lb/day

Fugitive Dust

0.0000

Off-Road

0.9733

19.2476

24.2694

Total

0.9733

19.2476

24.2694

0.0000

CH4

N2O

CO2e

lb/day

0.0000

0.0000

0.8651

0.8651

0.8651

0.8651

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.8651

0.8651

4,172.7119

0.8894

4,191.3897

0.8651

0.8651

4,172.7119

0.8894

4,191.3897

3.8 New Transmission Main Pipeline - 2019


Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

Category

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

lb/day

Fugitive Dust

0.0000

Off-Road

2.2530

24.0090

15.8393

Total

2.2530

24.0090

15.8393

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

CH4

N2O

CO2e

lb/day

0.0000

0.0000

1.0799

1.0799

0.0000

1.0799

1.0799

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

1.0069

1.0069

4,128.5422

0.8865

4,147.1584

0.0000

1.0069

1.0069

4,128.5422

0.8865

4,147.1584

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

Category

SO2

lb/day

Fugitive Dust

0.0000

Off-Road

0.9733

19.2476

24.2694

Total

0.9733

19.2476

24.2694

0.0000

CH4

N2O

CO2e

lb/day

0.0000

0.0000

0.8651

0.8651

0.8651

0.8651

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.8651

0.8651

4,128.5422

0.8865

4,147.1583

0.8651

0.8651

4,128.5422

0.8865

4,147.1583

3.9 Source Water Pipeline - 2019


Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

Category

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

lb/day

Fugitive Dust

0.0000

Off-Road

2.2181

23.5901

15.5599

Total

2.2181

23.5901

15.5599

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

CH4

N2O

CO2e

lb/day

0.0000

0.0000

1.0670

1.0670

0.0000

1.0670

1.0670

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.9950

0.9950

3,999.7081

0.8457

4,017.4683

0.0000

0.9950

0.9950

3,999.7081

0.8457

4,017.4683

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

Category

SO2

lb/day

Fugitive Dust

0.0000

Off-Road

0.9409

18.6210

23.5672

Total

0.9409

18.6210

23.5672

0.0000

CH4

N2O

CO2e

lb/day

0.0000

0.0000

0.8413

0.8413

0.8413

0.8413

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.8413

0.8413

3,999.7081

0.8457

4,017.4683

0.8413

0.8413

3,999.7081

0.8457

4,017.4683

3.10 Carmel Valley Pump Station - 2019


Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

Category

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

lb/day

Fugitive Dust

0.0000

Off-Road

0.9357

9.8577

5.6680

Total

0.9357

9.8577

5.6680

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

CH4

N2O

CO2e

lb/day

0.0000

0.0000

0.3935

0.3935

0.0000

0.3935

0.3935

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.3753

0.3753

1,945.5769

0.1958

1,949.6891

0.0000

0.3753

0.3753

1,945.5769

0.1958

1,949.6891

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

Category

SO2

lb/day

Fugitive Dust

0.0000

Off-Road

0.4287

8.4544

10.1039

Total

0.4287

8.4544

10.1039

0.0000

CH4

N2O

CO2e

lb/day

0.0000

0.0000

0.3639

0.3639

0.3639

0.3639

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.3639

0.3639

1,945.5769

0.1958

1,949.6891

0.3639

0.3639

1,945.5769

0.1958

1,949.6891

3.11 Monterey Pump Station - 2019


Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

Category

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

lb/day

Fugitive Dust

0.0000

Off-Road

0.9357

9.8577

5.6680

Total

0.9357

9.8577

5.6680

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

CH4

N2O

CO2e

lb/day

0.0000

0.0000

0.3935

0.3935

0.0000

0.3935

0.3935

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.3753

0.3753

1,945.5769

0.1958

1,949.6891

0.0000

0.3753

0.3753

1,945.5769

0.1958

1,949.6891

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

Category

SO2

lb/day

Fugitive Dust

0.0000

Off-Road

0.4287

8.4544

10.1039

Total

0.4287

8.4544

10.1039

0.0000

CH4

N2O

CO2e

lb/day

0.0000

0.0000

0.3639

0.3639

0.3639

0.3639

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.3639

0.3639

1,945.5769

0.1958

1,949.6891

0.3639

0.3639

1,945.5769

0.1958

1,949.6891

3.12 Castroville Pipeline - 2019


Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

Category

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

lb/day

Fugitive Dust

0.0000

Off-Road

2.2380

23.8295

15.7196

Total

2.2380

23.8295

15.7196

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

CH4

N2O

CO2e

lb/day

0.0000

0.0000

1.0744

1.0744

0.0000

1.0744

1.0744

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

1.0018

1.0018

4,073.3276

0.8690

4,091.5769

0.0000

1.0018

1.0018

4,073.3276

0.8690

4,091.5769

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

Category

SO2

lb/day

Fugitive Dust

0.0000

Off-Road

0.9594

18.9791

23.9685

Total

0.9594

18.9791

23.9685

0.0000

CH4

N2O

CO2e

lb/day

0.0000

0.0000

0.8549

0.8549

0.8549

0.8549

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.8549

0.8549

4,073.3276

0.8690

4,091.5769

0.8549

0.8549

4,073.3276

0.8690

4,091.5769

3.13 ASR Pipelines (ASR Conveyance, ASR Redisribution, and


S
Unmitigated
Construction On-Site) 2019

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

Category

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

lb/day

Fugitive Dust

0.0000

Off-Road

2.1882

23.2311

15.3205

Total

2.1882

23.2311

15.3205

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

CH4

N2O

CO2e

lb/day

0.0000

0.0000

1.0559

1.0559

0.0000

1.0559

1.0559

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.9848

0.9848

3,889.2789

0.8108

3,906.3054

0.0000

0.9848

0.9848

3,889.2789

0.8108

3,906.3054

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

Category

SO2

lb/day

Fugitive Dust

0.0000

Off-Road

0.9131

18.0840

22.9654

Total

0.9131

18.0840

22.9654

0.0000

CH4

N2O

CO2e

lb/day

0.0000

0.0000

0.8209

0.8209

0.8209

0.8209

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.8209

0.8209

3,889.2789

0.8108

3,906.3054

0.8209

0.8209

3,889.2789

0.8108

3,906.3054

3.14 Brine Discharge Pipeline - 2019


Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

Category

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

lb/day

Fugitive Dust

0.0000

Off-Road

2.1882

23.2311

15.3205

Total

2.1882

23.2311

15.3205

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

CH4

N2O

CO2e

lb/day

0.0000

0.0000

1.0559

1.0559

0.0000

1.0559

1.0559

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.9848

0.9848

3,889.2789

0.8108

3,906.3054

0.0000

0.9848

0.9848

3,889.2789

0.8108

3,906.3054

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

Category

SO2

lb/day

Fugitive Dust

0.0000

Off-Road

0.9131

18.0840

22.9654

Total

0.9131

18.0840

22.9654

0.0000

CH4

N2O

CO2e

lb/day

0.0000

0.0000

0.8209

0.8209

0.8209

0.8209

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.8209

0.8209

3,889.2789

0.8108

3,906.3054

0.8209

0.8209

3,889.2789

0.8108

3,906.3054

3.15 Pipeline to CSIP Pond - 2019


Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

Category

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

lb/day

Fugitive Dust

0.0000

Off-Road

2.1882

23.2311

15.3205

Total

2.1882

23.2311

15.3205

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

CH4

N2O

CO2e

lb/day

0.0000

0.0000

1.0559

1.0559

0.0000

1.0559

1.0559

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.9848

0.9848

3,889.2789

0.8108

3,906.3054

0.0000

0.9848

0.9848

3,889.2789

0.8108

3,906.3054

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

Category

SO2

lb/day

Fugitive Dust

0.0000

Off-Road

0.9131

18.0840

22.9654

Total

0.9131

18.0840

22.9654

0.0000

CH4

N2O

CO2e

lb/day

0.0000

0.0000

0.8209

0.8209

0.8209

0.8209

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.8209

0.8209

3,889.2789

0.8108

3,906.3054

0.8209

0.8209

3,889.2789

0.8108

3,906.3054

3.16 Ryan Ranch-Bishop Interconnection - 2019


Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

Category

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

lb/day

Fugitive Dust

0.0000

Off-Road

2.1882

23.2311

15.3205

Total

2.1882

23.2311

15.3205

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

CH4

N2O

CO2e

lb/day

0.0000

0.0000

1.0559

1.0559

0.0000

1.0559

1.0559

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.9848

0.9848

3,889.2789

0.8108

3,906.3054

0.0000

0.9848

0.9848

3,889.2789

0.8108

3,906.3054

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

Category

SO2

lb/day

Fugitive Dust

0.0000

Off-Road

0.9131

18.0840

22.9654

Total

0.9131

18.0840

22.9654

0.0000

CH4

N2O

CO2e

lb/day

0.0000

0.0000

0.8209

0.8209

0.8209

0.8209

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.8209

0.8209

3,889.2789

0.8108

3,906.3054

0.8209

0.8209

3,889.2789

0.8108

3,906.3054

3.17 Main System to Hidden Hills - 2019


Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

Category

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

lb/day

Fugitive Dust

0.0000

Off-Road

2.1882

23.2311

15.3205

Total

2.1882

23.2311

15.3205

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

CH4

N2O

CO2e

lb/day

0.0000

0.0000

1.0559

1.0559

0.0000

1.0559

1.0559

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.9848

0.9848

3,889.2789

0.8108

3,906.3054

0.0000

0.9848

0.9848

3,889.2789

0.8108

3,906.3054

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

Category

SO2

lb/day

Fugitive Dust

0.0000

Off-Road

0.9131

18.0840

22.9654

Total

0.9131

18.0840

22.9654

0.0000

CH4

N2O

CO2e

lb/day

0.0000

0.0000

0.8209

0.8209

0.8209

0.8209

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.8209

0.8209

3,889.2789

0.8108

3,906.3054

0.8209

0.8209

3,889.2789

0.8108

3,906.3054

3.18 Slant Well Maintenance - 2025


Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

Category

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

lb/day

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

CH4

N2O

CO2e

lb/day

Off-Road

0.9391

8.2777

6.2987

0.3066

0.3066

0.2879

0.2879

2,473.7608

0.3542

2,481.1996

Total

0.9391

8.2777

6.2987

0.3066

0.3066

0.2879

0.2879

2,473.7608

0.3542

2,481.1996

Exhaust
PM10

PM10
Total

Exhaust
PM2.5

PM2.5
Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

3.18 Slant Well Maintenance - 2026


Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

Category

SO2

Fugitive
PM10

Fugitive
PM2.5

lb/day

CH4

N2O

CO2e

lb/day

Off-Road

0.9391

8.2777

6.2987

0.3066

0.3066

0.2879

0.2879

2,473.7608

0.3542

2,481.1996

Total

0.9391

8.2777

6.2987

0.3066

0.3066

0.2879

0.2879

2,473.7608

0.3542

2,481.1996

G1.4.1 HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT CALCULATIONS


CalAm - Carmel Valley Pump Station

Pollutant
DPM
DPM
DPM
DPM
DPM
DPM
TOTALS

Cancer Risk Inputs


Age Category
3rd tri - birth
0 to 2
2 to 16
16 to 70
Cancer Risk Inputs
Age Category
3rd tri - birth
0 to 2
2 to 16
16 to 70
Cancer Risk Inputs
Age Category
3rd tri - birth
0 to 2
2 to 16
16 to 70

j
Concentration
(ug/m3)
1.37E-01
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00

1.10E+00
1.10E+00
1.10E+00
1.10E+00
1.10E+00
1.10E+00

3rd Tri-Birth
4.08E-07
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00

0 to 2
4.79E-06
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00

1
Daily Breathing
Rate
361
1090
745
290

Inhalation
Absorption Rate
1
1
1
1

days/year
90
350
350
350

years
0.25
0.25
0
0

2
Daily Breathing
Rate
361
1090
745
290

Inhalation
Absorption Rate
1
1
1
1

days/year
90
350
350
350

years
0
0
0
0

3
Daily Breathing
Rate
361
1090
745
290

Inhalation
Absorption Rate
1
1
1
1

days/year
90
350
350
350

years
0
0
0
0

Cancer Risk (in a million)


2 to 16
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00

16 to 70
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00

Total
5.20E-06
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
5.20E-06
Cancer Risk
5.2
per million

Chronic REL

Chronic HI

5
5
5
5
5
5

0.027434
0
0
0
0
0
2.743E-02
Chronic HI

1.00E-06
1.00E-06
1.00E-06
1.00E-06

Average Time
days
25550
25550
25550
25550

Child Risk
Factor
10
10
3
1

Fraction of
Time at Home
0.85
0.85
0.72
0.73

1.00E-06
1.00E-06
1.00E-06
1.00E-06

Average Time
days
25550
25550
25550
25550

Child Risk
Factor
10
10
3
1

Fraction of
Time at Home
0.85
0.85
0.72
0.73

1.00E-06
1.00E-06
1.00E-06
1.00E-06

Average Time
days
25550
25550
25550
25550

Child Risk
Factor
10
10
3
1

Fraction of
Time at Home
0.85
0.85
0.72
0.73

Cancer Risk Inputs


Age Category
3rd tri - birth
0 to 2
2 to 16
16 to 70

4-Jan
Daily Breathing
Rate
361
1090
745
290

Inhalation
Absorption Rate
1
1
1
1

days/year
90
350
350
350

years
0
0
0
0

3rd Tri-Birth
4.99E-07
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00

0 to 2
5.86E-06
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00

1.00E-06
1.00E-06
1.00E-06
1.00E-06

Average Time
days
25550
25550
25550
25550

Child Risk
Factor
10
10
3
1

Fraction of
Time at Home
0.85
0.85
0.72
1

CalAm - ASR Injection

Pollutant
DPM
DPM
DPM
DPM
DPM
DPM
TOTALS

Cancer Risk Inputs


Age Category
3rd tri - birth
0 to 2
2 to 16
16 to 70
Cancer Risk Inputs
Age Category
3rd tri - birth
0 to 2
2 to 16
16 to 70

j
Concentration
(ug/m3)
1.68E-01
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00

y
Factor (slope
factor)
1.10E+00
1.10E+00
1.10E+00
1.10E+00
1.10E+00
1.10E+00

1
Daily Breathing
Rate
361
1090
745
290

Inhalation
Absorption Rate
1
1
1
1

days/year
90
350
350
350

years
0.25
0.75
0
0

2
Daily Breathing
Rate
361
1090
745
290

Inhalation
Absorption Rate
1
1
1
1

days/year
90
350
350
350

years
0
0
0
0

Cancer Risk (in a million)


2 to 16
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00

16 to 70
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00

Total
6.36E-06
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
6.36E-06
Cancer Risk
6.4
per million

Chronic REL

Chronic HI

5
5
5
5
5
5

0.0336
0
0
0
0
0
3.360E-02
Chronic HI

1.00E-06
1.00E-06
1.00E-06
1.00E-06

Average Time
days
25550
25550
25550
25550

Child Risk
Factor
10
10
3
1

Fraction of
Time at Home
0.85
0.85
0.72
0.73

1.00E-06
1.00E-06
1.00E-06
1.00E-06

Average Time
days
25550
25550
25550
25550

Child Risk
Factor
10
10
3
1

Fraction of
Time at Home
0.85
0.85
0.72
0.73

Cancer Risk Inputs


Age Category
3rd tri - birth
0 to 2
2 to 16
16 to 70

Cancer Risk Inputs


Age Category
3rd tri - birth
0 to 2
2 to 16
16 to 70

3
Daily Breathing
Rate
361
1090
745
290

Inhalation
Absorption Rate
1
1
1
1

days/year
90
350
350
350

years
0
0
0
0

4-Jan
Daily Breathing
Rate
361
1090
745
290

Inhalation
Absorption Rate
1
1
1
1

days/year
90
350
350
350

years
0
0
0
0

1.00E-06
1.00E-06
1.00E-06
1.00E-06

Average Time
days
25550
25550
25550
25550

Child Risk
Factor
10
10
3
1

Fraction of
Time at Home
0.85
0.85
0.72
0.73

1.00E-06
1.00E-06
1.00E-06
1.00E-06

Average Time
days
25550
25550
25550
25550

Child Risk
Factor
10
10
3
1

Fraction of
Time at Home
0.85
0.85
0.72
1

G1.4.2 HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT DISPERSION MODELING RESULTS


Carmel Valley Pump Station Modeling Results - showing annual concentration contours

0.13717 Annual Max used in health risk calcus

Carmel Valley Pump Station Modeling Results - Without Contours but showing concentrations at receptors

ASR Injection Modeling Results - showing annual concentration contours

0.168 Annual max used in health risk calculations

ASR Injection Modeling Results - Without Contours but showing concentrations at receptors

APPENDIX G2

Trussel Technologies Inc. Technical


Memorandum, Response to CalAm MPWSP
DEIR

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

G2-1

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

This page intentionally left blank

Technical Memorandum
Response to Comment on CalAm MPWSP DEIR
Date:

November 29, 2016

To:

Environmental Science Associates


Eric Zigas

CC:

California American Water


Ian Crooks

Prepared by:

Trussell Technologies, Inc.


Anya Kaufmann
Rhodes Trussell, Ph.D., P.E., BCEE

Reviewed by:

Trussell Technologies, Inc.


John Kenny, P.E.
Cline Trussell, P.E., BCEE

Subject:

Response to comment from William Bourcier on CalAm Monterey


Peninsula Water Supply Project; Draft Environmental Impact Report

1 INTRODUCTION
On September 30, 2015, a private citizen, William Bourcier, submitted a comment on the April
2015 Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply
Project (MPWSP) prepared by Environmental Science Associates (ESA) on behalf of the
California Public Utilities Commission. Mr. Bourcier expressed concerns about the release of
greenhouse gases (GHG) from feed water sourced from subsurface intakes. Trussell
Technologies was retained to evaluate the GHG releases anticipated from the groundwater
sources used for the MPWSP.
In August 2016, Trussell Technologies prepared a short technical memorandum and presented an
initial analysis of carbon dioxide releases from the water sources used for the MPWSP to several
members of the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and ESA. Trussell Technologies was asked to prepare an
additional technical memorandum detailing the assumptions and methods used to estimate
carbon dioxide releases.

2 BACKGROUND
Mr. Bourcier used data contained in the April 2015 DEIR to estimate the amount of carbon
dioxide that would be released when the water equilibrates with the atmosphere. Using data from
Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

CO2 Release Estimate

November 2016

the exploratory boreholes (GeoScience 2014a), Mr. Bourcier estimated that between 822 and
14,877 tons of carbon dioxide could be released per year. Mr. Bourcier expressed his concerns
regarding the potential for GHG releases from the source water used for the MPWSP, and
suggested that an analysis of the GHG potential from source water be included in the DEIR.
To address Mr. Bourciers comment, we performed an analysis of the potential for carbon
dioxide releases from the source water for the planned desalination plant. This technical
memorandum provides details about the methods used in the analysis including calculations and
assumptions.
To estimate carbon dioxide releases, we took several steps and made several assumptions
including (1) flow path assumptions, (2) source water assumptions, (3) reverse osmosis (RO)
modeling assumptions, and finally (4) equilibrium calculations. Each of these steps and
assumptions is detailed in this technical memorandum.

3 FLOW PATH ASSUMPTIONS


In his comment, Mr. Bourcier mentioned that the potential carbon dioxide release can be
calculated assuming the feed water eventually equilibrates with the atmosphere. Carbon
dioxide will be released to the atmosphere if the concentration of carbon dioxide in the water
(CO2(aq)) is proportionally larger than the partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PCO2) in the
atmosphere as defined by the Henrys Law constant for carbon dioxide (KH). This will only
occur when the water is allowed to equilibrate with the atmosphere.
!" =

%&'(
)*+ ,-

However, the source water for the MPWSP would not contact the atmosphere until after the
water has passed through the desalination plant. The feedwater would be extracted through slant
wells and conveyed to the desalination plant in an enclosed pipe. The water would then travel
through the desalination plant. While the filtered water tanks prior to the reverse osmosis system
allow for the water to contact the atmosphere, but there will not be enough residence time or
mixing for the water to equilibrate with the atmosphere at that time and the mass transfer in these
tanks will be insignificant. After the plant, the water would either contact the atmosphere (1) as
finished water in the finished water tanks, or (2) as concentrate at the storage reservoir or the
Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency (MRWPCA) outfall. Figure 1 shows the
process flow diagram for the MPWSP.

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

CO2 Release Estimate

November 2016

Figure 1 Process Flow Diagram of MPWSP

The water in the finished water tanks would travel through each treatment process prior to
equilibration with the atmosphere. During post-treatment, the pH of the desalinated water would
be adjusted to ensure that carbon dioxide would not be released from the desalinated water as it
contacts the atmosphere. However, the concentrate from the RO process would not undergo any
additional treatment or pH adjustment and would be released back to the ocean, at which point, it
would equilibrate with the atmosphere and may release carbon dioxide. Therefore, to determine
the amount of carbon dioxide that would be released from the MPWSP, we determined the
amount of carbon dioxide in the RO concentrate as it is produced relative to the levels when the
concentrate is at equilibrium with the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

4 SOURCE WATER ASSUMPTIONS


It is difficult to predict the future water quality of the source water with precision as the MPWSP
will not be constructed for several years. Yet, the water quality of the source water impacts the
concentration of carbon dioxide in the RO concentrate. To account for uncertainties in the source
water quality, we considered two potential source waters that are representative of a worst-case
and a best-case source water. The worst-case source water is water that is currently being
drawn through a test slant well. The best-case source water is fresh seawater from the
Monterey Bay.
A test slant well is currently operating at the CEMEX site. The location of the test slant well is
shown in Figure 2. This test slant well is expected to be representative of the slant wells that will
feed the MPWSP. The slant wells for the MPWSP are projected to pull 93 percent seawater from
the Monterey Bay and 7 percent groundwater from the surrounding area when the MPWSP is
operating (GeoScience 2014b). However, the test slant well only began operating in April 2015
and has not been running continuously. Hydrogeologists have modeled the groundwater and
shown that it could take several years for the slant well to begin to draw fresh seawater because
the fresh seawater must flush out any old intruded seawater in the flow path. (Figure 3).

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

CO2 Release Estimate

November 2016

Figure 2 Test Slant Well Location, Marina, CA.

If the test slant well pulled fresh seawater (that is already at equilibrium with the atmosphere),
there would be minimal change in pH and carbon dioxide concentration as the water traveled
through the ground, to the slant well, and into the desalination plant. Therefore, fresh seawater
from the Monterey Bay is considered the best-case water quality for this analysis because it
represents the scenario where the water quality would not change as it is drawn through the slant
well.
In contrast, the test slant well water is considered the worst-case water because the seawater it
is drawing is not fresh. Figure 3 shows that it could take up to four years for the slant well to be
drawing 96% seawater, and the well has only been operating intermittently since April 2015.
Currently, it is drawing old intruded seawater with a lower pH and higher silica concentration
than seawater and would result in the release of more carbon dioxide.

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

CO2 Release Estimate

November 2016

Figure 3 Time for Slant Well to Pull 96% Seawater (GeoScience 2014b).

To estimate the concentration of carbon dioxide in the RO concentrate, we modeled the RO


process using the water quality of the two source waters: (1) the worst-case test slant well
water, and (2) the best-case seawater.
4.1

TEST SLANT WELL WATER QUALITY

The water quality data from the test slant well was collected by GeoScience for California
American Water (CalAm). Data that was used to perform the RO modeling is provided in Table
1 (GeoScience 2016). Sampling data from September 2016 was used because it was the most
recent data available at the time of the analysis. By the end of September 2016, the test slant well
had been operating continuously for 5 months and intermittently since April 2015. GeoScience
sampled from the test slant well five times in September 2016. The water quality parameters of
interest are the parameters that are input into the RO modeling software. Any non-detect (ND)
values were set at the method detection limit (MDL). The average value from the five sampling
events in September 2016 are shown in Table 1 and were input into the RO modeling software
for analysis.

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

CO2 Release Estimate

November 2016

Table 1 Test Slant Well Water Quality Data from GeoScience

Constituent

Units

September 2016*

Temperature
pH
Calcium
Magnesium
Sodium
Potassium
Ammonia (NH4+)
Barium
Strontium
Bicarbonate
Sulfate
Chloride
Fluoride
Nitrate
Phosphate
Silica
Boron

C
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
g/L
g/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L

16.1
7.08
472
1,052
8,914
274
0.03
0.071
7,440
142
2,339
16,406
0.94
4.20
0.10
12.4
3.24

*Average of the 5 sampling events during September 2016

4.2

SEAWATER QUALITY

To evaluate the best-case scenario, we used existing seawater data from the Monterey Bay
area. These data are found in the appendices of the MPWSP Request for Proposals (RFP)
released by CalAm in 2013 (California American Water 2013).The raw water quality conditions
for the basis of design of the proposed desalination plant were assumed to be representative of
the seawater in the area. The raw water quality data reported in the MPWSP RFP was
determined from the compilation of data from several projects in the area including the Moss
Landing Desalination Pilot Study (MWH 2010), the Santa Cruz/Soquel Creek Desalination Pilot
Study (CDM 2010), and the Santa Cruz/Soquel Creek Watershed Sanitary Survey (Archibald
Consulting, Palencia Consulting Engineers et al. 2010).
The data is shown in Table 2. The MPWSP RFP did not include values for ammonia and nitrate.
However, these values were determined from the same dataset used to produce the RFP.

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

CO2 Release Estimate

November 2016

Table 2 Seawater Quality Data

Constituent

Units

Temperature
pH
Calcium
Magnesium
Sodium
Potassium
Ammonia (NH4+)
Barium
Strontium
Bicarbonate

C
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L

Sulfate
Chloride
Fluoride
Nitrate
Phosphate
Silica
Boron

mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L

Average
Values*
12
8
405
1,262
10,604
392
1.29
0.013
7.81
105
2,667
19,030
1.28
0.89
1.7
1.3
5

*Values are based on the central tendency observed from three


projects in the area (Archibald Consulting, Palencia Consulting
Engineers et al. 2010, CDM 2010, MWH 2010).

5 RO MODELING
All RO modeling was performed using IMSDesign-2016 by Hydranautics. The integrated
membrane solutions design software is a free software that can be downloaded from the
Hydranautics website (Hydranautics 2016). The software allows for many different
configurations and assumptions. For the purposes of this analysis, the RO software was set up to
replicate the design of the RO process planned for the MPWSP.
5.1

RO MODELING ASSUMPTIONS

The RO system configuration consists of a first pass seawater RO (SWRO) system followed by a
40% partial second pass brackish water RO system (BWRO) (CDM 2014). The first pass
recovery is 45% followed by a second pass recovery of 90% resulting in an overall recovery of
41%. Additional design parameters that were modeled are shown in Table 3. Figure 4 shows the
configuration of the modeled RO process.

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

CO2 Release Estimate

November 2016

Table 3 RO Process Design and Modeled Assumptions

RO Configuration
Well-type
Sea Well conventional
No. of Passes
2
Overall Recovery
41 %
First Pass SWRO
Permeate Flow/train
1.44 mgd/train
Recovery
42.5 %
Maximum Membrane Flux
8.75 gfd
Maximum Feed Pressure
1000 psi
Elements per Vessel
7
Element Type
SWC5
No. of Pressure Vessels
70
Membrane Age
5 yr
Flux Decline
5 %/yr
Fouling Factor
0.774
Salt Passage Increase
7 %/yr
Second Pass BWRO
Maximum Capacity/Train
0.52 mgd/train
Minimum Percent of Total First Pass
40 %
Permeate to Second Pass Feed
No. of BWRO Stages Per Train
2
Recovery
90 %
Maximum Membrane Flux
18 gfd
Maximum Feed Pressure
230 psi
Elements per vessel
7
Element Type
ESPA2
No. of Pressure Vessels
8
Maximum pH
10
Membrane Age
5 yr
Flux Decline
3 %/yr
Fouling Factor
0.859
Salt Passage Increase
5 %/yr
Energy Recovery Device
Type of Energy Recovery Device
Pressure/Work Exchanger
Leakage
1 %
Volumetric Mixing
3 %
H.P. Differential
7.25 psi

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

CO2 Release Estimate

November 2016

Figure 4 Screenshot of the RO Configuration Modeled Using the IMSDesign-2016 Software by


Hydranautics

The RO modeling software allows for the input of the water quality parameters listed in Table 1
and Table 2 as shown in the screenshot of the software in Figure 5. The software produces an
output of water quality parameters for the raw water, blended water, feed water, permeate water,
concentrate, and the Energy Recovery Device (ERD) reject. A printout of one set of results is
provided in Appendix A.

Figure 5 Example RO Model Input Parameters Screenshot

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

CO2 Release Estimate

5.2

November 2016

RO MODELING RESULTS

For this analysis, the parameters of interest from the RO modeling are the pH, bicarbonate,
carbonate, and total dissolved solids of the RO concentrate. Using pH, bicarbonate, and
carbonate, the alkalinity of the RO concentrate was calculated, using the typical assumption in
seawater that the carbonate species are the predominate acid buffering constituents.
./0,/12134

56=
7

5;
7
5; 8)*9:
61
55>/
8)*9:

./0,/12134

+2

5;
7
5; )*9+:
60
55>/
)*9+:

+ 10:(CDE :C") 1000

55>/
5>/

10:C" 1000

55>/
5>/

5;
565; ),)*9
,I ),)*9 = ./0,/12134
50
567
7

The results from the RO Modeling, and the subsequent alkalinity calculation, are shown in Table
4.
Table 4 Modeled RO Concentrate Water Quality Parameters

Constituent
Temperature (C)
pH
Bicarbonate (mg/L)
Carbonate (mg/L)
TDS (mg/L)
Alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO3)

Test Slant Well


(RO Concentrate)
16.1
7.25
244
4.7
52,052
207.8

Seawater
(RO Concentrate)
12
8.17
166
31
60,614
187.9

Using the parameters shown in Table 4, we calculated the expected amount of carbon dioxide
released for each source water.

6 ESTIMATING CARBON DIOXIDE RELEASED


There are many relationships between the species of carbon dioxide in seawater. Using
temperature and salinity corrected equilibrium constants K0, K1*, K2*, Kw*, pH, and alkalinity, we
determined the total carbon in a sample of water, assuming the carbonate species are the
predominate pH buffering species. The equilibrium constants are dependent on the salinity and
temperature of the water, and we corrected the equilibrium constants using data from literature.
6.1

CALCULATING TOTAL CARBON

The total carbon (CT) in a sample of water is defined as the sum of the concentrations of carbon
dioxide, bicarbonate, and carbonate in the water.
)L = )*+ + 8)*9: + )*9+:

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

10

CO2 Release Estimate

November 2016

Where carbon dioxide in water is often written as [H2CO3*] and it takes two forms, (1) carbonic
acid [H2CO3], and (2) aqueous carbon dioxide [CO2(aq)].
)*+ = 8+ )*9 = )*+ MN + 8+ )*9
Which results in the following form:
)L = 8+ )*9 + 8)*9: + )*9+:
Using the definition of total carbon, alkalinity (AT), the temperature and salinity corrected
equilibrium constants, and pH, CT of the RO concentrate can be calculated. The pH was adjusted
for the appropriate scale assumed by the equilibrium constants.
!O =

"( &'P
C &'(

; !Q =

" R "&'PS
"( &'P

; !+ =

" R &'P(S
"&'PS

; !T
= 8U *8:

. L = 8)*9: + 2 )*9+: + *8: 8U


We compared the calculated CT of the RO concentrate to the anticipated CT of the RO
concentrate at equilibrium with the atmosphere to estimate the amount of carbon dioxide that
would be released from the RO concentrate. We determined the CT of the RO concentrate at
equilibrium with the atmosphere by iteratively varying the pH until the carbon dioxide
concentration was in equilibrium with the atmosphere.
The difference between the calculated CT of the RO concentrate and the anticipated CT of the RO
concentrate at equilibrium is the amount of carbon dioxide that will be released.
There are several important considerations when performing these calculations. First, the
equilibrium constants are dependent on temperature and salinity. Corrections to the equilibrium
constants at standard conditions must be incorporated to reflect the true temperature and salinity
of the samples. Second, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere must be
determined.
The methods for correcting the equilibrium constants and determining the concentration of
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are discussed below.
6.2

EQUILIBRIUM CONSTANT CORRECTIONS

The equilibrium constants of the carbonic species are defined at a standard temperature of 25C
and a salinity of 35 PSS. However, the RO concentrates of both the test slant well samples and
the fresh seawater have non-standard temperatures and salinity.
Determining Salinity
The temperature of the water is known; however, the salinity of the water must be determined.
The RO model reported the total dissolved solids (TDS) of the RO concentrate. Using TDS, we
calculated the salinity of the RO concentrate.
6.2.1

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

11

CO2 Release Estimate

November 2016

The major seawater ions can be calculated from salinity because it is known that the proportions
of major ion constituents in seawater are relatively constant (Stumm and Morgan 1981).
Conceptually, salinity is a measure of the mass of dissolved inorganic matter in a given mass of
seawater. The constant proportions of ions in seawater around the globe has been observed and
documented by researchers as far back as 1779 by Bergman, and then in 1884 by Dittmar, among
others (Millero 2006). These proportions have been reassessed over time, with only very slight
changes made. Ion proportions representative of average seawater, which are consistent but not
identical to ratios measured by Dittmar, are reported by Millero (2006) and are shown in Table 5,
below. In Table 5, the second column reports g/Cl which is the mass of the ion species in
grams per kilogram of seawater as a function of chlorinity (also in g/kg). These ratios are the
basis for the calculation of major ion concentrations from measured salinity values.
Millero (2006) also provides the relationship between chlorinity and salinity as being:
V = 1.80655 )/ ().
Knowing the chlorinity as a function of salinity, and the mass of each ion species as a function of
chlorinity, the mass (g/kg) of each of the major ion constituents in seawater was calculated. The
ion concentration as g/kg was converted to mg/L by multiplying by the density of seawater
(approximately 1.025). Millero and Sohn (1992) provide an equation that relates density to the
Practical Salinity Scale (PSS), which was used in converting ion concentration in g/kg to mg/L.
Table 5 Ion Ratios in "Average" Seawater as a Function of Chlorinity (Millero 2006)

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

12

CO2 Release Estimate

November 2016

Using the ion concentrations and the relationship between salinity and chlorinity, the salinity of
the water was calculated from the TDS. The salinity of each of the RO concentrates is shown
below in Table 6.
Table 6 Salinity Values of the RO Concentrate Calculated from TDS
Constituent
TDS (mg/L)
Salinity (PSS)

Test Slant Well (RO Concentrate)


52,052
48.7

Seawater (RO Concentrate)


60,614
56.7

Temperature and Salinity Corrections


Once salinity of the RO concentrate was determined, the equilibrium constants were corrected
according to the temperature and salinity of the sample water.
6.2.2

K0 was corrected for temperature (T,K) and salinity (S) using the equation derived by Weiss
(1974) and the corresponding constants shown in Table 7.
100
T
T
T
ln K 0 = A1 + A2
+ A3 ln
+S B1 +B2
+B3
T
100
100
100

Table 7 Constants for the calculation of K0

Constant
A1
A2
A3
B1
B2
B3

Value (moles/kg*atm)
-60.2409
93.4517
23.3585
0.023517
-0.023656
0.00474036

Millero, Pierrot et al. (2002) compared different laboratory measurements of the equilibrium
constants K1 and K2 at different temperatures and salinities. Using the relationships developed by
Millero, Pierrot et al. (2002), K1 and K2 were determined for the appropriate temperature (T,K)
and salinity (S).
1355.1
b!Q = 8.712 9.460 10:9 V + 8.56 10:f V + +
+ 1.7979 ln g
g
b!+ = 17.0001 0.01259V 7.9334 10:f V + +

936.291
V
V+
1.87354 ln g 2.61471 + 0.07479
g
g
g

Kw was corrected for temperature (T,K) and salinity (S) using constants and relationships
defined by Harned and Owen (1958) and Millero (2013).
log !j =

4470.99
+ 6.0875 0.017060g
g

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

13

CO2 Release Estimate

November 2016

ln !j = ln 10 log !j
ln !j = ln !j + 0.37201 V 0.0162 V
6.3

ATMOSPHERIC CARBON DIOXIDE

The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is an important parameter of this analysis.
The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is measured daily at the Mauna Loa
Observatory in Hawaii. Charles David Keeling of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography began
taking carbon dioxide measurements in 1956, and there is a near continuous record of carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere since 1958. The data is called the Keeling Curve. The average
concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in 2016 was determined by plotting annual
averages of carbon dioxide and extrapolating (Figure 6). From this analysis, the anticipated
average concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in 2016 is 402 ppm.
410
400

CO2 Concentration (ppm)

390
380
370
360
350
340
330
320
310
1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2020

Year
Data

Model

2016 Prediction

Figure 6 Annual Average Carbon Dioxide Concentrations (Tans and Keeling 2016)

6.4

CALCULATING CARBON DIOXIDE IN RO CONCENTRATE

Once the equilibrium constants were corrected for temperature and salinity, release of carbon
dioxide from the RO concentrate was estimated. The difference between the calculated CT of the
RO concentrate and the CT of the RO concentrate estimated at equilibrium with the atmosphere

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

14

CO2 Release Estimate

November 2016

yielded the concentration of carbon dioxide released. Using the expected recovery and capacity
of the desalination plant, we calculated the rate of concentrate production. The MPWSP is a 9.6
mgd desalination facility with 41% percent overall recovery. This yielded a concentrate
production of 14 mgd.
kCoqroMpo
kCoqroMpo
klmnlonpqMpo =
%qolmtoqu
The total mass of carbon dioxide released is calculated using the concentrate production and the
concentration of carbon dioxide released. Results are discussed in the following section.
6.5

RESULTS

The results of the analysis are shown in Table 8. The test slant well water source is projected to
produce 735 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year. A fresh seawater source is projected to
produce 95 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year.
Table 8 Carbon dioxide released from MPWSP with different source waters

Result
CO2 (metric tons/yr)

Test Slant Well


735

Seawater
95

7 CONCLUSIONS
To estimate carbon dioxide release from the source water for the MPWSP we looked at the flow
path through the desalination plant, made assumptions about the source water, modeled the RO
process, and used relationships among carbonic species. Through our analysis, we determined
that the RO concentrate is the only water in the process that may release CO2 as it comes to
equilibrium with the atmosphere. We used RO modeling software to estimate the water quality
of the RO concentrate, and we performed this analysis using different source water assumptions.
The analysis looked at worst-case and best-case source water qualities. The worst-case
water quality was the quality in the current test slant well water because it has a lower pH and
higher alkalinity than seawater and is expected to be worse than the water quality the MPWSP
would actually use as source water. The water being drawn from the slant well is expected to
become more representative of seawater as it continues to be pumped; however, at the present
time, evidence suggests the slant well is still drawing old intruded seawater. The amount of
carbon dioxide projected to be released from the MPWSP if the current test slant well water is
used as the water source would be 735 metric tons per year.
The best-case water quality for this analysis was fresh seawater because, ultimately, there
should be minimal change in pH and alkalinity as the water travels through the ground, to the
slant well, and into the desalination plant. If fresh seawater is the source water for the MPWSP,
the projected amount of carbon dioxide released would be 95 metric tons per year. Even in the
best-case scenario there would be carbon dioxide released because of the RO process. The water

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

15

CO2 Release Estimate

November 2016

would be concentrated as it travels through the RO membranes and the concentrate would
eventually equilibrate with the atmosphere.
Mr. Bourcier estimated that 822 to 14,577 metric tons of carbon dioxide would be released if the
exploratory boreholes cited in the DEIR are the source water for the MPWSP. However, this
analysis shows that the projected range of released carbon dioxide would be 95 to 735 metric
tons per year.

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

16

CO2 Release Estimate

November 2016

8 REFERENCES
Archibald Consulting, Palencia Consulting Engineers and Starr Consulting (2010). Proposed
scwd2 Desalination Project Watershed Sanitary Survey.
California American Water (2013). Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Desalination
Infrastructure Request for Proposals.
CDM (2010). Seawater Reverse Osmosis Desalination Pilot Test Program Report.
CDM (2014). California American Water 60% Overall Submittal Technical Specifications for
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Desalination Infrastructure.
GeoScience (2014a). April 2015 DEIR Appendix C3 - Summary of Results: Exploratory
Boreholes.
GeoScience (2014b). April 2015 DEIR Appendix E1 - Results of test slant well predictive
scenarios using the CEMEX Area Model.
GeoScience (2016). Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Test Slant Well Long Term
Pumping Monitoring Report No. 74.
Harned, H. S. and B. B. Owen (1958). The Physical Chemistry of Electrolytic Solutions. New
York, Reinhold Publishing Corporation.
Hydranautics. (2016). "IMS-Design Software." from http://membranes.com/solutions/software/.
Millero, F. J. (2006). Chemical Oceanography. Boca Raton, Taylor & Francis Group, LLC (CRC
Press).
Millero, F. J. (2013). Chemical Oceanography. Boca Raton, Taylor & Francis Group, LLC (CRC
Press).
Millero, F. J., D. Pierrot, L. K., R. Wanninkhof, R. Feely, C. L. Sabine, R. M. Key and T.
Takahashi (2002). "Dissociation constants for carbonic acid determined from field
measurements." Deep Sea Research I(49): 1705-1723.
Millero, F. J. and M. L. Sohn (1992). Chemical Oceanography. Boca Raton, CRC Press, Inc.
MWH (2010). Coastal Water Project Pilot Plant Report.
Stumm, W. and J. J. Morgan (1981). Aquatic Chemistry, An Introduction Emphasizing Chemical
Equilibria in Natural Waters, John Wiley & Sons.
Tans, P. and R. Keeling. (2016). from http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ and
scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/.

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

17

CO2 Release Estimate

November 2016

Weiss, R. F. (1974). "Carbon dioxide in water and seawater: the solubility of non-ideal gas."
Marine Chemistry 2: 203-215.

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

18

CO2 Release Estimate Appendix A

November 2016

APPENDIX A
RO Modeling Results Using August 2016 Slant Well Data

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

19

Integrated Membranes Solutions Design Software, 2016


Created on: 11/29/2016 12:30:31

Two Pass With Inter-Pass Pump, Pressure/Work Exchanger, Partial


SlantWellWQ_Sep2016
Anya
Kaufmann
1013.01
401.03 gpm
669.5
171.8 psi
16.2 C(61.2F)
7.08
10.00
None
9.4 NaOH
1 %
3 %
7.25 psi
24.47 psi
1.10 kwh/kgal
252.4
144.8 psi
7.35
15.5 gfd

Project name
Calculated by
HP Pump flow
Feed pressure
Feed temperature
Feed water pH
Chem dose, mg/l, - / 100 %
Leakage
Volumetric mixing
H.P. differential
Boost pressure
Specific energy
Pass NDP
Average flux rate

Permeate flow/train
Total product flow
Number of trains
Raw water flow/train
P1 Permeate to P2 Feed
Blended permeate flow
Permeate recovery
Total system recovery
Element age
Flux decline %, per year
Fouling factor
SP increase, per year
Inter-stage pipe loss

1.440

3.388

42.50
5.0
5.0
0.77
7.0

Feed type
Pass -

Perm.

Flow / Vessel

Stage

Flow

Feed

Conc

1-1
2-1
2-2

gpm
999.6
258
103.4

gpm
33.6
50.2
35.8

gpm
19.3
17.9
10

Ion (mg/l)
Hardness, as CaCO3
Ca
Mg
Na
K
NH4
Ba
Sr
H
CO3
HCO3
SO4
Cl
F
NO3
PO4
OH
SiO2
B
CO2
TDS
pH
Saturations
CaSO4 / ksp * 100, %
SrSO4 / ksp * 100, %
BaSO4 / ksp * 100, %
SiO2 saturation, %
CaF2 / ksp * 100, %
Ca3(PO4)2 saturation index
CCPP, mg/l
Ionic strength
Osmotic pressure, psi

Flux

DP

Flux
Max

gfd

psi

gfd

7.3
16.6
13.3

17.2
26.4
15.1

11.7
18.1
14.6

Beta

1.04
1.21
1.29

Raw Water
Blended Water
5491.48
5491.48
472.00
472.00
1052.00
1052.00
8914.00
8914.00
274.00
274.00
0.03
0.03
0.000
0.000
7.440
7.440
0.00
0.00
1.14
1.14
142.00
142.00
2339.00
2339.00
16406.00
16406.00
0.94
0.94
4.20
4.20
0.10
0.10
0.00
0.00
12.40
12.40
3.24
3.24
7.62
7.62
29628.49
29628.49
7.08
7.08
Raw Water
25
25
0
12
17
-1.3
17.93
0.59
302.9

Page : 1/5
0.520 mgd
9.67 mgd
7
mgd
40.1 %
9.674 mgd
90.00 %
40.8 %
5.0 years
3.0
0.86
5.0 %
3.0 psi

Sea Well Conventional

Stagewise Pressure
Perm.
psi

Boost
psi

Conc
psi

0
0
0

0
0
0

652.3
145.5
127.3

Feed Water Permeate Water


5562.79
4.936
478.13
0.424
1065.66
0.946
9029.13
38.826
277.53
1.494
0.03
0.000
0.000
0.000
7.537
0.007
0.00
0.002
1.20
0.001
143.74
0.993
2369.37
2.205
16618.08
62.404
0.95
0.007
4.25
0.128
0.10
0.000
0.00
0.020
12.56
0.036
3.27
0.586
7.62
4.75
30011.55
108.08
7.08
5.57
Feed Water
26
25
0
12
18
-1.3
18.82
0.60
306.9

Perm.

Element

Element

TDS

Type

Quantity

PV# x
Elem #

mg/l
170.9
2.3
8

SWC5
ESPA2
ESPA2

490
56
28

70 x 7M
8 x 7M
4 x 7M

Concentrate
9666.0
830.8
1851.7
15653.3
480.8
0.1
0.0
13.1
0.0
4.7
244.1
4117.0
28820.4
1.6
7.3
0.2
0.0
21.8
5.1
7.62
52051.94
7.25
Concentrate
51
50
0
20
118
-0.5
86.50
1.04
532.1

ERD Reject
9540.79
820.04
1827.73
15451.10
474.59
0.05
0.00
12.93
0.00
4.61
241.06
4063.62
28448.02
1.63
7.16
0.17
0.01
21.51
5.03
7.62
51379.26
7.25
Limits
400
1200
10000
140
50000
2.4
100000

Product performance calculations are based on nominal element performance when operated on a feed water of acceptable quality. The results shown on the printouts produced by this program are
estimates of product performance. No guarantee of product or system performance is expressed or implied unless provided in a separate warranty statement signed by an authorized Hydranautics
representative. Calculations for chemical consumption are provided for convenience and are based on various assumptions concerning water quality and composition. As the actual amount of chemical
needed for pH adjustment is feedwater dependent and not membrane dependent, Hydranautics does not warrant chemical consumption. If a product or system warranty is required, please contact your
Hydranautics representative. Non-standard or extended warranties may result in different pricing than previously quoted. Version : 1.216.73 %
Email : imsd-support@hydranauticsprojections.net

Integrated Membranes Solutions Design Software, 2016


Created on: 11/29/2016 12:30:31

Two Pass With Inter-Pass Pump, Pressure/Work Exchanger, Partial


SlantWellWQ_Sep2016
Anya Kaufmann
1013.01
401.03 gpm
669.5
171.8 psi
16.2 C(61.2F)
7.08
10.00
None
9.4 NaOH
1 %
3 %
7.25 psi
24.47 psi
1.10 kwh/kgal
252.4
144.8 psi
7.35
15.5 gfd

Project name
Calculated by
HP Pump flow
Feed pressure
Feed temperature
Feed water pH
Chem dose, mg/l, - / 100 %
Leakage
Volumetric mixing
H.P. differential
Boost pressure
Specific energy
Pass NDP
Average flux rate

Permeate flow/train
Total product flow
Number of trains
Raw water flow/train
P1 Permeate to P2 Feed
Blended permeate flow
Permeate recovery
Total system recovery
Element age
Flux decline %, per year
Fouling factor
SP increase, per year
Inter-stage pipe loss

3.388

42.50
5.0
5.0
0.77
7.0

Feed type
Pass -

Perm.

Flow / Vessel

Stage

Flow

Feed

Conc

1-1
2-1
2-2

gpm
999.6
258
103.4

gpm
33.6
50.2
35.8

gpm
19.3
17.9
10

Flux

DP

Flux

Beta

Page : 2/5
0.520 mgd
9.67 mgd
7
mgd
40.1 %
9.674 mgd
90.00 %
40.8 %
5.0 years
3.0
0.86
5.0 %
3.0 psi

1.440

Sea Well Conventional

Stagewise Pressure

Perm.

Element

Element

TDS

Type

Quantity

mg/l
170.9
2.3
8

SWC5
ESPA2
ESPA2

490
56
28

Max

Pass - Element
Stage

No.

Feed

Pressure
Drop
Pressure
psi
psi
669.5
3.45
666
3
663
2.64
660.4
2.34
658.1
2.1
656
1.92
654.1
1.77

gfd

psi

gfd

7.3
16.6
13.3

17.2
26.4
15.1

11.7
18.1
14.6

Conc
Osmo.

NDP

psi
339.5
373.8
408.8
443.1
475.7
505.5
531.9

1.04
1.21
1.29

Perm.
psi

Boost
psi

Conc
psi

0
0
0

0
0
0

652.3
145.5
127.3

Permeate Permeate
Water
Water

psi
336
296.6
259.4
222.9
188.2
156.3
127.9

Flow
gpm
3.3
2.8
2.4
2
1.6
1.3
1

Flux
gfd
11.7
10.1
8.5
7.1
5.8
4.6
3.7

Beta

PV# x
Elem #

70 x 7M
8 x 7M
4 x 7M

Permeate (Passwise cumulative)


TDS

Ca

Mg

Na

Cl

1.04
1.03
1.03
1.03
1.03
1.02
1.02

82.3
93.1
105.4
119.3
134.9
152.1
170.9

0.326
0.369
0.418
0.473
0.535
0.604
0.679

0.727
0.823
0.932
1.055
1.193
1.346
1.512

29.568
33.47
37.878
42.873
48.473
54.666
61.428

47.55
53.826
60.916
68.95
77.958
87.92
98.798

1-1
1-1
1-1
1-1
1-1
1-1
1-1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

2-1
2-1
2-1
2-1
2-1
2-1
2-1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

171.8
165.8
160.6
156.3
152.6
149.6
147.3

6.03
5.17
4.38
3.65
2.98
2.36
1.79

2.2
2.5
2.8
3.2
3.7
4.4
5.5

166.8
160.9
155.9
151.5
147.7
144.4
141.5

5
4.9
4.7
4.6
4.5
4.4
4.3

18.1
17.5
16.9
16.5
16
15.7
15.3

1.1
1.11
1.12
1.13
1.15
1.17
1.21

1.5
1.6
1.7
1.9
2
2.1
2.3

0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.002
0.002

0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.004
0.004

0.536
0.571
0.61
0.653
0.7
0.753
0.813

0.819
0.873
0.932
0.998
1.07
1.151
1.242

2-2
2-2
2-2
2-2
2-2
2-2
2-2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

142.5
138.8
135.6
133.1
131
129.4
128.2

3.73
3.13
2.57
2.07
1.61
1.2
0.84

6.2
7.1
8.2
9.6
11.7
14.7
19.5

134.8
130.6
126.8
123.2
119.6
115.7
110.7

4.1
3.9
3.8
3.7
3.6
3.5
3.3

14.6
14.1
13.7
13.3
12.9
12.5
11.9

1.11
1.13
1.14
1.16
1.19
1.23
1.29

2.4
2.5
2.7
2.8
3.1
3.4
3.9

0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.003
0.003

0.004
0.004
0.004
0.005
0.005
0.006
0.007

0.844
0.877
0.929
0.996
1.085
1.207
1.384

1.29
1.341
1.42
1.523
1.658
1.845
2.115

Product performance calculations are based on nominal element performance when operated on a feed water of acceptable quality. The results shown on the printouts produced by this program are
estimates of product performance. No guarantee of product or system performance is expressed or implied unless provided in a separate warranty statement signed by an authorized Hydranautics
representative. Calculations for chemical consumption are provided for convenience and are based on various assumptions concerning water quality and composition. As the actual amount of chemical
needed for pH adjustment is feedwater dependent and not membrane dependent, Hydranautics does not warrant chemical consumption. If a product or system warranty is required, please contact your
Hydranautics representative. Non-standard or extended warranties may result in different pricing than previously quoted. Version : 1.216.73 %
Email : imsd-support@hydranauticsprojections.net

Integrated Membranes Solutions Design Software, 2016


Created on: 11/29/2016 12:30:31

Two Pass With Inter-Pass Pump, Pressure/Work Exchanger, Partial [Pass 1]


SlantWellWQ_Sep2016
Anya Kaufmann
2352.78 gpm
669.5 psi
16.2 C(61.2F)
7.08
None
1 %
3 %
7.25 psi
24.47 psi
6.44 kwh/kgal
252.4 psi
7.35 gfd

Project name
Calculated by
Feed flow
Feed pressure
Feed temperature
Feed water pH
Chem dose, mg/l, Leakage
Volumetric mixing
H.P. differential
Boost pressure
Specific energy
Pass NDP
Average flux rate

Page : 3/5
1.440 mgd
3.388 mgd
42.50 %
5.0 years
5.0
0.77
7.0 %

Permeate flow/train
Raw water flow/train
Permeate recovery
Element age
Flux decline %, per year
Fouling factor
SP increase, per year

Feed type
Pass -

Perm.

Stage

Flow
gpm

Feed
gpm

Flow / Vessel
Conc
gpm

gfd

psi

gfd

1-1

999.6

33.6

19.3

7.3

17.2

252.5

Ion (mg/l)
Hardness, as CaCO3
Ca
Mg
Na
K
NH4
Ba
Sr
H
CO3
HCO3
SO4
Cl
F
NO3
PO4
OH
SiO2
B
CO2
TDS
pH
Saturations
CaSO4 / ksp * 100, %
SrSO4 / ksp * 100, %
BaSO4 / ksp * 100, %
SiO2 saturation, %
CaF2 / ksp * 100, %
Ca3(PO4)2 saturation index
CCPP, mg/l
Ionic strength
Osmotic pressure, psi

Flux

DP

NDP

Beta

Perm.

Element

Element

Perm.
psi

Stagewise Pressure
Boost
psi

Conc
psi

TDS
mg/l

Type

Quantity

PV# x
Elem #

0.0

0.0

652.3

170.9

SWC5

490

70 x 7M

1.04

Raw Water
5491.48
472.00
1052.00
8914.00
274.00
0.03
0.000
7.440
0.00
1.14
142.00
2339.00
16406.00
0.94
4.20
0.10
0.00
12.40
3.24
7.62
29628.49
7.08

Sea Well Conventional

Feed Water
Permeate Water
5562.79
7.895
478.13
0.679
1065.66
1.512
9029.13
61.428
277.53
2.359
0.03
0.000
0.000
0.000
7.537
0.011
0.00
0.003
1.20
0.000
143.74
1.537
2369.37
3.525
16618.08
98.798
0.95
0.011
4.25
0.188
0.10
0.000
0.00
0.000
12.56
0.058
3.27
0.815
7.62
7.62
30011.55
170.92
7.08
5.55

Raw Water
25
25
0
12
17
-1.3
17.93
0.59
302.9

Feed Water
26
25
0
12
18
-1.3
18.82
0.60
306.9

Concentrate 1
9666.0
830.8
1851.7
15653.3
480.8
0.1
0.0
13.1
0.0
4.7
244.1
4117.0
28820.4
1.6
7.3
0.2
0.0
21.8
5.1
7.62
52051.94
7.25
Concentrate
51
50
0
20
118
-0.5
86.50
1.04
532.1

Limits
400
1200
10000
140
50000
2.4
100000

Product performance calculations are based on nominal element performance when operated on a feed water of acceptable quality. The results shown on the printouts produced by this program are
estimates of product performance. No guarantee of product or system performance is expressed or implied unless provided in a separate warranty statement signed by an authorized Hydranautics
representative. Calculations for chemical consumption are provided for convenience and are based on various assumptions concerning water quality and composition. As the actual amount of chemical
needed for pH adjustment is feedwater dependent and not membrane dependent, Hydranautics does not warrant chemical consumption. If a product or system warranty is required, please contact your
Hydranautics representative. Non-standard or extended warranties may result in different pricing than previously quoted. Version : 1.216.73 %
Email : imsd-support@hydranauticsprojections.net

Integrated Membranes Solutions Design Software, 2016


Created on: 11/29/2016 12:30:31

Two Pass With Inter-Pass Pump, Pressure/Work Exchanger, Partial [Pass 2]


SlantWellWQ_Sep2016
Anya Kaufmann
401.03 gpm
171.8 psi
16.2 C(61.2F)
10.00
9.4 NaOH
1 %
3 %
7.25 psi
24.47 psi
1.81 kwh/kgal
144.8 psi
15.5 gfd

Project name
Calculated by
Feed flow
Feed pressure
Feed temperature
Feed water pH
Chem dose, mg/l, 100 %
Leakage
Volumetric mixing
H.P. differential
Boost pressure
Specific energy
Pass NDP
Average flux rate

Page : 4/5
0.520 mgd
1.439 mgd
90.00 %
5.0 years
3.0
0.86
5.0 %
3.0 psi

Permeate flow/train
Raw water flow/train
Permeate recovery
Element age
Flux decline %, per year
Fouling factor
SP increase, per year
Inter-stage pipe loss

Feed type
Pass -

Perm.

Stage

Flow

Feed

Flow / Vessel
Conc

2-1
2-2

gpm
258.0
103.4

gpm
50.2
35.8

gpm
17.9
10.0

Ion (mg/l)
Hardness, as CaCO3
Ca
Mg
Na
K
NH4
Ba
Sr
H
CO3
HCO3
SO4
Cl
F
NO3
PO4
OH
SiO2
B
CO2
TDS
pH
Saturations
CaSO4 / ksp * 100, %
SrSO4 / ksp * 100, %
BaSO4 / ksp * 100, %
SiO2 saturation, %
CaF2 / ksp * 100, %
Ca3(PO4)2 saturation index
CCPP, mg/l
Ionic strength
Osmotic pressure, psi

Flux

DP

NDP

gfd

psi

gfd

16.6
13.3

26.4
15.1

153.1
123.6

Beta

Stagewise Pressure
Perm.
psi

Boost
psi

Conc
psi

0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0

145.5
127.4

1.21
1.29

Raw Water
7.89
0.68
1.51
61.43
2.36
0.00
0.000
0.011
0.00
0.00
1.54
3.53
98.80
0.01
0.19
0.00
0.00
0.06
0.82
7.62
170.92
5.55

Sea Well Conventional

Feed Water
7.89
0.68
1.51
66.82
2.36
0.00
0.000
0.011
0.00
5.85
2.34
3.53
98.80
0.01
0.19
0.00
0.97
0.06
0.82
0.00
183.93
10.00

Raw Water
0
0
0
0
0
-7.9
-16.57
0.00
1.8

Perm.

Element

Element

TDS

Type

Quantity

PV# x
Elem #

mg/l
2.3
8.0

ESPA2
ESPA2

56
28

8 x 7M
4 x 7M

Permeate
Water
Concentrate 1 Concentrate 2
0.034
22.1
79.1
0.003
1.9
6.8
0.007
4.2
15.2
1.384
185.7
659.8
0.061
6.5
23.2
0.000
0.0
0.0
0.000
0.0
0.0
0.000
0.0
0.1
0.000
0.0
0.0
0.003
18.5
72.1
0.090
4.1
8.1
0.019
9.9
35.3
2.115
274.5
975.0
0.000
0.0
0.1
0.028
0.5
1.6
0.000
0.0
0.0
0.053
1.9
4.5
0.000
0.2
0.6
0.207
2.0
6.3
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.97
509.97
1808.75
8.80
11.71
11.46
Feed Water
0
0
0
0
0
-2.2
6.49
0.00
2.0

Concentrate
0
0
0
0
0
0.6
117.09
0.03
19.3

Limits
400
1200
10000
140
50000
2.4
100000

Product performance calculations are based on nominal element performance when operated on a feed water of acceptable quality. The results shown on the printouts produced by this program are
estimates of product performance. No guarantee of product or system performance is expressed or implied unless provided in a separate warranty statement signed by an authorized Hydranautics
representative. Calculations for chemical consumption are provided for convenience and are based on various assumptions concerning water quality and composition. As the actual amount of chemical
needed for pH adjustment is feedwater dependent and not membrane dependent, Hydranautics does not warrant chemical consumption. If a product or system warranty is required, please contact your
Hydranautics representative. Non-standard or extended warranties may result in different pricing than previously quoted. Version : 1.216.73 %
Email : imsd-support@hydranauticsprojections.net

Integrated Membranes Solutions Design Software, 2016


Created on: 11/29/2016 12:30:31

Two Pass With Inter-Pass Pump, Pressure/Work Exchanger, Partial


Project name
Temperature :

Stream No.

SlantWellWQ_Sep2016
16.2 C

Element age, P1/P2 :

Flow (gpm)

Pressure (psi)

TDS

pH

Page : 5/5
5.0/5.0 years

2353

29628

7.08

3.24

1013

29628

7.08

3.24

1013

669

29628

7.08

3.24

2353

669

30012

7.08

3.27

1353

652

52052

7.25

5.09

1353

51379

7.25

5.03

1340

29628

7.08

3.24

1340

669

30301

7.08

3.30

1000

171

5.55

0.815

10

599

171

5.55

0.815

11

401

171

5.55

0.815

12

401

184

10.0

0.815

13

401

172

184

10.0

0.815

14

143

145

510

11.7

2.04

15

40.3

127

1809

11.5

6.33

16

40.3

1809

11.5

6.33

17

258

2.34

8.57

0.135

18

103

8.03

9.10

0.386

19

361

3.97

8.80

0.207

20

960

108

5.57

0.586

Product performance calculations are based on nominal element performance when operated on a feed water of acceptable quality. The results shown on the printouts produced by this program are
estimates of product performance. No guarantee of product or system performance is expressed or implied unless provided in a separate warranty statement signed by an authorized Hydranautics
representative. Calculations for chemical consumption are provided for convenience and are based on various assumptions concerning water quality and composition. As the actual amount of chemical
needed for pH adjustment is feedwater dependent and not membrane dependent, Hydranautics does not warrant chemical consumption. If a product or system warranty is required, please contact your
Hydranautics representative. Non-standard or extended warranties may result in different pricing than previously quoted. Version : 1.216.73 %
Email : imsd-support@hydranauticsprojections.net

APPENDIX H

Pure Water Monterey GWR Project


Consolidated Final EIR Chapter 2 Project
Description

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

H-1

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION


6HFWLRQV
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Project
Location
2.3 Project
Background
2.4 Project
Objectives
2.5 Overview of
Existing
Systems
2.6 Overview of
Proposed
Project
Facilities and
Operations
2.7 Source
Water
2.8 Treatment
Facilities at
the Regional
Treatment
Plant
2.9 Product
Water
Conveyance
Facilities
2.10 Injection
Well
Facilities
2.11CalAm
Extraction/
Distribution
System
2.12 Overview of
Proposed
Construction
2.13 Permits and
Approvals

7DEOHV
2-1

2-2
2-3
2-4

2-5
2-6

2-7
2-8

2.9

2-10
2-11
2-12

2-13

2-14

2-15

2-16

2-17
2-18
2-19

2-20
2-21
2-22

CalAms Adjudicated Allocation of


Native Seaside Groundwater
Basin: Water Years 2006 2026
Reservoirs in the Salinas Basin
Estimated Urban Runoff from the
City of Salinas to Salinas River
United States Geological Survey
Gage, Reclamation Ditch at San
Jon Road
Blanco Drain Flow Availability
Estimate
Estimated Monthly and Annual
Historic Urban Runoff into Lake El
Estero with Existing Infrastructure
CalAm Monterey District Service
Area Demand
CalAm Water Production for
Water Years 2006 2014 (in
Acre-Feet)
Proposed Project Monthly Flows
for Various Flow Scenarios (AWT
Facility Feed and Product Water)
Overview of Typical Facility
Operations Proposed Project
Overview of Proposed Project
Electricity Demand
Source Waters Flows: Existing
and Assumed Available for
Proposed Project
Source Water Use Scenarios,
including Priority, Seasonality, and
Use by Project Phase and
Drought Reserve Status
Estimated Urban Runoff Available
for Capture from the City of
Salinas to Salinas River
Estimated Average-Year Diversion
from the Reclamation Ditch at
Davis Road
Estimated Average-Year Diversion
from the Tembladero Slough at
Castroville
Estimated Average-Year Diversion
from the Blanco Drain
AWT Facilities Design Summary
Proposed Project AWT Facility
Process Design Flow
Assumptions
Construction Areas of Disturbance
and Permanent Footprint
Proposed Project Construction
Assumptions
List of Permits and Authorizations

Pure Water Monterey GWR Project


Consolidated Final EIR

)LJXUHV
2-1
Project Location Map
2-2
MRWPCA Service Area Map
2-3 rev Seaside Groundwater Basin Boundaries
2-4 rev Seaside Groundwater Basin Groundwater Levels
2-5
Salinas River Basin
2-6
Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin
2-7 rev Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin Seawater Intrusion Maps
2-7a new Salinas Valley Groundwater Levels and Flow Directions
2-8
Existing Regional Treatment Plant Facilities Map
2-9
Historic Regional Treatment Plant Flows
2-10 Projected Regional Treatment Plant Flows
2-11 Salinas Pump Station Monthly Average Discharge
2-12 MRWPCA Wastewater Collection System Network Diagram
and Pump Station Flows
2-13 Salinas Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facility Process
Flow Schematic
2-14 Salinas Industrial Wastewater Treatment System Location
Map
2-15 Reclamation Ditch Watershed Boundary
2-16 rev Blanco Drain Storm Drain Maintenance District
2-17 Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project Location Map
2-18 Proposed Project Facilities Overview
2-19 Proposed Project Flow Schematic Source Water to
Treatment
2-20 Proposed Project Flow Schematic Regional Treatment
Plant
2-21 Proposed Salinas Pump Station Site
2-22 Proposed Salinas Treatment Facility Storage and Recovery
Conceptual Site Plan
2-23 Proposed Reclamation Ditch Diversion Conceptual Plan
2-24 Proposed Tembladero Slough Diversion Conceptual Site
Plan
2-25a Blanco Drain Diversion Conceptual Site Plan Eastern
Portion
2-25b Blanco Drain Diversion Conceptual Site Plan Western
Portion
2-26 Lake El Estero Diversion Conceptual Site Plan and CrossSection
2-27 Advanced Water Treatment Facility Conceptual Site Plan
2-28 Proposed Advanced Water Treatment Flow Diagram
2-29 Existing and Proposed Salinas Valley Reclamation Plant
Process Flow Diagrams
2-30 Proposed Product Water Conveyance Options near
Regional Treatment Plant
2-31 Proposed Booster Pump Station Options Conceptual Site
Plan
2-32 rev Injection Well Site Plan
2-33 Injection Well Cross-Section
2-34 Conceptual Injection Schematic
2-35 Conceptual Site Plan and Schematic of Typical Well Cluster
2-36 Deep Injection Well Preliminary Design
2-37 Vadose Zone Well Preliminary Design
2-38 CalAm Distribution System Pipeline: Eastern Terminus
2-39 CalAm Distribution System Pipeline: Western Terminus
2-40 Proposed Project Construction Schedule

2-1

October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Chapter 2 Project Description

2.1 INTRODUCTION
2.1.1 Overview of Proposed Project
The Proposed Groundwater Replenishment Project (GWR Project or Proposed Project)
consists of two components: the Pure Water Monterey Groundwater Replenishment
improvements and operations (GWR Features) that would develop purified recycled water to
replace existing urban supplies; and an enhanced agricultural irrigation (Crop Irrigation)
component that would increase the amount of recycled water available to the existing
Castroville Seawater Intrusion Project (CSIP) agricultural irrigation system in northern
Monterey County. Water supplies proposed to be recycled and reused by the Proposed
Project include municipal wastewater, industrial wastewater, urban stormwater runoff and
surface water diversions. The Proposed Project is being proposed by the Monterey Regional
Water Pollution Control Agency (MRWPCA) in partnership with the Monterey Peninsula
Water Management District (Water Management District). )LJXUH  3URMHFW /RFDWLRQ
0DS shows the regional location of the Proposed Project.

2.1.1.1 Source Waters for Recycling


The Proposed Project would recycle and reuse water from the following sources:

0XQLFLSDO :DVWHZDWHU &ROOHFWLRQ DQG 7UHDWPHQW 6\VWHP. MRWPCA collects


municipal wastewater from communities in northern Monterey County and treats
it at its Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant (Regional Treatment Plant).
Currently, most of that wastewater is recycled for crop irrigation in the dry season
at an onsite tertiary treatment plant called the Salinas Valley Reclamation Plant.
The tertiary-treated wastewater is delivered to growers through a conveyance
and irrigation system called the CSIP. During wet periods, recycled wastewater is
used only intermittently for crop irrigation. The wastewater that is not recycled for
crop irrigation is discharged to the ocean through MRWPCAs existing ocean
outfall. The Proposed Project would include improvements that would enable
more of the municipal wastewater to be recycled than is possible today; thus,
less municipal wastewater would be discharged through the ocean outfall.
6DOLQDV $JULFXOWXUDO :DVK :DWHU 6\VWHP. Water from the City of Salinas
agricultural industries, 80 to 90% of which is water used for washing produce, is
currently conveyed to ponds at the Salinas Industrial Wastewater Treatment
Facility for treatment (aeration) and disposal by evaporation and percolation. The
Proposed Project would include improvements that would enable the agricultural
wash water to be conveyed to the Regional Treatment Plant to be recycled. The
Proposed Project also would include improvements at the Salinas Industrial
Wastewater Treatment Facility to allow storage of agricultural wash water and
south Salinas stormwater in the winter and recovery of that water for recycling
and reuse in the spring, summer and fall.
6DOLQDV6WRUPZDWHU&ROOHFWLRQ6\VWHPCurrently, storm water from urban areas
in southern portions of the City of Salinas is collected and released to the Salinas
River through an outfall near Davis Road. The Proposed Project would include
improvements that would enable Salinas Stormwater to be conveyed to the
Regional Treatment Plant to be recycled.
5HFODPDWLRQ'LWFK7HPEODGHUR6ORXJKThe Reclamation Ditch is a network of
excavated earthen channels used to drain natural, urban, and agricultural runoff

Pure Water Monterey GWR Project


Consolidated Final EIR

2-2

October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Chapter 2 Project Description

and agricultural tile drainage. The Proposed Project would include improvements
that would enable water from the Reclamation Ditch watershed to be diverted in
two locations--from the Reclamation Ditch at Davis Road and from Tembladero
Slough (to which the Reclamation Ditch is a tributary) near Castroville -- to be
conveyed to the Regional Treatment Plant to be recycled.
%ODQFo'UDLQThe Blanco Drain collects water from approximately 6,400 acres of
agricultural lands near Salinas. The Proposed Project would include
improvements that would enable water in the Blanco Drain to be diverted and
conveyed to the Regional Treatment Plant to be recycled.
/DNH(O(VWHURThe City of Monterey actively manages the water level in Lake El
Estero so that there is storage capacity for large storm events. Prior to a storm
event, the lake level is lowered by pumping or gravity flow for discharge to Del
Monte Beach. The Proposed Project would include improvements that would
enable water that would otherwise be discharged to the beach to instead be
conveyed to the Regional Treatment Plant to be recycled.

The source waters above would be combined within the wastewater collection system prior
to the flow entering the headworks of the Regional Treatment Plant. The flow would be
treated using the existing Regional Treatment Plant processes and then further treated and
recycled for two purposes, as described in the following paragraphs.

2.1.1.2 GWR Facilities


The primary purpose of the Proposed Project is to provide high quality replacement water to
allow California American Water Company (or CalAm)1 to extract 3,500 acre-feet per year
(AFY) more water from the Seaside Basin for delivery to its customers in the Monterey
District service area and reduce Carmel River system water use by an equivalent amount.
To meet this objective, the GWR Features would create a reliable source of water supply by
using source waters described above to produce highlytreated water using existing
secondary treatment processes and a new Advanced Water Treatment (AWT) Facility at the
Regional Treatment Plant. After treatment by the AWT Facility, the purified recycled water
would be conveyed using two pump stations and a new pipeline (the Product Water
Conveyance System), and would be injected into the Seaside Groundwater Basin (or
Seaside Basin) using a series of shallow and deep injection wells (Injection Well Facilities).
Once injected into the Seaside Basin, the treated water would mix with the groundwater
present in the aquifers and be stored for future urban use. CalAm would use existing wells
and improved potable water supply distribution facilities (CalAm Distribution System) to
extract and distribute the GWR water, enabling CalAm to reduce its diversions from the
Carmel River system by this same amount. CalAm is under a State order to secure
replacement water supplies and cease over-pumping of the Carmel River by January 2017.2

CalAm is an investor-owned public utility with approximately 38,500 connections in the Monterey
Peninsula area.
2
In addition, CalAms ability to produce water from the Seaside Groundwater Basin has been limited
by Monterey County Superior Court by an adjudication that imposes a series of pumping reductions
designed to limit production of natural basin water to its safe yield.

Pure Water Monterey GWR Project


Consolidated Final EIR

2-3

October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Chapter 2 Project Description

2.1.1.3 Crop Irrigation


Another purpose of the Proposed Project is to provide additional water to the Regional
Treatment Plant that could be recycled at the existing tertiary treatment facility (the Salinas
Valley Reclamation Plant), and used for crop irrigation using the CSIP system. For
MRWPCA to secure the necessary rights and agreements to use the source waters needed
for the Proposed Project, preliminary negotiations with stakeholders lead to MRWPCA
proposing to increase the amount of recycled water provided to the area served by the CSIP
by approximately 4,750 AFY and up to 5,290 AFY during certain dry years. This amount, in
combination with the existing recycling and use of municipal wastewater for crop irrigation of
approximately 13,000 AFY3, would remain less than the treatment design capacity of the
Salinas Valley Reclamation Plant of 29.6 million gallons per day (mgd) or an annual use of
recycled water for irrigation of approximately 21,600 acre feet (Greater Monterey County
Regional Water Management Group, 2013).
The Salinas Valley Reclamation Plant produces tertiary-treated, disinfected recycled water
for agricultural irrigation within the CSIP service area. Municipal wastewater and certain
urban dry weather runoff diversions treated at the Regional Treatment Plant are currently
the only sources of supply for the Salinas Valley Reclamation Plant. Municipal wastewater
flows have declined in recent years due to aggressive water conservation efforts by the
MRWPCA member entities.
The new sources of water supply developed for the Proposed Project would increase supply
available at the Regional Treatment Plant for use by the Salinas Valley Reclamation Plant
during the peak irrigation season (April to September). In addition, the Proposed Project
would include Salinas Valley Reclamation Plant modifications to allow tertiary treatment at
lower daily production rates, facilitating increased use of recycled water during the late fall,
winter and early spring months when demand drops below 5 mgd. The Salinas Valley
Reclamation Plant can currently only operate within the range of 5 to 29.6 mgd.
The Proposed Project would also include a drought reserve system that would allow
increased use of Proposed Project source waters to be used for crop irrigation within the
CSIP area during dry years. To accomplish this objective, the GWR Features would be
designed to produce, convey, and inject up to 3,700 AFY (up to 200 AFY more than the
annual amount needed by CalAm for extraction and delivery to its customers) of water for
injection in wet and normal years for up to five (5) consecutive years. This would result in a
banked drought reserve totaling up to 1,000 AF. During drought periods, MRWPCA would
reduce its deliveries of advanced treated water to the Seaside Basin by up to the amount
that has been banked in the drought reserve. CalAm would be able to extract the banked
water to make up the difference to its supplies, such that its extractions and deliveries would
not fall below 3,500 AFY. The water that is not sent to the AWT Facility during drought years
would be sent to the Salinas Valley Reclamation Plant to increase supplies for the CSIP
irrigation area.

This amount represents the five-year average actual production of tertiary-treated water by the
Salinas Valley Reclamation Plant (2009 2013).

Pure Water Monterey GWR Project


Consolidated Final EIR

2-4

October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Chapter 2 Project Description

2.1.2 Project Benefits


Based on the analysis in this EIR, as well as the accompanying feasibility studies and
technical reports, the Proposed Project has the potential to provide the following benefits:

Replace 3,500 AFY of unauthorized Carmel River diversions for municipal use
with additional groundwater pumping enabled by recharge of purified recycled
water;
Improve water quality in the Seaside Groundwater Basin;
Provide up to 5,290 AFY of additional recycled water to Salinas Valley growers
for crop irrigation;
Reduce the volume of water pumped from Salinas Valley aquifers;
Increase water supply reliability and drought resistance;
Maximize the use of recycled water in compliance with the state Recycled Water
Policy;
Reduce urban stormwater first flush pollutant loads to the Salinas River and
Monterey Bay;
Reduce pollutant loads from agricultural areas to sensitive environmental areas
including the Salinas River and the Monterey Bay;
Help meet requirements for improving water quality in several local impaired
water bodies;
Reduce discharges of treated wastewater to Monterey Bay;

2.2 PROJECT LOCATION


The Proposed Project would be located within northern Monterey County and would include
new facilities located within unincorporated areas of Monterey County and the cities of
Salinas, Marina, Seaside, Monterey, and Pacific Grove as shown in )LJXUH  3URMHFW
/RFDWLRQ0DS. )LJXUHalso shows the Seaside Basin and the CalAm Monterey District
Service Area. Specific locations for physical components of the Proposed Project are
described later in this Chapter.

Pure Water Monterey GWR Project


Consolidated Final EIR

2-5

October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Chapter 2 Project Description

2.3 PROJECT BACKGROUND


This section provides information on the impetus for the Proposed Project, including a
description of the agencies that have primary responsibility for its development and
implementation (MRWPCA and Water Management District), an overview of the Seaside
Groundwater Basin, an overview of the water resources of the Salinas Valley, a discussion
of the relationship of the GWR Features to the proposed CalAm desalination plant, and a
discussion of the relationship of the Crop Irrigation component to the Salinas Valley
Reclamation Plant and CSIP.

2.3.1 Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency


The Lead Agency for the Proposed Project is the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control
Agency. MRWPCA was established in 1972 under a Joint Powers Authority agreement
between the City of Monterey, the City of Pacific Grove and the Seaside County Sanitation
District. MRWPCA operates the regional wastewater treatment plant, including a water
recycling facility (collectively known as the Regional Treatment Plant), a non-potable crop
irrigation water distribution system known as the CSIP, sewage collection pipelines, and 25
wastewater pump stations. Since 1972, other northern Monterey County communities
became Joint Powers Authority participants including the cities of Del Rey Oaks, Seaside,
Sand City, Marina, and Salinas and the unincorporated communities of Castroville, Moss
Landing, and Boronda, in addition to other unincorporated areas in northern Monterey
County. The current MRWPCA service area is shown in dark blue in )LJXUH05:3&$
6HUYLFH$UHD0DS.
MRWPCAs Regional Treatment Plant is located two miles north of the City of Marina, on
the south side of the Salinas River, and has a permitted capacity to treat 29.6 mgd of
wastewater effluent.4 At the Regional Treatment Plant, water is treated to two different
standards: (1) Title 22 California Code of Regulations standards (tertiary filtration and
disinfection) for unrestricted agricultural irrigation use within a facility known as the Salinas
Valley Reclamation Plant, and (2) secondary treatment for permitted discharge through the
ocean outfall. Influent flow that has been treated to a tertiary level is distributed to nearly
12,000 acres of farmland in the northern Salinas Valley for irrigation use (recycled water is
delivered using a distribution system called the CSIP). The Regional Treatment Plant
primarily treats municipal wastewater, but also accepts some dry weather urban runoff and
other discrete wastewater flows. Additional information about the existing wastewater
collection and conveyance system and the Regional Treatment Plant is provided in 6HFWLRQ
2YHUYLHZRI([LVWLQJ6\VWHPV, below.

2.3.2 Monterey Peninsula Water Resources System


The primary objective of the Proposed Project is to replenish the Seaside Groundwater
Basin with 3,500 AFY of high quality water to replace a portion of CalAms water supply as
required by state orders. Cal Am currently supplies water for the Monterey Peninsula from

The Regional Treatment Plant currently treats approximately 16 to 17 million gallons per day of
municipal wastewater from a total population of about 250,000 in the northern Monterey County area
shown generally in )LJXUH3URMHFW/RFDWLRQ0DS.

Pure Water Monterey GWR Project


Consolidated Final EIR

2-6

October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Chapter 2 Project Description

the Carmel River and the Seaside Groundwater Basin, and the Monterey Peninsula Water
Management District (Water Management District), a partner agency on the Proposed
Project, manages these water resources. Both of these sources have historically been overdrafted and are currently being actively managed, as discussed below.

2.3.2.1 Monterey Peninsula Water Management District


The Water Management District is partnering with MRWPCA to fund and manage the
studies for the Proposed Project. The Water Management District is a special district, with a
seven-member Board of Directors, created by the California Legislature in 1977 and
endorsed by a public vote in 1978, for the purposes of conserving and augmenting the water
supplies by integrated management of ground and surface water supplies; control and
conservation of storm and wastewater; and promotion of the reuse and reclamation of water.
Approximately 104,000 people live within the jurisdictional boundary of the Water
Management District, which includes the six Monterey Peninsula cities of Carmel-by-theSea, Del Rey Oaks, Monterey, Pacific Grove, Seaside, and Sand City, the Monterey
Peninsula Airport District, and unincorporated communities within Monterey County
including Pebble Beach, the Carmel Highlands, a portion of Carmel Valley, and areas
adjacent to Highway 68 between Del Rey Oaks and the Laguna Seca area.
The Water Management District manages production and use of water from the Carmel
River stored in Los Padres Reservoir, water production in the Carmel Valley Alluvial
aAquifer, and groundwater pumped from municipal and private wells in Carmel Valley, the
Seaside Groundwater Basin, and other areas within the Water Management District
boundary. The Water Management Districts jurisdictional area includes portions of
watersheds and groundwater basins that lie partially outside the Water Management District
political boundary. Activities affecting those areas of the watersheds and basins influence
the quantity and quality of water resources within the Water Management District boundary.
The Water Management District regulates public fresh water supply systems within its
boundaries, including systems owned by CalAm, the largest purveyor of water in the region,
although CalAm has ultimate responsibility for the management and operation of its water
system. The Water Management District also monitors the production of water from
approximately 1,100 public and private wells, of which approximately 800 are currently
active. In addition, the Water Management District regulates the creation of new water
distribution systems and expansions, water connection permits, and allocation of water to
jurisdictions (cities and unincorporated areas). The Water Management District adopts and
implements water conservation ordinances, determines drought emergencies and can
impose rationing programs. The District also regulates activities within the streamside
corridor of the lower 15.5 miles of the Carmel River. The Water Management District has
played key roles in several water augmentation projects, including completing planning and
technical studies, engineering and cost analyses, environmental review in compliance with
federal and state regulations, obtaining water rights and construction permits, facility
construction and/or project financing. The District has also analyzed numerous water supply
alternatives at varying degrees of specificity. The District was an integral partner in
development of the Peralta Well in Seaside, Pebble Beach Reclamation Project, and Aquifer
Storage and Recovery (Phases 1 and 2). The District constructed and owns the two ASR
Phase 1 wells at the Santa Margarita site.

Pure Water Monterey GWR Project


Consolidated Final EIR

2-7

October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Chapter 2 Project Description

2.3.2.2 Seaside Groundwater Basin


Purified recycled water produced by the Proposed Projects Advanced Water Treatment
Facilities would be injected into the Seaside Groundwater Basin, which would enable CalAm
to extract the water from the Seaside Basin for delivery to its customers and also would
replenish the Basin. The Seaside Groundwater Basin underlies an approximately 19-squaremile area at the northwest corner of the Salinas Valley, adjacent to Monterey Bay (see
)LJXUHUHY6HDVLGH*URXQGZDWHU%DVLQ%RXQGDULHV). The southern boundary of the
Seaside Groundwater Basin follows the Chupines fault zone, where a relatively
impermeable shale unit of the Monterey Formation is uplifted to near sea level. The western
boundary extends to the shoreline, although it is recognized that the aquifers extend
offshore under the seafloor. The eastern boundary of the basin is defined by the flow divide
in the Paso Robles aquifer, which approximately coincides with the surface drainage
between the Canyon del Rey and El Toro Creek watersheds. The northern boundary also
follows a groundwater flow divide with the aquifers of the northern Salinas Valley
groundwater basin.
The hydrogeology of the Seaside Groundwater Basin has been the subject of numerous
studies beginning with a California Department of Water Resources study in 1974.
Monitoring data gathered since 1987 shows that water levels have been trending downward
in many areas of the basin. A steep decline since 1995 in the northern coastal portion of the
basin, where most of the groundwater production occurs, has coincided with increased
extraction in that area after the State Water Resources Control Board required CalAm to
reduce its Carmel River diversions, and concomitantly maximize its pumping in the Seaside
Groundwater Basin.
)LJXUH UHY 6HDVLGH *URXQGZDWHU %DVLQ %RXQGDULHV shows the following
areas/boundaries that are relevant to understanding the physical extent of the Seaside
Groundwater Basin: (1) the Seaside Area subbasin of the Salinas Valley Groundwater
Basin as delineated by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) in Bulletin 118
(DWR, 2004), (2) the basin boundary used for adjudication based on reconnaissance-level
analyses published by the United States Geological Survey in 1982, and (3) the basin
boundary as delineated in a report titled 6HDVLGH *URXQGZDWHU %DVLQ 8SGDWH RQ :DWHU
5HVRXUFH &RQGLWLRQV (Yates et al., 2005). This more recent and detailed analysis of
boundary conditions by Yates et al. is considered to be the most current and accurate
documented depiction of the basin boundaries and has been used in the Monterey
Peninsula Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (Monterey Peninsula Regional
Water Management Group, 2014) and the Final Seaside Groundwater Basin Salt and
Nutrient Management Plan (2014). The Seaside Groundwater Basin is divided into four
subareas: the Northern Coastal, the Southern Coastal, the Northern Inland, and the Laguna
Seca.
Groundwater is currently extracted from approximately 37 wells by 20 well owners in the
Seaside Groundwater Basin. CalAm owns 12 wells and pumps approximately 80% of the
water produced in the basin. In addition, CalAm and the Water Management District operate
a Seaside Groundwater Basin Aquifer Storage and Recovery system that stores excess
Carmel River water supplies during the wet season in the groundwater basin and recovers
the banked water during the following dry season for consumptive use. The Water
Management District estimates that the long-term average yield of the existing Aquifer

Pure Water Monterey GWR Project


Consolidated Final EIR

2-8

October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Chapter 2 Project Description

Storage and Recovery facilities is 1,920 AFY5, but this varies yearly based on runoff due to
the requirement to maintain adequate Carmel River instream flows. Additional informational
about the Aquifer Storage and Recovery facilities is found in 6HFWLRQ  2YHUYLHZ RI
([LVWLQJ6\VWHPV, below.
Historical and persistent low groundwater elevations caused by pumping have led to
concerns that seawater intrusion may threaten the Basins groundwater resources. The
Seaside Groundwater Basin has experienced chronic overdraft conditions with declining
water levels in both of the Basins primary aquifers that are used for water supply (the
deeper, confined Santa Margarita aquifer and the shallower, unconfined Paso Robles
aquifer). )LJXUH UHY 6HDVLGH *URXQGZDWHU %DVLQ *URXQGZDWHU /HYHOV shows
groundwater elevation contour maps of the two aquifers and includes highlights the areas
where water levels have fallen below sea level (areas below 0-contour). Additional
information about the groundwater elevations and potential for seawater intrusion is found in
6HFWLRQ+\GURORJ\DQG:DWHU4XDOLW\*URXQGZDWHU.
In 2006, an adjudication process (CalAm v. City of Seaside et al., Case No. M66343) led to
the issuance of a court decision that created the Seaside Groundwater Basin Watermaster
(Watermaster). The Watermaster consists of nine representatives: one representative from
each of CalAm, City of Seaside, Sand City, City of Monterey, City of Del Rey Oaks, Water
Management District and Monterey County Water Resources Agency; and two
representatives from landowner groups. The Watermaster evaluated water levels in the
basin and determined that while seawater intrusion has not been observed, current water
levels were lower than those required to protect against seawater intrusion. In 2012, water
levels were found to be below sea level in the two primary aquifers within the Seaside
Groundwater Basin; therefore, the Watermaster recognized that recharge into both aquifers
would be beneficial for protection against seawater intrusion.
The adjudication requires all basin pumpers, except overlying users, to decrease their
operating yield from the Basin triennially until each requires CalAm to decrease its operating
yield from the basin by 10% triennially until it reaches its their allotted portion of the courtdefined natural safe yield of 1,494 3,000 AFY beginning (expected to occur in Water Year
2021), as detailed in 7DEOH  &DO$PV $GMXGLFDWHG $OORFDWLRQ RI 1DWLYH 6HDVLGH
*URXQGZDWHU%DVLQ:DWHU<HDUV. This natural safe yield was defined by the
adjudication as the quantity of groundwater existing in the Basin that occurs solely as a
result of natural replenishment. In addition to these reductions in pumping, CalAm is
required to pay back historic over-pumping and plans to accomplish this by reducing its
pumping from the Seaside Groundwater Basin by an additional 700 AFY for 25 years.
7DEOH
&DO$PV$GMXGLFDWHG$OORFDWLRQRI1DWLYH6HDVLGH
*URXQGZDWHU%DVLQ:DWHU<HDUV

<HDU
2006-2008
2009
2010-2011
2012-2014

$)<
3,504
3,191
3,087
2,669

CalAms application to the CPUC for the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project presumes a
1,300 AFY average yield for Aquifer Storage and Recovery. This was based on the start-up period for
Aquifer Storage and Recovery and the possibility that an amount less than the long-term yield would
be available for extraction starting in 2017.

Pure Water Monterey GWR Project


Consolidated Final EIR

2-9

October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Chapter 2 Project Description

7DEOH
&DO$PV$GMXGLFDWHG$OORFDWLRQRI1DWLYH6HDVLGH
*URXQGZDWHU%DVLQ:DWHU<HDUV
<HDU
2015-2017
2018-2020
2021-2023
2024-2026

$)<
2,251
1,820
1,494
1,494

2.3.2.3 Carmel River System


By providing 3,500 AFY of purified recycled water for extraction from the Seaside
Groundwater Basin, the Proposed Project would enable CalAm to reduce its diversions from
the Carmel River System by an equivalent amount. The 255-square-mile Carmel River
Basin is bounded by the Santa Lucia Mountains to the south and the Sierra del Salinas to
the north. It flows northwest through the Carmel Valley and drains into Carmel Bay at the
northern end of the Big Sur Coast. The Carmel Valley Groundwater Basin Alluvial Aquifer
lies along the downstream portion of the Carmel River.
There are two reservoirs on the Carmel River -- Los Padres and San Clemente -- the latter
of which is scheduled to be removed in 2015. Los Padres Dam and Reservoir are located on
the Carmel River, approximately 25 miles upstream of the Pacific Ocean. Los Padres Dam,
an earth and rock-fill embankment dam constructed in 1948, has been owned and operated
by CalAm since 1966. Constructed with an original storage capacity of 3,030 acre-feet (AF),
sedimentation and siltation have reduced the storage capacity of Los Padres Reservoir to
approximately 1,785 AF as of 2008 (Monterey Peninsula Water Management District/The
Shibatani Group, 2014).
The San Clemente Dam, which impounds San Clemente Reservoir, is also located on the
Carmel River, approximately 18 miles from the Pacific Ocean near the confluence of San
Clemente Creek. Due to the reservoirs reduced storage capacity and the dams seismic
safety issues, as well as to remove barriers to fish passage, restore ecological functions,
and enhance recreational opportunities along the Carmel River, a formal agreement was
reached between CalAm and federal, state, and local agencies to cooperatively remove San
Clemente Dam (MPWMD, 2014). The removal of San Clemente Dam was initiated in June
2013.
The Carmel Valley Groundwater Basin Alluvial Aquifer is primarily located on the valley floor,
which is about 16 miles long and varies in width from 300 to 4,500 feet. The groundwater
basin consists of younger alluvium and river deposits, and older alluvium and terrace
deposits. These deposits are primarily underlain by Monterey Shale and Tertiary sandstone
units. The primary water bearing formation is the younger alluvium with a typical thickness of
50 to 100 feet. The younger alluvium consists of boulders, gravel, sand, silt, and clay. The
thickness varies from approximately 30 feet in the upper basin to about 180 feet near the
mouth of the basin (California Department of Water Resources, 2004). As a result of the
significant reduction in usable storage in both reservoirs, CalAm currently relies entirely on
multiple wells in the alluvial aquifer along the lower Carmel River for its Carmel River
supplies.

2.3.2.4 State Orders to Reduce Carmel River Diversions


The Carmel Valley Alluvial Aaquifer, which underlies the alluvial portion of the Carmel River
downstream of San Clemente Dam, is about six square-miles and is approximately 18 16
miles long. In the summer and fall, other private pumpers extract approximately 2,200 to
Pure Water Monterey GWR Project
Consolidated Final EIR

2-10

October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Chapter 2 Project Description

2,400 AFY of water from the alluvial aquifer, and CalAm extracts approximately 7,880 AFY.
Historically, this combined pumping, including authorized pumping in the summer and fall,
has resulted in dewatering of the lower six miles of the river for several months in most
years and up to nine miles of the river in dry and critically dry years. Recharge of the aquifer
is derived primarily from river infiltration. The aquifer is replenished relatively quickly each
year during the rainy season, except during prolonged periods of extreme drought.
In 1995, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) issued Order No. WR 95-10,
which found that CalAm was diverting more water from the Carmel River Basin than it was
legally entitled to divert. The State Board ordered CalAm to implement actions to terminate
its unlawful diversions from the Carmel River and to maximize use of the Seaside
Groundwater Basin (to the extent feasible) to reduce diversions of Carmel River water. In
addition, a subsequent Cease and Desist Order (SWRCB Order Number WR 2009-0060)
issued in 2009 requires CalAm to secure replacement water supplies for its Monterey
District service area by January 2017 and reduce its Carmel River diversions to 3,376 AFY
no later than December 31, 2016. In their recent submittals to the California Public Utilities
Commission, CalAm estimates that it needs a total supply source of 15,296 AFY to satisfy
the Cease and Desist Order and forecasted demand. In order to do this, CalAm will asserted
in its application submittals that it needs to augment its water supplies by 9,752 AFY, which
they contend includes water to satisfy a requirement to return water to the Salinas Valley to
offset the amount of fresh water in the feed water from the desalination plants slanted
coastal intake wells.

2.3.2.5 Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


CalAm, working with local agencies, has proposed construction and operation of a CalAmowned and operated desalination project (known as the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply
Project). CalAm is an investor-owned utility that is regulated by the California Public Utilities
Commission (CPUC); the proposed Water Supply Project is identified as CPUC Application
A.12-04-019. The Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project is designed to provide the
replacement water CalAm needs to comply with the Cease and Desist Order and the
Seaside Groundwater Basin Adjudication and satisfy forecasted demand.
In its application to the CPUC for approval of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project,
CalAm proposed a three-pronged approach. The three prongs, or components, consist of:
(1) desalination, (2) groundwater replenishment, and (3) aquifer storage and recovery. The
CPUC is the CEQA lead agency for the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project, and
published a Notice of Preparation of an EIR in October 2012. The Notice of Preparation
identifies Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project facilities and improvements, including: a
seawater intake system; a 9-mgd desalination plant; desalinated water storage and
conveyance facilities; and expanded Aquifer Storage and Recovery facilities.
The Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Notice of Preparation also explains that if the
GWR Project is timely approved and implemented, CalAms proposed desalination plant
would be a smaller, 5.4 mgd plant and CalAm would enter into an agreement to purchase
3,500 AFY of product water from the Proposed GWR Project. After publication of the Notice
of Preparation, CalAm determined that, to fully satisfy the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply
Project objectives, the full-sized desalination plant would need to be a 9.6 mgd plant, and
the smaller desalination plant, proposed to be constructed if the GWR Project is
implemented, would need to be a 6.4 mgd plant (CPUC, 2103).
The Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project EIR will study both the proposed 9.6 mgd
desalination plant and a proposed MPWSP Variant, which assumes a 6.4 mgd
Pure Water Monterey GWR Project
Consolidated Final EIR

2-11

October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Chapter 2 Project Description

desalination plant and purchase of 3,500 AFY of product water from the GWR Project. The
following section further describes the relationship of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply
Project to the GWR Project.

2.3.2.6 Relationship of GWR Project to the Monterey Peninsula Water


Supply Project
The Proposed Project is designed to provide part of the replacement water needed for
CalAm to comply with the Cease and Desist Order and the Seaside Groundwater Basin
Adjudication. The Proposed Project would not produce all of the needed replacement water;
the primary goal of the Proposed Project is to produce 3,500 AFY and deliver the water to
the Seaside Basin where CalAm can extract the same amount and also reduce its Carmel
River diversions by that same amount. The Proposed Project could provide this quantity of
replacement water even if the CPUC denies CalAms application to construct and operate a
desalination plant. In other words, the Proposed Project could accomplish its objective, and
be useful in reducing Carmel River diversions, independent from approval of CalAms
proposed desalination plant.
While the Proposed Project could proceed as an independent project, the Proposed Project
is related to CalAms project in that the GWR Project would reduce the size of CalAms
proposed desalination plant if such plant is approved by the CPUC. As explained in the
preceding section, if the GWR Facilities are timely approved and implemented, CalAms
proposed desalination plant would be reduced in size from a 9.6 mgd plant to a 6.4 mgd
plant.
In April 2012, the Water Management District, MRWPCA, and CalAm entered into a
*URXQGZDWHU 5HSOHQLVKPHQW 3URMHFW 3ODQQLQJ 7HUP 6KHHW DQG 0HPRUDQGXP RI
8QGHUVWDQGLQJ WR 1HJRWLDWH LQ *RRG )DLWK to, among other things, enable planning and
environmental evaluation of a groundwater replenishment project with the following
provisions:

to commit themselves to evaluate the ways in which a groundwater


replenishment project could be effectively accomplished;
to commit themselves to negotiate in good faith to reach agreement on such a
project, should it be deemed viable;
for MRWPCA to commit to act as lead agency to achieve California
Environmental Quality Act compliance for such a project, should it be deemed
viable;
for Water Management District to assist MRWPCA in providing the necessary
financial support for planning and California Environmental Quality Act
compliance; and
to identify non-binding preliminary terms of a Proposed Project agreement.

Subsequent to the Memorandum of Understanding, the principles for evaluating the GWR
Facilities have been memorialized in an agreement spearheaded by the Monterey Peninsula
Regional Water Authority (Regional Water Authority), and presented to the CPUC. The
Regional Water Authority is made up of the mayors of the six Peninsula cities that are
served by CalAm and whose purpose is to enable development of a feasible solution to the
Monterey Peninsula water supply deficits. The Regional Water Authority adopted a Policy
Position Statement on July 11, 2013 that establishes four basic criteria that any water
project is expected to satisfy, as well as eight conditions that CalAm would have to meet in
order to obtain Regional Water Authority support for a water supply project. The position
Pure Water Monterey GWR Project
Consolidated Final EIR

2-12

October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Chapter 2 Project Description

statement expressed the Authoritys support for a portfolio approach to water projects,
which included the desalination option with groundwater replenishment. Three agreements
were reached on July 31, 2013 among the Regional Water Authority, CalAm, and a
significant number of interest groups who had previously expressed concerns with elements
of CalAms Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project. These agreements are called the
Settlement Agreements and will be considered by the CPUC in its decision-making
process for the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project. The three agreements address
the following items: (1) an agreement that provides for settlement on most of the contested
issues, (2) an agreement on the size of the desalination plant proposed in the Monterey
Peninsula Water Supply Project for design and planning purposes, and (3) an agreement
that relates to design, permitting, and land acquisition for infrastructure that must be
constructed by CalAm regardless of which version of the water supply project eventually
gets built. The full text of the agreements, as well as the Regional Water Authority Policy
Position Statement, may be found on the Authority web site at www.mprwa.org.

2.3.3 Salinas River and Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin


A secondary objective of the Proposed Project is to provide additional water to the Regional
Treatment Plant that could be used for crop irrigation through the Salinas Valley
Reclamation Plant and CSIP system. The provision of recycled water through the Salinas
Valley Reclamation Plant and CSIP reduces use of groundwater from the Salinas Valley
Groundwater Basin for crop irrigation. By increasing source water available for recycling and
by enabling the Salinas Valley Reclamation Plant to operate more consistently throughout
the year, the Crop Irrigation component of the Proposed Project would further reduce use of
groundwater from the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin.
The Salinas River is the largest river of the Central Coast of California, running 170 miles
and draining 4,160 square miles ()LJXUH  6DOLQDV 5LYHU %DVLQ). It originates near the
town of Santa Margarita in San Luis Obispo County and flows north-northwest through
Monterey County and into the Monterey Bay. The Salinas River watershed is bounded by
the Gabilan Range to the east and the Sierra de Salinas and Santa Lucia Range on the
west. The combination of steep terrain on the sides of the watershed and intense farming of
the valley floor leads to high sediment loads within the river. The Salinas River has three
main tributaries, the Nacimiento, San Antonio and Arroyo Seco Rivers. Many early sources
indicate that while high-volume summer flows were largely absent on the lower Salinas
River, many reaches had baseflow and substantial summertime pools. Much of the Salinas
River was prone to flooding during extreme winter and spring storm events. Levees were
constructed to prevent flooding and restrict channel migration on the historic floodplain and
adjacent lands.6 Modifications to the natural hydrologic condition occurred with the
construction of reservoirs for flood control and water supply, as listed in 7DEOH 
5HVHUYRLUVLQWKH6DOLQDV%DVLQ.
Table 2-2
Reservoirs in the Salinas Basin
5HVHUYRLU1DPH
Lake Nacimiento

6WRUDJH&DSDFLW\
'UDLQDJH$UHD
<HDU&RQVWUXFWHG
377,900 acre-feet (AF)
362 square miles

2ZQHU
Monterey County Water Resources Agency

Salinas River Stream Maintenance Program EIR, Executive Summary, Cardno ENTRIX, 2013

Pure Water Monterey GWR Project


Consolidated Final EIR

2-13

October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Chapter 2 Project Description

Lake San Antonio

Santa Margarita Lake

1957
335,000 AF
344 square miles
1967
23,843 AF
112 square miles
1941

Monterey County Water Resources Agency

City of San Luis Obispo

The Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin extends along the river valley floor from Bradley
north to the Monterey Bay. It is the primary source of water supply for Monterey County,
providing approximately 500,000 acre-feet per year for agricultural, industrial and municipal
use. The groundwater basin has four designated subareas, the Upper Valley, Forebay, East
Side and Pressure whose geographic extent is shown in )LJXUH  6DOLQDV 9DOOH\
*URXQGZDWHU%DVLQ. The groundwater basin is recharged in all but the Pressure Subarea,
which has a clay layer above the major water bearing layers. California Department of Water
Resources Bulletin 118 identifies nine sub-basins within the aquifer. Monterey County Water
Resources manages the seven interconnected sub-basins, but refers to them as four major
areas: the Upper Valley Area, the Forebay Area (includes DWR Forebay and Arroyo Seco
Areas), the East Side Area (includes DWR East Side and Langley Areas) and the Pressure
Area (includes DWR 180/400 Foot Area and Corral de Tierra Areas). The geographic
extents of these areas are shown in )LJXUH6DOLQDV9DOOH\*URXQGZDWHU%DVLQ. The
Paso Robles Area and the Seaside Area are considered separate formations. The Upper
Valley and Forebay Subareas receive substantial recharge from river percolation and
infiltration of rainfall and irrigation water. The Salinas River does not cross the Eastside
Subarea, where recharge is primarily from rainfall, irrigation, and inflow from other subareas.
In the Pressure Subarea, a regionally extensive clay layer (the Salinas Valley Aquiclude)
greatly restricts the downward movement of recharge from rainfall, irrigation and the river to
the underlying water supply aquifers. Much of the recharge in that subarea is groundwater
inflow from the Forebay Subarea. The Pressure Subarea encompasses approximately 140
square miles, and consists of three primary aquifers: the 180-Foot Aquifer, the 400-Foot
Aquifer and the 900-Foot (Deep) Aquifer. The 180-Foot and 400-Foot Aquifers connect to
the Pacific Ocean, and have experienced seawater intrusion since the 1930s due to
groundwater pumping along the coast. The geographic extent of seawater intrusion in these
aquifers is shown in )LJXUH UHY 6DOLQDV 9DOOH\ *URXQGZDWHU %DVLQ 6HDZDWHU
,QWUXVLRQ0DSV. Several projects have been developed to address this seawater intrusion,
as discussed below.

2.3.3.1 Monterey County Water Resources Agency


The Monterey County Water Resources Agency is a water and flood control agency with
jurisdiction coextensive with Monterey County and governed by the Monterey County Water
Resources Agency Board of Directors and Board of Supervisors. The Monterey County
Water Resources Agency was established in 1995 pursuant to the Monterey County Water
Resources Agency Act, and was formerly the Monterey County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District. The Monterey County Water Resources Agency has flood control
responsibility for the natural and man-made stormwater channels within the County,
including the Carmel, Pajaro and Salinas Rivers, the Blanco Drain and the Reclamation
Ditch system in northern Monterey County.
The Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin is not adjudicated, but the Monterey County Water
Resources Agency manages the Basin to address the problem of seawater intrusion. As
described in 6HFWLRQ  below, the Monterey County Water Resources Agency
operates Lakes Nacimiento and San Antonio to recharge the groundwater basin, and with
MRWPCA operates the CSIP and Salinas Valley Water Project to supply recycled and river
Pure Water Monterey GWR Project
Consolidated Final EIR

2-14

October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Chapter 2 Project Description

water to growers to reduce the use of groundwater for crop irrigation on land overlying the
Pressure subarea of the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin. Funding for operation and
maintenance of these facilities originate from zones of assessment and benefit.

2.3.3.2 City of Salinas


The City of Salinas is located in northern Monterey County, approximately ten miles inland
from the coast. Salinas is the largest city in Monterey County with a population of over
150,000 people and covering an area of about 23 square miles. Monterey County is called
the nations salad bowl, and a significant portion of the industry in Salinas is agricultural
processing. The Citys water supply comes from wells in the Pressure and East Side
Subareas of the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin. Municipal wastewater from the City is
collected at the MRWPCA Salinas Pump Station at the southwest corner of the City and
pumped to the MRWPCA Regional Treatment Plant. Wastewater from the agricultural
processing industries in the southeastern part of the City is collected separately and treated
at the Salinas Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facility, located along the Salinas River at
Davis Road.
Most of stormwater from the City flows into the Reclamation Ditch system, which includes
Alisal, Gabilan and Natividad Creeks, and stormwater from much of the southern part of the
city flows to the Salinas River. The City has a stormwater management program that is
implemented to comply with their permit from the Central Coast Regional Water Quality
Control Board for Municipal Stormwater Discharges.

2.3.3.3 Marina Coast Water District


The Marina Coast Water District is a county water district established in 1960 pursuant to
Water Code 30000, et seq. The District provides water supply and wastewater collection
services to the City of Marina and the former Fort Ord. This service area is generally located
between the MRWPCA Regional Treatment Plant and the Seaside Groundwater Basin,
where the Proposed Projects injection wells would be located.
Marina Coast Water Districts water supply comes from wells in the Pressure Subarea of the
Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin. Wastewater from the Districts service areas is collected
and conveyed to the MRWPCA interceptor system, and treated at the Regional Treatment
Plant. Marina Coast Water District is the only member jurisdiction within the MRWPCA with
the right to purchase back its municipal wastewater as recycled water.
Water demands on the former Fort Ord are projected to increase with development
envisioned in the Fort Ord Base Reuse Plan. To address the need for additional water
supply, Marina Coast Water District is developing the Regional Urban Water Augmentation
Project (RUWAP). The RUWAP would provide an additional 2,400 AFY of potable and/or
recycled water. Marina Coast Water District certified the EIR for the RUWAP in 2005, and
approved addenda to the EIR in 2007 and 2008 to address changes to the proposed
pipeline alignment, construction assumptions, and water quantities. The trunk main of the
RUWAP system is coincident with the Proposed Projects RUWAP Pipeline alignment
option. The RUWAP recycled water distribution system has been designed and partially
constructed, but is not yet in operation.
MCWD and others have implemented numerous projects to eliminate the long-term
overdraft condition of the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin and address seawater intrusion.
For example, between 1985 and 2000, MCWD constructed both a seawater desalination
plant (currently inactive) and a wastewater recycling facility (the recycling facility was retired

Pure Water Monterey GWR Project


Consolidated Final EIR

2-15

October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Chapter 2 Project Description

when the MCWD connected to the MRWPCA system). More recently MCWD has
implemented numerous water conservation programs, including, among others: (1) the
Water Conservation Commission; (2) a conservation rate structure; (3) an automatic meter
reading (AMR) system with leak detection; (4) the California State University Monterey Bay
student learning partnership and student internship programs; (5) free conservation devices
(showerheads, faucet aerators, leak detection tablets, etc.); (6) free water conservation
education materials (e-flyers, newsletter, magnets and stickers, restaurant and commercial
business placards, water conservation website, etc.); (7) a landscape demonstration garden;
(8) high-efficiency clothes washer and toilet rebates; (9) leak and high water use and
detection notification procedures; (10) free property surveys; (11) landscape walk-throughs
and irrigation system checks; (12) water use investigations, water use data logs, and water
use charts and tables; (13) property certification on resale; (14) in-school water education
classes and assemblies; (15) landscape building standards and plan check procedures; (16)
water-wise landscape incentives for turf removal, conversion from sprinkler to drip irrigation,
"smart" controller replacement, rail and soil moisture shut-off switches, etc.; (17) regional
participation in Water Awareness Committee of Monterey County. MCWD states that a
significant portion of its budget is allocated to water conservation programs, and that MCWD
will spend approximately $465,155 on its conservation programs over the next year alone.
MCWD estimates that its conservation programs reduce pumping for the Salinas Valley
Groundwater Basin by approximately 520 to 600 acre-feet of water per year. MCWD has
also adopted a Water Shortage Contingency Plan for staged voluntary and mandatory
conservation efforts.
In addition to the conservation programs listed above, MCWD states that various
agreements have been signed by MCWD, MCWRA, and MRWPCA to limit groundwater use
and to address seawater intrusion in the Salinas Valley, including for example, the
Annexation Agreement and Groundwater Mitigation Framework for Marina Area Lands
(MCWD/MCWRA.J.G. Armstrong Family Members, RMC Lonestar (now CEMEX), and the
City of Marina, March 1996).

2.3.3.4 Salinas Valley Water Projects


In addition to the ongoing projects and programs by MCWD and other water users in the
County to implement water conservation and groundwater use reduction programs,
Monterey County, acting through the Monterey County Water Resources Agency, has
implemented several projects to reduce seawater intrusion along the coast and increase the
reliability and availability of water supply. These projects are described in the following
sections.

Reservoirs
Nacimiento Reservoir was constructed in 1957 to provide water supply for municipal,
domestic, industrial, irrigation and recreational uses. The Monterey County Water
Resources Agency may capture up to 180,000 AFY from the Nacimiento River basin, which
is approximately 372 square miles in size. The reservoir holds 377,900 acre-feet of water.
The agency may use up to 350,000 AFY of diverted and/or stored water for the permitted
uses.
San Antonio Reservoir was constructed in 1967 for flood control and to provide water supply
for municipal, domestic, industrial, irrigation and recreational uses. The Monterey County
Water Resources Agency may capture up to 220,000 AFY from the San Antonio River
basin, which is approximately 344 square miles in size. The reservoir holds 335,000 acre-

Pure Water Monterey GWR Project


Consolidated Final EIR

2-16

October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Chapter 2 Project Description

feet of water. The agency may use up to 210,000 AFY of diverted and/or stored water for
the permitted uses.
Monterey County Water Resources Agency releases flows from Lakes Nacimiento and San
Antonio to recharge the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin. This practice has resulted in
sustained high groundwater levels in the Upper Valley and Forebay Subareas. Before the
development of the Salinas Valley Water Project (discussed below), releases were
managed to achieve 100% percolation of released flows from the Salinas River into the
Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin (that is, no non-stormwater flow in the Salinas River over
the Pressure Subarea). Following construction of the Salinas Valley Water Project,
increased reservoir releases are made and rediverted for beneficial use at the Salinas River
Diversion Facility.

Salinas Valley Reclamation Project/Plant


The MRWPCA Regional Treatment Plant was constructed in 1988 and 1989 and began
operation in 1990, treating municipal wastewater to a secondary level and discharging it to
the Pacific Ocean. In 1992, MRWPCA and the Monterey County Water Resources Agency
formed a partnership to build the Monterey County Reclamation Projects, including the
Salinas Valley Reclamation Project recycled water plant (Salinas Valley Reclamation Plant)
and the CSIP distribution system. The Reclamation Projects provide recycled water for crop
irrigation, reducing the use of Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin groundwater along the
coast.
The Salinas Valley Reclamation Plant was constructed in 1995 through 1997, and is located
within the Regional Treatment Plant site. At the plant, secondary-treated municipal
wastewater is tertiary treated and disinfected using a three-step process (flocculation,
filtration and disinfection) and stored in an 80 acre-foot reservoir. The plant has been in
operation since 1998, producing up to 15,000 acre-feet per year of recycled, treated
wastewater for crop irrigation use. In addition to retarding seawater intrusion and protecting
drinking water supplies by reducing use of well water, wastewater recycling also reduces
wastewater discharge into the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary.

Castroville Seawater Intrusion Project (CSIP)


The CSIP is the distribution system for the recycled wastewater produced by the Salinas
Valley Reclamation Plant. It consists of 45 miles of pipelines and 22 wells, supplying
irrigation water to growers on 12,000 acres in northern Monterey County. While the CSIP is
designed to reduce groundwater use for irrigation, some groundwater pumping still occurs in
the summer months to meet peak day demands which exceed the available amount of
recycled water, and in the winter months when demands are smaller than the 5 mgd
minimum production rate of the Salinas Valley Reclamation Plant. The CSIP system is
owned by the Monterey County Water Resources Agency, but operated by the MRWPCA
under contract.

Salinas Valley Water Project and Salinas River Diversion Facility


In 2009, the Monterey County Water Resources Agency constructed the Salinas River
Diversion Facility near the Salinas Valley Reclamation Plant. Water released from San
Antonio and Nacimiento Reservoirs that does not percolate into the Salinas Valley
Groundwater Basin may be rediverted at the Salinas River Diversion Facility. This water is
filtered, chlorinated and added to the 80 AF reservoir at the Salinas Valley Reclamation
Plant for use in the CSIP system, further reducing the amount of groundwater pumped to

Pure Water Monterey GWR Project


Consolidated Final EIR

2-17

October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Chapter 2 Project Description

meet peak day demands. The facility includes an inflatable rubber dam that creates a
seasonal intake pool for the diversion pump station, a metered release weir for maintenance
of downstream flows and a fish ladder to allow passage of migratory fish species.

Relationship of the GWR Project to the CSIP


As discussed in detail above, the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin is experiencing
seawater intrusion due to continued overdraft of the aquifer. The CSIP, operated by
MRWPCA and by the Monterey County Water Resources Agency supplies recycled water
produced at the Salinas Valley Reclamation Plant, Salinas River water, and Salinas Valley
groundwater for irrigation of farmland in northern Monterey County. The river water is
diverted at the Salinas River Diversion Facility, located southeast of the Regional Treatment
Plant. The recycled and river water supplies have replaced between 16,600 AFY and 21,500
AFY of Salinas Valley groundwater pumping for irrigation, depending on the annual irrigation
demands7. The CSIP system still uses from 2,700 AFY to 8,600 AFY of Salinas Valley
groundwater to meet summer peak demands that exceed the available recycled and river
supplies, and also to meet small winter demands that are below the minimum 5 mgd
capacity of the Salinas Valley Reclamation Plant. The Proposed Project would provide up to
5,290 AFY of additional recycled water for distribution through the CSIP system. This would
reduce the amount of groundwater used within the existing CSIP system.
The Proposed Project would collect various new source water supplies, which include
agricultural wash water from the City of Salinas, stormwater runoff from the Cities of Salinas
and Monterey, surface water diversions from the Reclamation Ditch, Blanco Drain and
Tembladero Slough, and unused municipal wastewater (see 6HFWLRQ  2YHUYLHZ RI
3URSRVHG3URMHFW)DFLOLWLHVDQG2SHUDWLRQV for detailed descriptions). All of the collected
source waters would be conveyed to the MRWPCA Regional Treatment Plant, blended with
the existing wastewater streams and would then be treated to a primary and secondary level
before a portion is diverted to the newly constructed Advanced Water Treatment Facility
(AWT Facility). New source water beyond the amount needed to supply 3,500 AFY per year
to CalAm would be used as additional influent for the Salinas Valley Reclamation Plant to
increase the volume and consistency of recycled water produced during the peak demand
months.
The Salinas Valley Reclamation Plant has a design minimum production capacity of 8 mgd.
Through operational efficiencies, the plant managers can currently meet demands as low as
5 mgd. Irrigation demands within the CSIP service area below that level have been met in
the past using groundwater. As part of the Proposed Project, the Salinas Valley Reclamation
Plant would also be modified to meet wet-season irrigation demands as low as 0.5 mgd.
This would increase the late fall, winter, and early spring use of secondary-treated municipal
wastewater, which would otherwise be discharged through the ocean outfall.
As an additional means of providing recycled water for crop irrigation, the GWR Features
would be sized to produce a 1,000 acre-foot drought reserve in addition to producing 3,500
AFY per year for use by CalAm. This would be accomplished by seasonally treating
additional source water (when available) during the months of October through March to
produce up to 200 acre-feet per year for groundwater injection, until a surplus of 1,000 acrefeet has been injected into the Seaside Groundwater Basin. During dry years, MRWPCA
would reduce the amount of treated water that it injects into the Seaside Groundwater Basin
7

Monthly data from Monterey County Water Resources Agency, presented as calendar year totals.

Pure Water Monterey GWR Project


Consolidated Final EIR

2-18

October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Chapter 2 Project Description

during the peak irrigation demand months (April through September), making more of its
source water available to recycle and distribute to meet agricultural irrigation demands in the
CSIP area. CalAm extractions of GWR-injected water quantities of 3,500 AFY would
continue in those years by drawing upon the previously banked groundwater up to the
amount of drought reserve water previously injected.

2.4 PROJECT OBJECTIVES


The primary objective of the Proposed Project is to replenish the Seaside Groundwater
Basin with 3,500 AFY of purified recycled water to replace a portion of CalAms water supply
as required by state orders. To accomplish this primary objective, the Proposed Project
would need to meet the following objectives:

Be capable of commencing operation, or of being substantially complete, by the


end of 2016 or, if after 2016, no later than necessary to meet CalAms
replacement water needs;8
Be cost-effective such that the project would be capable of supplying reasonablypriced water; and
Be capable of complying with applicable water quality regulations intended to
protect public health.

Secondary objectives of the Proposed Project include the following:

Provide additional water to the Regional Treatment Plant that could be used for
crop irrigation through the Salinas Valley Reclamation Plant and CSIP system;
Develop a drought reserve to allow the increased use of Proposed Project source
waters as crop irrigation within the area served by the CSIP during dry years;
Assist in preventing seawater intrusion in the Seaside Groundwater Basin;
Assist in diversifying Monterey Countys water supply portfolio.

2.5 OVERVIEW OF EXISTING SYSTEMS


This section describes the existing wastewater and water infrastructure systems that are
relevant to the Proposed Project. As explained in 6HFWLRQ,QWURGXFWLRQ, the Proposed
Project would recycle and reuse water from the following sources:

Municipal Wastewater
Salinas Agricultural Wash Water
Salinas Stormwater
Reclamation Ditch/ Tembladero Sough
Blanco Drain

The Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project has been delayed to the point where it is not possible
for CalAm to meet the State Water Resources Control Board Cease and Desist Order 2009-60
deadline of December 31, 2016. Accordingly, representatives of the local agencies have been in
discussion with the State Board to develop proposals for a CDO extension that would be acceptable
to the public and have the potential to obtain State Board approval.

Pure Water Monterey GWR Project


Consolidated Final EIR

2-19

October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Chapter 2 Project Description

City of Monterey Stormwater at Lake El Estero

Existing infrastructure systems that are relevant to these sources of water include the
following:

MRWPCA Regional Treatment Plant (including water recycling facilities at the


existing Salinas Valley Reclamation Plant)
municipal wastewater collection and conveyance systems
agricultural wash water9 collection, conveyance and treatment system
urban dry-weather runoff and stormwater collection and conveyance systems

After source water is treated at the proposed new Advanced Water Treatment Facility, it
would be conveyed to new Well Injection Facilities at the Seaside Groundwater Basin. The
purified recycled water would then be extracted by CalAm for delivery to its customers.
Existing infrastructure systems that are relevant to extraction and delivery of the purified
recycled water to urban users include the following:

Monterey Peninsula Aquifer Storage and Recovery facilities


CalAm water supply facilities (Monterey District)

In addition, recycled water produced for crop irrigation would be conveyed to growers
through the existing CSIP distribution system.

2.5.1 MRWPCA Regional Treatment Plant, including Water Recycling


Facilities and Ocean Outfall
The existing MRWPCA Regional Treatment Plant would be used to provide secondary
treatment for all source waters. A new Advanced Water Treatment Facility would be
constructed at the existing MRWPCA Regional Treatment Plant, and improvements would
be made to the existing Salinas Valley Reclamation Plant, which also is located at the
Regional Treatment Plant.
MRWPCA currently serves a population of approximately 250,000 and was created in 1972.
MRWPCA operates a regional wastewater collection system, treatment, disposal and
reclamation facilities. MRWPCA provides services to the cities of Monterey, Pacific Grove,
Del Rey Oaks, Sand City, Marina, and Salinas, the Seaside Sanitation District, the
Castroville, Moss Landing and Boronda Community Service Districts, and former Fort Ord
lands. Each member entity retains ownership and operating/maintenance responsibility for
wastewater collection and transport systems up to the point of connection with interceptors
and pump stations owned and operated by MRWPCA.
Residential, commercial, and industrial wastewater is conveyed to the MRWPCA Regional
Treatment Plant. The plant is located north of the City of Marina and south of the Salinas

The Salinas Industrial Wastewater Treatment system collects wastewater from agricultural-related
businesses; 80 to 90% of the wastewater in this system is estimated to originate from facilities that
wash produce. These facilities also include corrugated box manufacturing and fish processing in the
southeastern portions of the City of Salinas for conveyance to the Citys Salinas Industrial
Wastewater Treatment Facility (also referred to herein as the Salinas Treatment Facility) for treatment
and disposal. The wastewater that is currently collected in this system is referred to herein as
Agricultural Wash Water.

Pure Water Monterey GWR Project


Consolidated Final EIR

2-20

October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Chapter 2 Project Description

River in unincorporated Monterey County. The Regional Treatment Plant has an average
dry weather design capacity of 29.6 mgd and a peak wet weather design capacity of 75.6
mgd. It currently receives and treats approximately 16 to 17 million gallons per day of
wastewater and therefore has capacity to treat additional flows. The Regional Treatment
Plant primarily treats municipal wastewater, but also accepts some dry weather urban runoff
and other discrete wastewater flows. An aerial image annotated with the key treatment
facilities at the Regional Treatment Plant is found in )LJXUH  ([LVWLQJ 5HJLRQDO
7UHDWPHQW3ODQW)DFLOLWLHV0DS
At the MRWPCA Regional Treatment Plant, water is treated to two different standards: 1)
primary and secondary treatment in the Regional Treatment Plant for discharge through the
MRWPCA ocean outfall or use as influent for the tertiary treatment system, and 2) Title 22
California Code of Regulations standards (tertiary filtration and disinfection) for unrestricted
crop irrigation use.
In most winter months, secondary treated wastewater from the Regional Treatment Plant is
discharged to Monterey Bay through the MRWPCA ocean outfall, which includes a diffuser
that extends 11,260 feet offshore at a depth of approximately 100 feet. The diffuser on the
ocean outfall is designed to convey wet weather flows of up to 81.2 mgd. However, the
current permitted capacity of the outfall is 75.6 mgd, which is less than its 81.2 mgd
capacity. Wastewater discharges in recent years have decreased to below 5,000 AFY.
Secondary treated effluent from the Regional Treatment Plant is also recycled at the colocated Salinas Valley Reclamation Plant for irrigation of 12,000 acres of farmland in the
northern Salinas Valley. The existing facilities at the Regional Treatment Plant, including the
Reclamation Plant are designed to produce up to 29.6 mgd of recycled water. The Salinas
Valley Reclamation Plant includes an 80 acre-foot storage pond that holds tertiary-treated
and Salinas River water before it is distributed to farmland by a distribution system called the
CSIP. The use of recycled wastewater for irrigation reduces regional dependence on and
use of local groundwater, which, in turn reduces groundwater pumping-related seawater
intrusion into the Salinas Valley aquifers.
The amount of tertiary water that has been delivered via the CSIP for crop irrigation has
averaged 12,936 AFY (2001 through 2013), but is trending upward. The amount of water
delivery each year is dependent on the crops grown and weather patterns. The amount of
wastewater available for recycled water production is trending lower during this same period
due to reduced flows of wastewater to the Regional Treatment Plant. )LJXUH+LVWRULF
5HJLRQDO7UHDWPHQW3ODQW)ORZV shows the wastewater influent to the Regional Treatment
Plant, Salinas Valley Reclamation Plant production, and ocean outfall discharge flows for
the period 1998-2013 in acre-feet per year.
In January 2014, Brezack & Associates, Inc. completed a report that projected municipal
wastewater flows to the Regional Treatment Plant to help MRWPCA plan for use of
available water for recycling. The MRWPCA has observed that influent to the Regional
Treatment Plant has been decreasing for the last several years and thus, a key objective of
the analysis was to determine if the trend would continue. The report forecasts wastewater
flows based on population and per capita wastewater generation in the service area. A
spreadsheet model was developed using historical population and flow data to produce a
range of potential projections through the year 2055. )LJXUH  3URMHFWHG 5HJLRQDO
7UHDWPHQW3ODQW)ORZV, shows the results of the analysis. Specifically, the analysis found
that municipal wastewater flow to the Regional Treatment Plant is projected to decrease to a
range of 19.2 to 17.1 mgd. After 2030, flows may increase to a range of highs between 22.7
and 24.3 mgd. The future increase is dependent upon whether urban growth projections

Pure Water Monterey GWR Project


Consolidated Final EIR

2-21

October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Chapter 2 Project Description

assumed in the 2014 projections are realized. Because it is not certain that such planned
urban growth will occur, the Proposed Project source water estimates assume municipal
wastewater availability will not increase in the future. If municipal wastewater flows were to
increase, less of the other source waters would potentially be used for the Proposed Project.
6HFWLRQ6RXUFH:DWHU2SHUDWLRQ'LYHUVLRQ7UHDWPHQWDQG8VH, describes how
the Proposed Project would divert source water diversions to augment wastewater flows
only up to the demands for purified and/or tertiary recycled water.

2.5.2 Municipal Wastewater Collection and Conveyance Systems


Under the Proposed Project, the existing municipal wastewater collection and conveyance
systems would continue to be used to convey wastewater to the Regional Treatment Plant.
In addition, several new connections would be constructed to convey the new proposed
sources of water to the Regional Treatment Plant. Use of the existing conveyance and
collection system would minimize Proposed Project costs and environmental impacts, and
would assist in enabling the Proposed Project to be constructed within the short time period
needed to accomplish the Project Objectives.
)LJXUH  05:3&$ 6HUYLFH $UHD 0DS provides an overview of the existing MRWPCA
wastewater collection and conveyance systems, which includes ten pump stations located
throughout the northern Monterey County area, including Castroville and Moss Landing to
the north, and City of Salinas to the east. Following are descriptions of the wastewater
collection and conveyance systems serving the Salinas and Monterey Peninsula areas.

2.5.2.1 Salinas Wastewater Collection and Conveyance


Several of the new sources (Salinas agricultural wash water, Salinas stormwater runoff, and
the Reclamation Ditch waters diverted at Davis Road) would be diverted into the existing
wastewater conveyance and collection system prior to flowing into the Salinas Pump
Station. MRWPCAs sanitary sewer pump station that serves the City of Salinas (Salinas
Pump Station) is located on Hitchcock Road in Salinas, a half mile southeast of the
intersection of Blanco and Davis Roads. The Salinas Pump Station was constructed in 1983
and is located within the City of Salinas at the site of the Citys former municipal wastewater
treatment plant, known as Treatment Plant No. 1 or TP1. The site is surrounded by
unincorporated land within Monterey County that is currently used for agricultural
production. Existing stormwater, municipal wastewater (or sanitary sewer), and agricultural
wash water pipelines traverse the pump station property in very close proximity to one
another, but currently flow to different ultimate endpoints. Only the municipal wastewater
enters the Salinas Pump Station at this time.
Municipal wastewater is conveyed from the Salinas Pump Station to the Regional Treatment
Plant in a 36-inch diameter interceptor, force main pipeline that is approximately 7.5 miles in
length. The average daily and peak flows through the pump station have been relatively
constant at approximately 12 mgd and 25 mgd, respectively, over the last several years.
Flows at the pump station are highest during the summer months when the population of the
City of Salinas expands due to the large migrant workforce associated with the agricultural
industry. The City of Salinass aggressive collection system improvement program has
reduced winter infiltration and inflow of stormwater into the municipal wastewater system
and thus has also reduced total flows reaching the Salinas Pump Station. MRWPCA
conducted flow testing of the Salinas Pump Station in October 2008 as part of the Salinas
Pump Station Flow Study. The testing indicated the pump station had a pumping capacity of
32.8 to 35.4 mgd (assuming one pump is out of service), and a capacity of up to 38.5 mgd
Pure Water Monterey GWR Project
Consolidated Final EIR

2-22

October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Chapter 2 Project Description

with all pumps running. )LJXUH6DOLQDV3XPS6WDWLRQ0RQWKO\$YHUDJH'LVFKDUJH


shows the Salinas Pump Station average monthly discharge to the MRWPCA Salinas sewer
force main (or interceptor) for the period 2003-2012. Independent from the Proposed
Project, the City of Salinas and MRWPCA are currently developing plans to address
potential emergency sewer overflow situations at the Salinas Pump Station by designing
and implementing improvements to the municipal and industrial wastewater collection and
conveyance systems to allow wastewater to flow (in emergency situations, only) to the
Salinas Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facility for temporary storage before returning to
the Salinas Pump Station for conveyance to the Regional Treatment Plant.

2.5.2.2 Monterey Peninsula Wastewater Collection and Conveyance


One of the proposed water sources for recycling (stormwater in Lake El Estero) would be
diverted into the existing wastewater conveyance and collection system in Monterey that
flows into the Monterey Peninsula interceptor system. The Monterey Peninsula interceptor
system collects municipal wastewater that originates as far southwest as Pacific Grove. In
Pacific Grove, the wastewater flows through two main MRWPCA-owned pump stations
(located at the end of Coral Street and Fountain Street). Then the wastewater flows past the
Reeside Pump Station (in the City of Monterey at the end of Reeside Avenue) to the
Monterey Pump Station (located in the City of Monterey on the ocean side of Del Monte
Boulevard, across from the Naval Postgraduate School). From the Monterey Pump Station,
wastewater is conveyed to the Seaside Pump Station in Sand City, from there to the Fort
Ord Pump Station near the entrance to the City of Marina, and on to the Regional Treatment
Plant. )LJXUH  05:3&$ :DVWHZDWHU &ROOHFWLRQ 6\VWHP 1HWZRUN 'LDJUDP DQG
3XPS6WDWLRQ)ORZVsummarizes design capacities of all the MRWPCA pump stations and
also shows the average dry weather and peak wet weather flows over the last 10 years.
Based on this MRWPCA data, the pump stations along the Monterey Peninsula interceptor
system operate below their design flows year-round, and have operated at 15 to 20% of
their design capacity during an average dry weather flow event and 42 to 50% of their
capacity during peak wet weather flow days.

2.5.2.3 Moss Landing


Conveyance

and

Castroville

Wastewater

Collection

and

One of the proposed water sources for recycling (surface water in Tembladero Slough)
would be diverted to the existing Moss Landing and Castroville portions of the wastewater
conveyance and collection system just prior to where the wastewater flows into the
Castroville Pump Station. The Moss Landing and Castroville interceptors and pump stations
are north of the Regional Treatment Plant and collect and convey wastewater from those
communities to the Regional Treatment Plant, as shown on )LJXUH  05:3&$
:DVWHZDWHU&ROOHFWLRQ6\VWHP1HWZRUN'LDJUDPDQG3XPS6WDWLRQ)ORZV. Flows from
Moss Landing are pumped through a force main paralleling Highway 1 to the Castroville
Pump Station, which is west of Highway 1 and north of Tembladero Slough. Wastewater
from Castroville flows to the pump station through a gravity pipeline. The Castroville Pump
Station pumps wastewater through the Castroville interceptor to the MRWPCA Regional
Treatment Plant. The Castroville Pump Station is designed to pump 2.7 mgd and the current
annual average flow is 0.7 mgd.

Pure Water Monterey GWR Project


Consolidated Final EIR

2-23

October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Chapter 2 Project Description

2.5.3 Agricultural Wash Water Generation, Collection/Conveyance,


and Treatment
Existing operations and infrastructure relevant to the proposed Salinas agricultural wash
water diversion are described in this section. The City of Salinas (hereafter, Salinas)
operates an industrial wastewater conveyance and treatment system that serves
approximately 25 agricultural processing and related businesses located east of Sanborn
Road and south of U.S. Highway 101. This wastewater collection system is completely
separate from the Salinas municipal wastewater collection system and includes 14-inch to
33-inch diameter gravity pipelines that flow to the Salinas Pump Station Diversion site, and
then flow into a 42-inch gravity pipeline to the Salinas Industrial Wastewater Treatment
Facility (Salinas Treatment Facility). Over 80% of the wastewater flows in this system are
from fresh vegetable packing facilities (typically, wash water used on harvested row crops).
The remainder of flows originate from businesses associated with seafood processing,
refrigerated warehousing, manufactured ice, preserves (frozen fruits, jams and jellies) and
corrugated paper boxes. Wastewater is conveyed in a pipeline that traverses near the
Salinas Pump Station to the Industrial Treatment Facility located adjacent to the Salinas
River, downstream of the Davis Road crossing. The Salinas Treatment Facility consists of
an influent pump station, an aeration lagoon, percolation ponds, and rapid infiltration beds to
treat, percolate and evaporate the industrial wastewater.
All industrial wastewater entering the ponds passes through a bar screen at the influent
pump station with a peak design flow of 6.8 mgd. Piping and valves permit the water to be
pumped to the aeration lagoon, the percolation ponds, or the rapid infiltration beds;
however, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit for the facility requires
aeration as part of the treatment process. Biological treatment in the aeration lagoon
includes aerobic decomposition to about 1/3 of the water depth using twelve 50-horsepower
surface aerators and natural anaerobic decomposition in the lower layers.
The wastewater is treated using aeration then flows by gravity to three percolation ponds in
series (from east to west, Ponds 1 through 3). Water levels must be maintained with no less
than 1-foot of freeboard. These water levels are maintained by pumping to rapid infiltration
beds, including permanent beds (also referred to as drying beds north of Pond 3) and
temporary rapid infiltration basins located between the ponds and the Salinas River. A
conceptual process flow schematic of the Salinas Treatment Facility is shown in )LJXUH 
 6DOLQDV ,QGXVWULDO :DVWHZDWHU 7UHDWPHQW )DFLOLW\ 3URFHVV )ORZ 6FKHPDWLF and
locations of existing industrial wastewater infrastructure is shown in )LJXUH  6DOLQDV
,QGXVWULDO:DVWHZDWHU7UHDWPHQW6\VWHP/RFDWLRQ0DS.
The Salinas Treatment Facility operates year-round, with a peak monthly inflow during
summer months of approximately 3.5 to 4.0 mgd (annual average of approximately 3 mgd).
This summer peak corresponds with the peak agricultural harvesting season in the Salinas
Valley. In recent years, substantial flows to the Salinas Treatment Facility have continued
during the winter months due to the importation of agricultural products from Arizona for
processing in the facilities that discharge wastewater to this system.

Pure Water Monterey GWR Project


Consolidated Final EIR

2-24

October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Chapter 2 Project Description

2.5.4 Stormwater Runoff, Agricultural Drainage Collection and


Conveyance
The existing systems for the collection and conveyance of various types of runoff and
agricultural land drainage that are relevant to the Proposed Project include the following
systems:

Facilities that capture and discharge City of Salinas stormwater to the Salinas
River (see 6HFWLRQ),
Watershed characteristics (natural, urban, and agricultural) of the Reclamation
Ditch system (see 6HFWLRQ ),
Agricultural runoff and tile drain systems contributing to the Blanco Drain system
(see 6HFWLRQ ), and
Stormwater and wastewater collection systems near Lake El Estero (see 6HFWLRQ
).

The following sections describe these systems and their characteristics.

2.5.4.1 City of Salinas: Urban Runoff to Salinas River


The Proposed Project would capture and divert runoff from the City of Salinas. Urban runoff
from the southwestern part of the City of Salinas flows through pipes that cross nearby the
Salinas Pump Station site southeast of the intersection of Blanco and Davis Roads. The
runoff system currently drains an area of about 2.5 square miles and eventually flows to the
Salinas River through a 66-inch gravity pipeline. The drainage area is virtually all within the
developed portion of Salinas and does not appear to intercept water from non-urban areas.
Therefore, flows are likely to be almost entirely from urban runoff. The climate of Salinas is
semiarid, with the rainy season occurring from November through March. 7DEOH 
(VWLPDWHG8UEDQ5XQRIIIURPWKH&LW\RI6DOLQDVWR6DOLQDV5LYHU DFUHIHHW shows an
estimate of stormwater runoff from the Citys Salinas River watershed. No flow gage or other
measurements of runoff exist for this watershed, so a hydrologic analysis using rainfall gage
data, hydrologic soil group information, and land use data was conducted to develop
estimates of surface runoff into the Salinas River from the City of Salinas (Schaaf &
Wheeler, 2015a).
Table 2-3
Estimated Urban Runoff from the City of Salinas to Salinas River (acre-feet)
$YHUDJH
0D[LPXP

2FW
8
65

1RY
26
229

'HF
53
390

-DQ
53
414

)HE
45
530

0DU
34
147

$SU
19
238

0D\
2
31

-XQ
0
10

-XO
0
8

$XJ
0
22

6HS
1
18

7RWDO
242
857

Salinas has an existing municipal stormwater permit issued by the Central Coast Regional
Water Quality Control Board that requires reductions in pollutant loads to nearby surface
water bodies, including the Salinas River and the Reclamation Ditch and its downstream
receiving waters, such as Tembladero Slough. The latter water bodies are described in the
following section.

Pure Water Monterey GWR Project


Consolidated Final EIR

2-25

October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Chapter 2 Project Description

2.5.4.2 Reclamation Ditch and Tembladero Slough Watersheds: Mixed


Runoff
Another Proposed Project source of water, the Reclamation Ditch, created between 1917
and 1920, is a network of excavated earthen channels used to drain surface runoff and
facilitate agricultural use of the surrounding lands. The Reclamation Ditch watershed is
approximately 157 square miles that includes headlands, agricultural areas, the City of
Salinas and portions of Castroville and Prunedale. It collects water from Alisal Creek at
Smith Lake southeast of the City of Salinas, Gabilan and Natividad Creeks within Salinas at
Carr Lake, and Santa Rita Creek west of Salinas. The Reclamation Ditch is a major
drainage channel that flows from east to west through Salinas and continues west where it
drains into Tembladero Slough, thence to the Old Salinas River Channel, and ultimately into
Moss Landing Harbor through the Potrero Road Tide Gates (see )LJXUH5HFODPDWLRQ
'LWFK:DWHUVKHG%RXQGDU\).
Alisal, Gabilan and Natividad Creeks are seasonal in their upper reaches. The Reclamation
Ditch is perennial downstream of agricultural and urban development. However, the
presence of dry-season flow is a consequence of dry-season urban discharges and
agricultural runoff and tile drain water (Casagrande and Watson, 2006). There is a United
States Geological Survey gage station on the Reclamation Ditch at San Jon Road,
approximately one mile west of Salinas. Flow data from that gage is provided in 7DEOH
8QLWHG 6WDWHV *HRORJLFDO 6XUYH\ *DJH 5HFODPDWLRQ 'LWFK DW 6DQ -RQ 5RDG SHULRG
WR $) . The lower reaches of the system, including Tembladero Slough and the
Old Salinas River Channel, are tidally influenced.
Table 2-4
United States Geological Survey Gage, Reclamation Ditch at San Jon Road, period 2003 to
2013 (AF)
$YHUDJH

2FW
300

1RY
293

'HF
1,044

-DQ
1,329

)HE
1,203

0DU
1,598

$SU
905

0D\
263

-XQ
198

-XO
193

$XJ
181

6HS
133

7RWDO
7,640

2.5.4.3 Blanco Drain Watershed: Agricultural Runoff and Tile Drainage


The Blanco Drain is a proposed source of water for the Proposed Project. The Blanco Drain
is a man-made reclamation ditch draining approximately 6,400 acres of agricultural lands
east of the City of Salinas. The watershed for the Blanco Drain is between the Salinas River
and AlisalSlough, and discharges to the Salinas River at river mile 5 (see )LJXUHUHY
%ODQFR'UDLQ6WRUP'UDLQ0DLQWHQDQFH'LVWULFW). The Blanco Drain is separated from the
Salinas River by a flap gate, which prevents high-water conditions in the Salinas River from
migrating up the Blanco Drain channel. Summer flows in the Blanco Drain are generally tile
drainage and runoff from irrigated agriculture. Winter flows include stormwater runoff,
although some fields remain in production and are irrigated year-round.
In 2009-2010, the Monterey County Water Resources Agency constructed the Salinas River
Diversion Facility downstream of the Blanco Drain. The Salinas River Diversion Facility
includes an inflatable rubber dam that impoundswater during the summer months to supply
the diversion pump station. To overcome the backwater into the Blanco Drain channel, a
new slide gate and pump station were installed at the lower end of the Drain, several
hundred feet above the confluence with the Salinas River. The pump station lifts Blanco
Drain flows past theslide gate and into the gravity portion of the channel. 7DEOH%ODQFR

Pure Water Monterey GWR Project


Consolidated Final EIR

2-26

October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Chapter 2 Project Description

'UDLQ )ORZ $YDLODELOLW\ (VWLPDWH DFUHIHHW shows an estimate of flows in Blanco Drain
(Schaaf & Wheeler, 2014b).
Table 2-5
Blanco Drain Flow Availability Estimate (acre-feet)
0RQWK

-DQ

)HE

0DU

$SU

0D\

-XQ

-XO

$XJ

6HSW

2FW

1RY

'HF

7RWDOV

(VWLPDWHG)ORZ$YDLODELOLW\

209

223

246

252

225

274

277

244

184

168

133

185

2,620

2.5.4.4 Monterey Peninsula: Urban Runoff


The Proposed Project includes diversion and use of stormwater that presently is stored at
Lake El Estero and discharged to nearby beaches before large storm events. The cities of
the Monterey Peninsula generally use storm drain infrastructure to collect, convey and
discharge urban runoff that does not sheet flow to natural areas. Infrastructure for collection
and discharge of urban runoff in the cities does not connect to the wastewater collection
system, except in the City of Pacific Grove where the City has implemented three phases of
a dry weather Urban Runoff Diversion Project in order to reduce pollutant discharges and
comply with the requirements of the Areas of Special Biological Significance program (City
of Pacific Grove, plans and environmental documents for Urban Runoff Diversion Project
Phases 1 through 3).10 The cities of Pacific Grove and Monterey are also in the planning
stages of an additional wet weather diversion project that would expand the existing dry
weather diversion facilities as part of their efforts to comply with additional Areas of Special
Biological Significance requirements.11
Within the watersheds of the Areas of Special Biological Significance, surface storage
locations for detaining stormwater are limited or non-existent in the cities of Pacific Grove
and Monterey. In addition, much of the soils underlying Pacific Grove and Monterey are
granitic, and thus, have a very low ability to infiltrate and reduce runoff. Large flows of
stormwater runoff become available within a very short time after initiation of a storm event.
The City of Montereys stormwater system includes the use of two lakes, Del Monte Lake
and Lake El Estero. The City actively manages the water levels in these lakes so that there
is storage capacity for large storm events. Prior to a storm event, the lake levels are lowered
by pumping or gravity flow for discharge to the beaches north of the lakes. Additional
information about existing Monterey Peninsula stormwater collection systems is presented in
6HFWLRQ+\GURORJ\:DWHU4XDOLW\6XUIDFH:DWHU.
During the 2012 to 2013 wet season, MRWPCA, the Water Management District, and the
City of Monterey partnered to collect flow gage data of runoff from Lake El Estero. For the
10

The three phases of the Urban Runoff Diversion Project include redirecting dry weather flows in
the storm drain system to the sanitary sewer from a 652-acre watershed area under normal nonrainfall conditions (typically, April 1 November 1 of each year). Urban Runoff Diversion Project
Phase 1, completed in 2004, redirected seasonal urban runoff collected from a 487-acre drainage
area into the sanitary sewer system at two locations. The Urban Runoff Diversion Project Phase 2,
completed in 2006, expanded the Phase 1 system by collecting surface runoff from an additional 99
acres before feeding directly into the Phase 1 pipelines. The Urban Runoff Diversion Project Phase 3
is currently being constructed to pump discharges from an additional 66 acres of the watershed into
the storm drain facilities installed under Phase 2, which then connect to the facilities installed in
Phase 1.
11
More information is provided at: http://www.monterey.org/Portals/1/peec/stormwater/MontereyPG_ASBS_Stormwater_Management_Project_DEIR.pdf (Accessed February 2014).

Pure Water Monterey GWR Project


Consolidated Final EIR

2-27

October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Chapter 2 Project Description

purpose of this EIR, Schaaf & Wheeler prepared hydrologic calculations using rainfall gage
data, National Resource Conservation Service hydrologic soil group information, and land
use data to develop estimates of surface runoff into Lake El Estero (Schaaf & Wheeler,
2014a). 7DEOH(VWLPDWHG0RQWKO\DQG $QQXDO+LVWRULF8UEDQ5XQRIILQWR/DNH(O
(VWHURZLWK([LVWLQJ,QIUDVWUXFWXUH $) shows an estimate of stormwater runoff from the
Lake El Estero watershed, a 2,810-acre drainage basin.
Table 2-6
Estimated Monthly and Annual Historic Urban Runoff into Lake El Estero with Existing
Infrastructure (AF)
-DQ

)HE

0DU

$SU

0D\

-XQ

-XO

$XJ

6HSW

2FW

1RY

'HF

7RWDO

$YHUDJH

70

52

40

16

30

45

268

0D[LPXP

273

653

246

142

31

17

72

59

199

215

1,232

The City of Monterey is a member city in the Monterey Regional Stormwater Management
Program,12 which collectively monitors systems in Northern Monterey County under the
statewide General Permit for the Phase II Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
(MS4) Program, and is described in detail at the State Water Resources Control Board
website.13

2.5.5 CalAm Monterey District Water Supply Facilities


Several existing CalAm infrastructure facilities would be used to extract purified recycled
water produced by the Proposed Project from the Seaside Groundwater Basin and convey
the water to urban customers.

2.5.5.1 Seaside Groundwater Basin Extraction and Treatment Facilities


CalAms operations within the Seaside Groundwater Basin are described above in 6HFWLRQ
 and in more detail in 6HFWLRQ+\GURORJ\:DWHU4XDOLW\*URXQGZDWHU

2.5.5.2 Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project


Under the Proposed Project, existing CalAm wells, including four wells used for the
Monterey Peninsula Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project, would be used to extract purified
recycled water from the Seaside Groundwater Basin. )LJXUH  $TXLIHU 6WRUDJH DQG
5HFRYHU\3URMHFW/RFDWLRQ0DS shows the location of the Aquifer Storage and Recovery
wells in the Seaside Groundwater Basin. The Monterey Peninsula Aquifer Storage and
Recovery Project is cooperatively implemented by the Water Management District and
CalAm, and involves the diversion of excess winter/spring flows from the Carmel River
system for recharge of, storage in and subsequent recovery from the Seaside Groundwater
Basin. Carmel River water is diverted when there is excess water in the River (i.e., minimum
flow criteria are met), treated by CalAm to potable drinking water standards, conveyed in the
CalAm distribution system, and then injected into the Santa Margarita aquifer of the Seaside
Groundwater Basin via four existing Aquifer Storage and Recovery wells located at two
12
13

See www.montereysea.org for program description and details


State Water Resources Control Board, accessed January 2014.

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/phase_ii_municipal.shtml

Pure Water Monterey GWR Project


Consolidated Final EIR

2-28

October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Chapter 2 Project Description

Aquifer Storage and Recovery facilities. The injected water is stored within the aquifer and
subsequently extracted and distributed by CalAm for use during dry periods. The overall
objective of the Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project is to facilitate the conjunctive use of
water supplies in the Carmel River system and Seaside Groundwater Basin that would
benefit the resources of both systems.
Aquifer Storage and Recovery operations generally consist of three components or phases:
(1) injection of drinking-quality water into the aquifer through the Aquifer Storage and
Recovery wells; (2) storage of the injected water within the aquifer; and, (3) recovery of the
stored water by pumping at one or more of the Aquifer Storage and Recovery wells or at
CalAm production wells within the basin. Periodic samples of the injected, stored, and
recovered waters are collected from the Aquifer Storage and Recovery wells and associated
monitoring wells and analyzed for a variety of water-quality constituents pursuant to
requirements of the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board oversight of the
Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project and the extracted groundwater must also meet
SWRCB Division of Drinking Water drinking water regulations..
The first phase (Phase 1) of the Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project included two
MPWMD injection/extraction wells at the Santa Margarita site and was approved in 2006
and operational in 2007; however, test injections began in 2001 and test extractions began
in 2003. Phase 1 operational injections began in Water Year 2007-2008 and extractions
from the Aquifer Storage and Recovery wells for use in the CalAm system began in Water
Year 2010-2011. Phase 2 of the project has been constructed and includes operation of two
additional permanent wells (the 3rd and 4th Aquifer Storage and Recovery Wells, or ASR-3
and ASR-4) at the Seaside Middle School site. The new ASR wells that will be operational
within 2015 or early 2016 and will serve as additional extraction wells from which CalAm can
extract existing groundwater in the Seaside Basin, and in the future, they may be used to
extract the water that would be injected by the Proposed Project, mixed with existing native
groundwater and other waters. In addition, if the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project
desalination project is built, the wells would extract desalinated water that is proposed to be
injected into the Seaside Basin using the 5th and 6th ASR wells that are proposed to be built
as part of that project.

2.5.5.3 CalAm Monterey District Distribution Facilities and Demands


Under the Proposed Project, existing CalAm distribution systems would be used to convey
the purified recycled water extracted from the Seaside Basin to CalAms customers.
CalAms Monterey District includes a "main" system and several satellite systems, and has
approximately 38,500 connections. CalAm provides water service to most of the Monterey
Peninsula, including the cities of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Del Rey Oaks, Monterey, Pacific
Grove, Sand City, and Seaside, and the unincorporated areas of Carmel Highlands, Carmel
Valley, and Pebble Beach via the Monterey Districts water distribution system. This is
referred to as the Main Monterey System and its location is shown in )LJXUH  3URMHFW
/RFDWLRQ 0DS. In addition to the main system, CalAm also operates the following satellite
water systems that provide water to customers within Monterey County: Bishop/Pasadera,
Ambler, Hidden Hills, Ryan Ranch, Toro, Chualar, and Ralph Lane. CalAms Monterey
District service area is supplied by the Carmel River system and groundwater from the
coastal subareas of the Seaside Groundwater Basin. The Bishop/Pasadera, Hidden Hills,
and Ryan Ranch systems also rely on groundwater from the Seaside Groundwater Basin.
The remaining systems (Toro, Chualar, and Ralph Lane) do not rely on either the Carmel
River or the Seaside Basin.

Pure Water Monterey GWR Project


Consolidated Final EIR

2-29

October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Chapter 2 Project Description

7DEOH&DO$P0RQWHUH\'LVWULFW6HUYLFH$UHD'HPDQG shows total annual demand in


CalAms Monterey system over the 5-year period from 2007 to 2011. Annual demand during
the time period of 2007 2011 ranged from 11,989 AF to 14,644 AF, and averaged 13,291
AF. The maximum annual demand during this time period (14,644 AF in 2007) occurred
before the economic downturn (estimated to have occurred in 2008), before the 3-year
drought of 2012 - 2015, and before implementation of additional water conservation
measures which were initiated in response to the SWRCB Cease and Desist Order.
Table 2-7
CalAm Monterey District Service Area Demand
&DOHQGDU<HDU -DQ'HF

7RWDO$QQXDO'HPDQG $)

2007
2008
2009
2010
2011

14,644
14,460
13,192
12,171
11,989

<HDU$YHUDJH



The following are the components of CalAms forecasted total customer demand in its
Monterey District of 15,296 acre-feet per year, as described by the California Public Utilities
Commission in the Plant Size and Operation Agreement for CalAms Monterey Peninsula
Water Supply Project (California Public Utilities Commission, 2013):14

13,290 AF 5-year customer demand


500 AF for economic recovery
325 AF for Pebble Beach buildout
1,181 AF for legal lots of record

Based on total forecasted demand of 15,296 acre-feet per year, CalAm estimates that new
water supplies of 9,752 acre-feet per year would be required, along with use of the following
existing sources:

Supply from Carmel River Wells - 3,376 AF


Extraction from Seaside Groundwater Basin 774 AF15
Average Aquifer Storage and Recovery Capacity - 1,300 AF
Sand City Plant Firm Yield to CalAm 94 AF

Because the CalAm system was initially built to deliver water from Carmel Valley to the
Monterey Peninsula cities, a hydraulic trough currently exists in the CalAm peninsula
distribution system that prevents water delivery at adequate quantities from the Seaside
14

California Public Utilities Commission. Filings for Proceeding A1204019 (referred to as one of the
Settlement Agreements) filed 7/31/13) and found at
http://www.watersupplyproject.org/Websites/coastalwater/files/Content/3877658/Sizing_Agreement_P
DFA.pdf, accessed November 2013.
15
CalAm and the Seaside Groundwater Basin Watermaster reached an agreement on the
replenishment of CalAms historical overpumping of the Seaside Groundwater Basin per the
adjudication decision. The agreement requires California American Water to reduce extraction from
the Basin by 700 acre-feet of water annually on a 5-year average basis for an estimated twenty five
years. The reduced annual extraction volume from the Seaside Groundwater Basin would be 774
acre-feet. The reduction in extraction volume is not treated as demand but is instead treated as a
reduction in supply. (Joe Oliver, MPWMD, October 30, 2014)

Pure Water Monterey GWR Project


Consolidated Final EIR

2-30

October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Chapter 2 Project Description

Groundwater Basin to most of Monterey, and all of Pacific Grove, Pebble Beach, Carmel
Valley, and the City of Carmel areas. The hydraulic trough is an area of the CalAm
distribution system with very small pipe diameters and very low elevation such that the
required high flow rates of water and high pressures needed to convey water from the north
between two pressure zones of the system cannot be achieved with the current
infrastructure. This system deficiency would need to be addressed regardless of whether the
Proposed Project is implemented by itself, CalAms Monterey Peninsula Water Supply
Project with the full-size desalination plant is implemented without the GWR Project, or the
variant to the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project that includes both a smaller
desalination plant and the GWR Project is implemented.

2.5.5.4 CalAm Historic Water Production


7DEOH  &DO$P :DWHU 3URGXFWLRQ IRU :DWHU <HDUV    LQ $FUH)HHW
presents the CalAm water production for their Monterey District Service Area, including the
Main System and the Laguna Seca Subarea (LSS) that draws water exclusively from the
Seaside Basin.
Table 2-8
CalAm Water Production for Water Years 2006 2014 (in Acre-Feet)
3URGXFWLRQE\6RXUFHV
6DQG
&LW\
'HVDO
3URMHFW

$65
3URMHFWV
5HFRYHU\

:DWHU<HDU
2006

--

2007
2008

3URGXFWLRQE\&DO$P
6\VWHP

6HDVLGH
%DVLQ
/DJXQD
6HFD
6XEDUHD
446

&DUPHO
9DOOH\
$OOXYLDO
$TXLIHU

&DUPHO
5LYHU

0DLQ
6\VWHP DOO
VRXUFHV
H[FHSW/66 

$OO6RXUFHV
7RWDO 0DLQ
6\VWHP
SOXV/66 

6HDVLGH
%DVLQ
&RDVWDO
6XEDUHD
V
3,263

10,542

13,805

14,251

--

3,625

435

10,443

14,068

14,503

--

60

3,329

534

10,600

13,989

14,523

2009

--

182

2,449

516

10,285

12,916

13,432

2010

46

3,283

430

8,673

12,002

12,432

2011

276

1,111

3,034

382

7,441

11,862

12,244

2012

242

1,224

2,701

370

7,515

11,682

12,052

2013

188

644

2,700

377

7,713

11,245

11,622

2014

179

2,871

362

7,744

10,793

11,154

6800$5<67$7,67,&6)256(/(&7('3(5,2'6
Water Years 2006-2014
Mean
NA

358

3,028

428

8,995

NA

12,485

12,913

Median

NA

60

3,034

430

8,673

NA

12,002

12,432

Minimum

NA

2,449

362

7,441

NA

10,793

11,154

Maximum

NA

1,224

3,625

534

10,600

NA

14,068

14,523

Water Years 2010-2014


Mean
186

596

2,918

384

7,817

NA

11,517

11,901

Median

188

644

2,871

377

7,713

NA

11,682

12,052

Minimum

46

2,700

362

7,441

NA

10,793

11,154

Maximum

276

1,224

3,283

430

8,673

NA

12,002

12,432

NOTES:
(1) ASR = Aquifer Storage and Recovery; CVA = Carmel Valley Aquifer; CR = Carmel River; LSS = Laguna Seca Subarea of
Seaside Basin. Carmel River System production values include reductions for water produced for injection into the Seaside
Basin.

Pure Water Monterey GWR Project


Consolidated Final EIR

2-31

October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Chapter 2 Project Description

(2) Carmel River System and Seaside Basin production values were compiled by the MPWMD from monthly production
reports submitted by the California American Water (Cal-Am), Monterey Division.
(3) "NA" in the "Summary Statistics for Selected Periods" sections indicate "Not Applicable" when production data for that
source are not included for the entire indicated period.
6RXUFH MPWMD, 2014.

2.6 OVERVIEW OF PROPOSED PROJECT FACILITIES AND


OPERATIONS
2.6.1 Proposed Project Facilities Overview
This and the following sections describe the new physical components of the Proposed
Project. )LJXUH  3URSRVHG 3URMHFW )DFLOLWLHV 2YHUYLHZ shows an overview of the
Proposed Project facilities and )LJXUHVDQG provide overall project process flow
schematics to illustrate the existing and proposed facilities and relevant water flow paths by
type of water. )LJXUH  3URSRVHG 3URMHFW )ORZ 6FKHPDWLF  6RXUFH :DWHU WR
7UHDWPHQW, shows the flow paths and facilities to be used for collection and conveyance of
source water to the Regional Treatment Plant. )LJXUH  3URSRVHG 3URMHFW )ORZ
6FKHPDWLF 5HJLRQDO 7UHDWPHQW 3ODQW, shows the flows into and out of the Regional
Treatment Plant. The following project components are described in the subsections below:

6RXUFHZDWHU GLYHUVLRQDQGVWRUDJH facilities to enable diversion of new source


waters to the existing municipal wastewater collection system and conveyance of
those waters as municipal wastewater to the Regional Treatment Plant to
increase availability of wastewater for recycling. Modifications would also be
made to the existing Salinas Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facilityto allow the
use of the existing treatment ponds for storage of excess winter source water
flows and later delivery to the Regional Treatment Plant for recycling.
7UHDWPHQW IDFLOLWLHV DW 5HJLRQDO 7UHDWPHQW 3ODQW use of existing primary and
secondary treatment facilities at the Regional Treatment Plant, as well as new
pre-treatment, advanced water treatment (AWT), product water stabilization,
product water pump station, and concentrate disposal facilities, and modifications
to the Salinas Valley Reclamation tertiary treatment plant.
3URGXFW ZDWHU FRQYH\DQFH new pipelines, booster pump station, appurtenant
facilities along one of two optional pipeline alignments to move the product water
from the Regional Treatment Plant to the Seaside Groundwater Basin injection
well facilities.
,QMHFWLRQ ZHOO IDFLOLWLHV new deep and vadose zone wells to inject Proposed
Project product water into the Seaside Groundwater Basin, along with associated
back-flush facilities, pipelines, electricity/ power distribution facilities, and
electrical/motor control buildings.
'LVWULEXWLRQ RI JURXQGZDWHU IURP 6HDVLGH *URXQGZDWHU %DVLQ new CalAm
distribution system improvements needed to convey extracted groundwater and
deliver it to CalAm customers. These same CalAm distribution improvements
also would be needed if CalAm were to implement the Monterey Peninsula Water
Supply Project, which is undergoing separate CEQA review.

Pure Water Monterey GWR Project


Consolidated Final EIR

2-32

October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Chapter 2 Project Description

2.6.2 Proposed Project Operations Overview


The Proposed Project would operate with annual and seasonal variations based on the
amount of available runoff, the water year type, the varying irrigation demand for recycled
water, and the amount of water stored in the Seaside Groundwater Basin as a drought
reserve each year.
The primary project objective is to replenish the Seaside Groundwater Basin to produce high
quality water to replace CalAm water supply as required by State Orders. The ability of the
project to meet the primary project objective of providing CalAm extractions of 3,500 AFY
would not depend on water year type (wet, normal, or dry).
The Proposed Project would also increase the amount of recycled water available for crop
irrigation within the existing CSIP service area by approximately 4,500 to 4,750 AFY during
normal and wet years, and by up to 5,900 AFY during drought conditions. For MRWPCA to
secure the necessary rights and agreements to use the source waters needed for the
Proposed Project, preliminary negotiations with stakeholders indicate that MRWPCA also
would need to increase the amount of recycled water provided to the CSIP area. This
amount is within the total permitted capacity of the Salinas Valley Reclamation Plant of 29.6
mgd. Irrigation demands vary seasonally, peaking in the spring and summer months, and
also by water year type, increasing in dry and hotter years. Irrigation demand can also
change in response to changes in cropping patterns and irrigation practices. The Salinas
Valley Reclamation Plant produces tertiary-treated, disinfected water supply (recycled water)
from treated municipal wastewater for the CSIP. Peak irrigation demands in the CSIP
system exceed the amount of available treated municipal wastewater, so additional water is
supplied from the Salinas River and the Salinas Groundwater Basin. The Proposed Project
would increase the availability of recycled water during the peak demand periods by
providing new sources of water supply to the Salinas Valley Reclamation Plant. The Project
also would increase the availability of recycled water for crop irrigation during low demand
periods by modifying the Salinas Valley Reclamation Plant to allow production and delivery
at lower daily rates, thus further reducing pumping from supplementary groundwater wells.
In addition, to better accommodate variable annual crop irrigation demands for recycled
water, an additional 200 AFY would be produced and injected into the Seaside Groundwater
Basin during most years to develop a drought reserve of up to 1,000 acre-feet of stored
water. This would allow MRWPCA to reduce deliveries of product water to the Seaside
Groundwater Basin during drought years, while still enabling CalAm to pump 3,500 AFY
from the Seaside Groundwater Basin by using the reserved water. By reducing deliveries of
product water to the Seaside Groundwater Basin during drought years, MRWPCA would be
able to increase deliveries of recycled water to growers by a commensurate amount.
The Proposed Projects AWT Facility would be designed and constructed to allow
production rates from 1.3 mgd (900 gpm) to 4.0 mgd (2,700 gpm). During a wet or normal
year, the AWT Facility would operate at an average rate of 3.5 mgd during the summer
months (April to September). If the drought reserve is full (1,000 acre-feet additional have
been deposited in the Seaside Groundwater Basin), the winter production rate would
remain 3.5 mgd. If the drought reserve is not full, the winter production rate would be
increased to 4.0 mgd to allow the production of an additional 200 AFY. During certain dry
years, the AWT Facility production rate would be decreased in the summer months, to rates
as low as 1.3 mgd, depending upon the amount of water deposited in the drought reserve
and the demands of the CSIP irrigators. The Proposed Project would produce enough
advanced treated water in each year so that the amount of injected water plus the amount of
withdrawn drought reserve equals the 3,500 AFY extracted by CalAm. Water supplies not
Pure Water Monterey GWR Project
Consolidated Final EIR

2-33

October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Chapter 2 Project Description

used for the AWT Facility would be used by the Salinas Valley Reclamation Plant to produce
additional recycled water for the CSIP.
7DEOH  3URSRVHG 3URMHFW 0RQWKO\ )ORZV IRU 9DULRXV )ORZ 6FHQDULRV summarizes
typical flow operations for the AWT Facility based on seasonal flow and demand conditions.
Although presented as fixed water year types, actual system operation would require daily
or weekly management of the production rates to address the variability in irrigation
demands and supply availability. Source water diversions would be similarly managed to
maximize water availability during the peak irrigation season, as discussed in 6HFWLRQ.
Table 2-9
Proposed Project Monthly Flows for Various Flow Scenarios
AWT Facility Influent/Feed

3XULILHG5HF\FOHG:DWHU'HOLYHU\
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Product Water Delivery Schedules for


Seaside Basin Injection
Drought Reserve <1,000 AF (Oct) Wet/Normal Year
Drought Reserve 1,000 AF (Oct) Wet/Normal Year
Drought Reserve <1,000 AF (Oct) Drought Year
Drought Reserve <1,000 AF (Oct) Drought Year
Drought Reserve <1,000 AF (Oct) Drought Year
Drought Reserve <1,000 AF (Oct) Drought Year
Drought Reserve <1,000 AF (Oct) Drought Year
Drought Reserve 1,000 AF (Oct) Drought Year
Maximum Monthly Injection Rates
Santa Margarita Aquifer (90%)
Paso Robles Aquifer (10%)
Total

Oct
331
297
331
331
331
331
331
297

Nov
321
288
321
321
321
321
321
288

Dec
331
297
331
331
331
331
331
297

Jan
331
297
331
331
331
331
331
297

Acre-Feet per Month (AF/month)


Feb
Mar
Apr
May
299
331
288
297
268
297
288
297
299
331
255
263
299
331
222
229
299
331
189
196
299
331
156
162
299
331
124
128
268
297
124
128

June
288
288
255
222
189
156
124
124

July
297
297
263
229
196
162
128
128

Aug
297
297
263
229
196
162
128
128

Sep
288
288
255
222
189
156
124
124

Oct
2,175
242
2,417

Nov
2,179
242
2,422

Dec
2,175
242
2,417

Jan
2,175
242
2,417

Gallons per Minute (gpm)


Feb
Mar
Apr
May
2,175
2,175
1,955
1,951
242
242
217
217
2,417
2,417
2,173
2,168

June
1,955
217
2,173

July
1,951
217
2,168

Aug
1,951
217
2,168

Sep
1,955
217
2,173

Total Add to
AFY
Reserve
3,700
200
3,500
3,500
200
3,300
200
3,100
200
2,900
200
2,700
200
2,500
-

Reserve as
of April 1
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,000

Maximum Injection Rate


(gpm)
2,179
242
2,422

1RWH7KHVHHVWLPDWHGIORZVH[FOXGHWKHPHPEUDQHILOWUDWLRQEDFNZDVKTXDQWLWLHVWKDWZRXOGEHUHFLUFXODWHG
EDFNWRWKH5HJLRQDO7UHDWPHQW3ODQWKHDGZRUNVDQGWKXVZRXOGQRWEHFRQVLGHUHGWREHQHZIORZV

Operation of the Proposed Project facilities would require some additional staff at the
MRWPCA Regional Treatment Plant and administrative office. The AWT Facility would
require up to five personnel to operate the facility 24-hours a day, 7-days a week. The
Salinas Valley Reclamation Plant would operate with the same number of staff as currently
assigned, but operations would extend into the wet season. The source water diversion and
product water conveyance and injection facilities would not require on-site staff, but would
require periodic site visits and maintenance activities. These are discussed in detail in the
sections below regarding each component.
The Proposed Project would require an estimated 10,952 megawatt-hours per year (mWhr/yr). Power use for the Crop Irrigation component would peak during drought years when
additional recycled water is being produced. Electrical power at the existing MRWPCA
facilities comes from solar panels and from generators running on a mix of methane (from
the Regional Treatment Plant) and natural gas (from PG&E), with back-up electrical service
from PG&E. Additional power would be generated using increased methane from
processing of new source water, and increased purchase of natural gas from PG&E.
Electrical power for the source water diversion facilities, product water booster pump station,
and injection well facilities would be purchased from PG&E.
Pure Water Monterey GWR Project
Consolidated Final EIR

2-34

October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Chapter 2 Project Description

7DEOH  2YHUYLHZ RI 7\SLFDO )DFLOLW\ 2SHUDWLRQV  3URSRVHG 3URMHFW provides an
overview of typical facility operations, truck trips and employees under the Proposed Project.
7DEOH  2YHUYLHZ RI 3URSRVHG3URMHFW (OHFWULFLW\ 'HPDQG DOO LQPHJDZDWWKRXUV
SHU\HDU summarizes the power demands of the Proposed Project.

Pure Water Monterey GWR Project


Consolidated Final EIR

2-35

October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Chapter 2 Project Description

Table 2-10
Overview of Typical Facility Operations Proposed Project
7UXFNV
SHUGD\

(PSOR\HHV

(PSOR\HH
7ULSV SHU
GD\

Salinas Pump Station Diversion

Salinas Treatment Facility Storage and


Recovery

Reclamation Ditch and Tembladero Slough


Diversions

Blanco Drain Diversions (in this case the


pump station site)

Lake El Estero Diversion

3URSRVHG3URMHFW&RPSRQHQW6LWH

2SHUDWLRQV6FKHGXOHV

6RXUFH:DWHU'LYHUVLRQDQG6WRUDJH6LWHV
24 hours per day, 365 days per year. No new
operations/ maintenance staff expected beyond
existing MRWPCA staff.
24 hours per day, 365 days per year. No new
operations/ maintenance staff expected beyond
existing City staff.
24 hours per day, 365 days per year. For
Reclamation Ditch one trip up to three times per
week. For Tembladero no new
operations/maintenance staff expected beyond
existing MRWPCA staff.
24 hours per day, 365 days per year. No new
operations/ maintenance staff expected beyond
existing County and MRWPCA staff.
24 hours per day for urban runoff, wet season
(typically November October through April)
dependent on pipe and pump station capacity and
weather. No new operations and maintenance staff
expected beyond existing City of Monterey staff.

7UHDWPHQW)DFLOLWLHVDW5HJLRQDO7UHDWPHQW3ODQW
All new and modified treatment facilities,
including AWT Facility, Brine Mixing Facility,
Product Water Pump Station and SVRP
Modifications

10

24 hours per day, 365 days per year (10% offline


time for maintenance)

3URGXFW:DWHU&RQYH\DQFH
Pipelines, appurtenant facilities, and Booster
Pump Station

24 hours per day, 365 days per year (10% offline


time for maintenance)

,QMHFWLRQ:HOO)DFLOLWLHV
- Injection Wells (4 clusters of 2), each
includes a deep injection well, a vadose zone
well, and a motor control/electrical building
- Monitoring wells (six clusters of 2)
- Back-flush water pipeline, product water
conveyance pipelines, and electrical conduit
under new roadways to each site

7RWDOZLWKRXWWKH&DO$PFRPSRQHQWV







CalAm Distribution of Seaside Groundwater


Basin Water via the CalAm System, including
the proposed new Monterey and Transfer
Pipelines

7RWDOZLWKWKH&DO$PFRPSRQHQWV







Pure Water Monterey GWR Project


Consolidated Final EIR

2-36

24 hours per day, 365 days per year (each well


assumed to be inoperable 20% of the year for
back-flushing and maintenance)


24 hours per day, 365 days per year

October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Chapter 2 Project Description

Table 2-11
Overview of Proposed Project Electricity Demand (all in megawatt-hours per year)
6RXUFH:DWHU'LYHUVLRQDQG6WRUDJH6LWHV 6RXUFH9LQRG%DGDQL(&RQVXOWLQJ2FWREHUH[FHSWDVQRWHG 
Existing MRWPCA Wastewater Collection System Pump Stations
(increased pumping for source water collection) (Source: Bob Holden, MRWPCA, October 2014)

1,100

Proposed Salinas Pump Station Diversions


(lighting, SCADA, misc. electricity)

10

Proposed Salinas Industrial Wastewater Treatment Plant Storage and Recovery Component
(pumping, lighting, SCADA, misc. electricity)

224

Existing Salinas Treatment Facility and Stormwater Operations


(reduction of pumping, Ron Cole, February 2014 modified by MRWPCA staff October 2014)

(1,875)

Proposed Reclamation Ditch Diversion


(pumping, lighting, SCADA, misc. electricity)

250

Proposed Tembladero Slough Diversion


(pumping, lighting, SCADA, misc. electricity)

461

Proposed Blanco Drain Diversion


(pumping, lighting, SCADA, misc. electricity)

731

Proposed Lake El Estero Diversion


(lighting, SCADA, misc. electricity)

10

7UHDWPHQW)DFLOLWLHVDW5HJLRQDO7UHDWPHQW3ODQW 6RXUFH%RE+ROGHQ2FWREHU
Existing Primary and Secondary Processes
(existing on-site cogeneration facility would provide a reduction in this value, see below)
(9,900 AFY more wastewater flows through treatment processes)

3,673

Existing Salinas Valley Reclamation Plant


(existing plant operations use solar array electricity, which has reduced electricity demand by up to 1,400 mWhr/yr)
(4,260 AFY more crop irrigation water produced)

1,300

AWT Facility
(new treatment facilities, not including product water pumping; assumes 3,700 AFY of water production to build drought
reserve; demand will be less when Drought Reserve is at full capacity and when Drought Reserve is being used by CSIP)

7,007

&6,36XSSOHPHQWDO:HOOV
6RXUFH%RE+ROGHQ05:3&$2FWREHU

Reduction of use of CSIP Supplemental Wells by 4,260 AFY

(1,900)

3URGXFW:DWHU&RQYH\DQFH 6RXUFH7*&ROH2FWREHU

Pumping of product water to Injection Well Facilities under either option (RUWAP or Coastal)
,QMHFWLRQ:HOO)DFLOLWLHV 6RXUFH9LQRG%DGDQL(&RQVXOWLQJ(QJLQHHUV2FWREHU
Back-flush of four (4) deep injection wells, lighting, HVAC, meters, instruments, SCADA
&DO$P'LVWULEXWLRQ6\VWHP&KDQJHV 6RXUFH&DO$P

1,912

147


Increase by moving 3,500 AFY extractions from Carmel River to Seaside Basin wells

630

3URSRVHG1HZ(OHFWULFLW\*HQHUDWLRQDW([LVWLQJ&RJHQHUDWLRQ)DFLOLW\



727$/1(71(:(/(&75,&,7<'(0$1' (in megawatt-hours per year)

10,952

Pure Water Monterey GWR Project


Consolidated Final EIR

2-37

October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Chapter 2 Project Description

2.7 SOURCE WATER


2.7.1 Overview of Source Water Approach
The preliminary determination of feasibility of the Proposed Project required technical
investigations to estimate the regulatory and design requirements, and preliminary capital
and operational costs of Proposed Project facilities. One of the key feasibility/planning
actions was to assess the ability for the Proposed Project to obtain supplemental source
waters to augment existing secondary-treated wastewater flows available to the Project.
Water supply sources considered included urban stormwater and dry-weather runoff,
surface water diversions from water bodies receiving agricultural tile drainage, and use of
industrial wastewater currently treated by the City of Salinas. Additional technical studies
were prepared for those sources identified as feasible in the initial studies.
Previous interagency agreements established entitlements to recycled water produced from
the existing municipal wastewater flows to the Regional Treatment Plant. As source flows for
the Proposed Project were studied and the seasonal variability of each was understood, the
stakeholder agencies entered into a Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Source
Waters and Water Recycling (MOU) provided in $SSHQGL[%UHY. The Parties to the MOU
are the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency, the Monterey County Water
Resources Agency, the City of Salinas, the Marina Coast Water District, and the Monterey
Peninsula Water Management District. The MOU is an agreement to negotiate a Definitive
Agreement to establish contractual rights and obligations of all Parties, that would include
(1) protection of Marina Coast Water Districts recycled water right entitlement, (2) provision
of up to 5,290 AFY of recycled water to Monterey County Water Resources Agency for the
CSIP, and (3) provision of 3,500 AFY of purified recycled water for injection into the Seaside
Groundwater Basin and extraction by CalAm. The MOU also includes provisions for creation
of a drought reserve by allowing the GWR Features to produce, convey and inject up to 200
AFY of additional purified recycled water during wet and normal years. The MOU reflects the
stakeholder agencies positions regarding the combined benefits and conditions that would
be required to secure the necessary rights and agreements to use the source waters
needed for the Proposed Project.
Based on the preliminary feasibility studies and the MOU, the following sources of water are
included for collection and use by the Proposed Project:

Monterey Peninsula urban stormwater and runoff (in particular, the Proposed
Project includes diversion and use of water that currently flows into Lake El
Estero and then is pumped by the City of Monterey, or allowed to flow by gravity,
through storm drain pipelines to Del Monte Beach);16

16

Projects that propose to capture stormwater flows from other Monterey Peninsula watersheds,
including areas of the cities of Pacific Grove and Monterey that flow to the Areas of Special Biological
Significance in the Monterey Bay, and divert them to the MRWPCA wastewater collection system are
assumed to occur with or without implementation of the Proposed Project. Although other stormwater
flows from the Monterey Peninsula are referenced in the MOU for Source Waters and Water
Recycling, diversion and use of these flows are assumed to occur independently from the Proposed
Project and have independent utility (i.e., to reduce stormwater containing pollutants from flowing into
the portion of the ocean that is an Area of Special Biological Significance) and thus the
implementation and assessment of impacts of other stormwater diversion project(s) are included as

Pure Water Monterey GWR Project


Consolidated Final EIR

2-38

October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Chapter 2 Project Description

City of Salinas urban stormwater and runoff from the southwest portion of the city
that is currently discharged into the Salinas River near Davis Road via a 66-inch
outfall line;
Salinas agricultural wash water, 80 to 90% of which is water used for washing
produce, that is currently conveyed to the Salinas Treatment Facility for
treatment (aeration) and disposal by evaporation and percolation;
Urban and agricultural runoff and tile drainage water from the Reclamation Ditch
and Tembladero Slough (to which the Reclamation Ditch is tributary);17
Water from the Blanco Drain, a man-made reclamation ditch that collects
drainage from approximately 6,400 acres of agricultural lands near Salinas;18
Municipal wastewater from MRWPCA member agencies that is treated with
existing primary and secondary processes at the Regional Treatment Plant and
would otherwise be discharged to the Pacific Ocean (i.e., not treated to a tertiary
level for agricultural irrigation).

To maximize the ability to use these sources, two existing facilities would be modified:

Modifications to the existing Salinas Valley Reclamation Plant to enable the plant
to run at less than 5 mgd, and
Addition of a pipeline and pump station at the Salinas Treatment Facility and sliplining of an existing 33-inch industrial wastewater pipeline between TP1 and the
Salinas Treatment Facility to allow storage and recovery of winter agricultural
wash water and south Salinas stormwater.

This combination of source waters and modifications to existing treatment facilities would be
capable of achieving the project objectives at a reasonable cost. In particular, the proposed
source waters except Blanco Drain diversions would use existing infrastructure facilities with
available capacity for conveyance purposes, thus minimizing capital costs and
environmental impacts.

2.7.1.1 Summary of Source Water Flow Availability for Proposed Project


7DEOH  6RXUFH :DWHUV )ORZV ([LVWLQJ DQG $VVXPHG $YDLODEOH IRU 3URSRVHG
3URMHFW LQ$)< summarizes the results of the Water Management District and MRWPCAs
analysis of the data and assumptions used to estimate source water availability and use.
These estimates have been used to identify the range of flows affecting design of the
Proposed Project facilities. $SSHQGLFHV%UHY and&UHY include the assumptions regarding
source water availability, including estimates by month to develop the range of potential

cumulative project(s) (see 6HFWLRQ  (QYLURQPHQWDO 6HWWLQJ ,PSDFWV DQG 0LWLJDWLRQ
0HDVXUHV of this Draft EIR).
17
The amount of water has been estimated based on assuming water available for diversion for the
Proposed Project would be in excess of required fish passage flows and under the flow rate that can
be conveyed to the Regional Treatment Plan using the existing municipal wastewater collection
system.
18
The Blanco Drain is the only source of supply not located near an existing wastewater collection
facility which could be used to convey flows to the Regional Treatment Plant. Development of this
source would require not only a new pump station, but also a pipeline crossing the Salinas River. The
pipeline may extend to the Regional Treatment Plant headworks or may connect to the gravity portion
of the Salinas interceptor (to be determined during detailed design).

Pure Water Monterey GWR Project


Consolidated Final EIR

2-39

October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Chapter 2 Project Description

flows for use in designing Proposed Project facilities (for Advanced Water Treatment
Facility, Product Water Conveyance, and Injection Well Facilities) to meet the primary
Proposed Project goal of delivering purified recycled water to the Seaside Groundwater
Basin, as well as the secondary Project goals of increasing crop irrigation water for growers
in the CSIP area and establishing a drought reserve of up to 1,000 AF (Schaaf & Wheeler,
2015c).

Pure Water Monterey GWR Project


Consolidated Final EIR

2-40

October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Chapter 2 Project Description

Table 2-12
Source Waters Flows: Existing and Assumed Available for Proposed Project (in AFY)
'HILQLWLRQVRI([LVWLQJ)ORZV LQ$)<
+LVWRULFDO$YHUDJH)ORZV DYHUDJLQJSHULRG
7\SHRI6RXUFH:DWHU

([FHVV8QXVHG5HJLRQDO7UHDWPHQW3ODQW
0XQLFLSDO(IIOXHQW 05:3&$5HJLRQDO
7UHDWPHQW3ODQWIORZPRQLWRULQJGDWD
-DQXDU\
$JULFXOWXUDO:DVK:DWHU)ORZV
6RXUFH&LW\RI6DOLQDVDQG05:3&$



DFWXDO


DFWXDO

2012-13
\U
DYHUDJH)

2009-13
\U
DYHUDJH 

2007-13
\U
DYHUDJH 

2004-13
\U
DYHUDJH 

All data
(see below)

3URMHFWHG
IXWXUH
IORZVLQ

$)<

3URSRVHG3URMHFW
0D[LPXP8VHRI
6RXUFH:DWHU
)ORZV $)< 
1RWH
3,000 to more than
5,000

9,714

4,621

7,183

8,225

8,704

9,457

10,300
(19992013)

6,242
(Note 1)

3,058

3,228

3,143

2,676

2,579

NA
(Note 3)

2,579
(2007-13)

3,732
(Note 1)

2,579

229

19

124

196

165

176

225
(19322013)

225

5HFODPDWLRQ'LWFKDW'DYLV5RDG
6RXUFH6FKDDI :KHHOHUE

6,759

1,965

4,362

7,034

6,374

7,482

7,159
(2003-13)

7,159

1,522

7HPEODGHUR6ORXJKDW&DVWURYLOOH
6RXUFH6FKDDI :KHHOHUE

9,190

2,610

5,900

9,536

8,531

10,030

9,593
(2003-13)

9,593

1,135

%ODQFR'UDLQ'LYHUVLRQV
6RXUFH6FKDDI :KHHOHUE

NA
(Note 5)

NA
(Note 5)

NA
(Note 5)

NA

NA

NA

2,620
(2010-12)

2,620
(Note 5)

2,620

65

33

66

55

60

87
(19522013)

87

87











1$
1RWH 



1$

 1RWH 

&LW\RI6DOLQDV8UEDQ5XQRIIWR6DOLQDV
5LYHU 6RXUFH6FKDDI :KHHOHUD

/DNH(O(VWHUR6WRUDJH0DQDJHPHQW:DWHU
6RXUFH6FKDDI :KHHOHUD
727$/6 1RWH

Notes:
1. Projection of flows available in first year of Proposed Project operation 2017 (See $SSHQGL[%UHY).
2. Source: Schaaf & Wheeler/Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, 2015 (see $SSHQGL[%UHY).
3. Flows not available for years prior to 2007.
4. Due to lack of data regarding agricultural wash water prior to 2007 and recent trends, these numbers could not be summed to provide a total of source water flows for this
averaging period.
5. Blanco Drain flows calculated based on seasonal pumping records (April to November)
6. The total use of source water would be less than the sum of all source waters due to seasonal nature of the demands and losses due to Salinas Treatment Facility Storage and
Recovery. The analysis assumes that new source water that exceeds the amount used by the Proposed Project for recycling would be disposed via the MRWPCA existing ocean
outfall. The amount of effluent to be disposed to the MRWPCA ocean outfall would be less with Proposed Project than current conditions as shown in $SSHQGL[%UHY.
NA = Not available.

Pure Water Monterey GWR Project


Consolidated Final EIR

2-41

October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Chapter 2 Project Description

2.7.1.2 Source Water Operation: Diversion, Treatment and Use


The availability of some of the sources of water supplies for the Proposed Project would vary
inversely with the Projects water demands. The sources of supply that capture rainfall (urban
runoff and surface water diversions within urban areas in their watershed) peak during periods
of low irrigation demands, and have minimal or no available flows during periods of peak
irrigation demands. By contrast, two sources of supply, agricultural wash water and secondary
treated municipal wastewater, have some seasonal variability but are available year-round.
To address the seasonality of supplies and demands, the use of source water would be
prioritized by source, and in some cases managed by season. 7DEOH6RXUFH:DWHU8VH
6FHQDULRV LQFOXGLQJ 3ULRULW\ 6HDVRQDOLW\ DQG 8VH E\ 3URMHFW 3KDVH DQG 'URXJKW
5HVHUYH6WDWXV lists proposed sources by priority of use wherein excess unused wastewater is
assumed to be used first as the most efficient source water to collect, convey, and treat.
Detailed use scenarios are provided in $SSHQGL[ % UHY to demonstrate some potential
operational scenarios that may be used in various water year types to optimize the Proposed
Project by prioritizing source waters for energy efficiency and reduction of ocean discharges
(Schaaf & Wheeler, 2015c).
Treated municipal wastewater currently is used to produce recycled water at the Salinas Valley
Reclamation Plant for crop irrigation. Recycled water users under previous agreements have
the first right to this supply. Under the Proposed Project, at times when unused treated
municipal wastewater is not needed for crop irrigation, and instead would otherwise be
discharged through the ocean outfall, it would become the first priority source of supply for the
AWT Facility, with a goal of minimizing the amount of flow discharged to the ocean and energy
use by the Proposed Project.
Agricultural wash water, which is currently treated at the Salinas Treatment Facility, is available
year-round and is the most reliable source of new water supply for the Project. It would be
diverted to the Regional Treatment Plant during peak irrigation time periods and managed to
meet the peak summer demand season by storing winter flows in the existing ponds at the
Salinas Treatment Facility. In the summer months, both the incoming agricultural wash water
and the stored stormwater would be directed to the Regional Treatment Plant, allowing
production of advanced treated water for groundwater injection and increased recycled water
production for CSIP.
Urban stormwater runoff may be diverted to the sanitary sewer collection system for minimal
cost and without a water rights permit, and is therefore the next priority source of supply for the
Proposed Project. However, when this supply is most available, irrigation demands are low and
secondary-treated municipal wastewater would typically be available in adequate quantities to
meet project objectives. If that is the case, urban runoff at Lake El Estero may not be diverted,
and urban runoff from the City of Salinas would not be routed to the Salinas Treatment Facility
for seasonal storage. Runoff from summer storms would be diverted from the City of Salinas
stormwater system when available.

Pure Water Monterey GWR Project


Consolidated Final EIR

2-42

October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Chapter 2 Project Description

Table 2-13
Source Water Use Scenarios, including Priority, Seasonality, and Use by Project Phase and
Drought Reserve Status

3ULRULW\





6RXUFH
Unused Treated Municipal
Wastewater
Agricultural Wash Water (See
Note 1)
Salinas Urban Stormwater
Runoff (See Note 1)
Reclamation Ditch at Davis
Road


Blanco Drain Pump Station



Tembladero Slough At
Castroville
Monterey Stormwater at Lake
El Estero (See Note 2)

6HDVRQDO
$YDLODELOLW\
October through
March

8VDJH3HULRG

Year-round
October through
April
Year-round, higher
in October through
April
Year-round, higher
in April through
September
Year-round, higher
in October through
April
October through
April

3URMHFWHG8VH6FHQDULRVE\7\SHRI
2SHUDWLRQDO<HDU
$)<
'URXJKW
'XULQJ
:KLOH
5HVHUYH
<HDUVZKHQ
%XLOGLQJ
LV)XOODW
&6,38VHV
'URXJKW

'URXJKW
5HVHUYH
$)<
5HVHUYH

When available

1,992

1,787

1,503

Store at Salinas
Treatment
Facility for
summer

2,579

2,579

2,362

When available

721

721

1,071

When available

1,268

1,020

2,003

When available

478

When available

Notes:
1. The amount of Agricultural Wash Water and Salinas Urban Stormwater Runoff source water use shown in this table are combined
because they will be mixed, stored, and diverted to the Regional Treatment Plant together. The ability of the Proposed Project to
recycle the full amount available (shown in Table 2-12) would be reduced due to the storage and recovery of these waters at the
Salinas Treatment Facility and the associated percolation and evaporation during storage. The storage and recovery component
does, however, shift the availability of the supplies to the dry season when there is a greater demand for irrigation water within the
CSIP area.
2. Wet season supply from Lake El Estero is not required in these typical scenarios shown; however, there may be conditions during
which diversions may occur.
See $SSHQGL[%UHY for detailed monthly source water use projections based on water year type, drought reserve status, and
project phase.

Water rights permits from the SWRCB would be required for surface water diversions from the
Blanco Drain, Reclamation Ditch, and Tembladero Slough. Pursuant to the provisions of the
MOU Regarding Source Waters and Water Recycling, the MRWPCA and the Water
Management District would work with the Monterey County Water Resources Agency to secure
water rights needed for the Proposed Project. The County Water Resources Agency has filed
SWRCB application 32263 to secure rights to use the water within these water bodies. The
Proposed Project would not need all of the water in Blanco Drain, Reclamation Ditch and
Tembladero Slough. A maximum expected diversion flow has been developed for the Proposed
Project based on an assessment of infrastructure capacity and peak flow availabilities in those
water bodies. Flows in these channels are less seasonal than urban runoff, but still peak in the
winter months during rain events. These sources would be diverted when flows are available
and when the other sources of supply are not sufficient to meet the full Project demands. Radiocontrolled supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) equipment at each diversion pump
station would allow the system operators to adjust the diversion rates in response to daily
rainfall and irrigation conditions.
Based on the maximum expected diversion flows developed for the Proposed Project, the
following water rights would be needed for the Proposed Project:

Pure Water Monterey GWR Project


Consolidated Final EIR

2-43

October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Chapter 2 Project Description

1) diversion from the Reclamation Ditch at Davis Road of up to 2,000 AFY with a 6
cfs maximum diversion rate;
2) diversion from Tembladero Slough at the Castroville pump station of up to 1,500
AFY with a 3 cubic foot per second (cfs) maximum diversion rate; and
3) diversion from the Blanco Drain of up to 3,000 AFY with a 6 cfs maximum
diversion rate.
The place of use in each of these applications would be for storage in the Seaside Basin and
use within the CSIP area and CalAms Monterey District system. The 6 cfs quantity was
determined to be the peak water flows that could be diverted from the Reclamation Ditch at
Davis Road (Schaaf & Wheeler, 2015b) and the peak amount of flow available in the Blanco
Drain for diversion in new infrastructure (Schaaf & Wheeler, 2015b). Currently, the wastewater
collection and conveyance infrastructure between Castroville and the Regional Treatment Plant
can only feasibly accommodate flows of up to 3 cfs and thus limits the amount of water that
would be diverted in Castroville from the Tembladero Slough. It should be noted that the annual
diversion amounts are considered face amounts that cannot be exceeded in any single year.
These amounts do not reflect the Proposed Project use on an average basis. In addition, the
Proposed Project description of yield and the assumed diversions for the impact analyses (i.e.,
biological resources and surface water hydrology) assumes some water would be left in the
Reclamation Ditch and Tembladero Slough for fisheries resources. Specifically, flows of 0.69 cfs
and 2.0 cfs are proposed to be left in the Reclamation Ditch at Davis Road from June through
November and December through May, respectively. A minimum flow of 1 cfs is proposed to
remain in the Tembladero Slough year round; however much more than that is anticipated to be
present even under Proposed Project diversions. See 6HFWLRQ  %LRORJLFDO 5HVRXUFHV
)LVKHULHVfor more discussion of fisheries issues.
The Monterey County Water Resources Agency may pursue an additional application for the
remainder amounts. The remainder application for additional diversions above amounts in the
Proposed Project would be the responsibility of Monterey County Water Resources Agency to
take forward as a separate project and is not part of the Proposed Project nor are the impacts of
those diversions evaluated in this EIR. The application amounts for a remainder permit could be
up to 85 cfs in direct diversions and a remainder diversion amount of up to 18,500 AFY that
would bring the combined annual diversion amount for all permits up to a limit of 25,000 AFY.

2.7.2 Source Water Types and Diversion Methods


2.7.2.1 Quantity Needed for Injection into the Seaside Basin
The Proposed Project would produce 3,500 AFY of high quality water for injection into the
Seaside Groundwater Basin for use by CalAm. In addition, in normal or wet years when the
drought reserve is being filled, the Proposed Project would produce an additional 200 AFY for
storage in the Seaside Groundwater Basin. The Proposed Project would require more source
water than the amount of water to be produced due to the loss of water (reject) from operation
of the reverse osmosis system at the Advanced Water Treatment Facility, which is estimated to
operate at an 81% product water recovery rate. In this case, to produce 3,700 AFY of treated
water, a total of 868 AFY (19% of the AWT Facility influent) of concentrated reject water from
the reverse osmosis system would be disposed through the ocean outfall. To produce 3,700
AFY of treated water, the Proposed Project would require a minimum of approximately 4,568

Pure Water Monterey GWR Project


Consolidated Final EIR

2-44

October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Chapter 2 Project Description

AFY of raw source waters to feed the proposed new AWT Facility in wet and normal years
(assumed five years out of six).

2.7.2.2 Quantity for Crop Irrigation


During wet and normal years, approximately 4,500 to 4,750 AFY of additional source water is
proposed to be collected to augment recycled water supplies for crop irrigation by distribution
through the CSIP. This quantity is within the approved capacity of the Salinas Valley
Reclamation Plant of 29.6 mgd. The total maximum amount of recycled water that would be
treated and made available to the existing CSIP areas under the Proposed Project would be
less than 29.6 mgd which represents:

The monthly average dry weather flow capacity of the Regional Treatment Plant
pursuant to the permits for the plant; and
The daily design capacity and annual expected maximum basic demand of the
Salinas Valley Reclamation Plant described on pages 5 and 7, respectively, of the
Agreement between the MCWRA and the MRWPCA for Construction and Operation
of a Tertiary Treatment System (June 16, 1992).

During drought conditions, when dry season crop irrigation demands within the CSIP area
cannot be met by other non-groundwater sources, the Proposed Project would reduce its
production for injection into the Seaside Groundwater Basin to as little as 2,600 AFY, allowing
the growers served by the Salinas Valley Reclamation Plant and CSIP to use up to 1,000 acre
feet more of the available source water (up to as much as 5,900 AFY). The actual dry year AWT
Facility production for injection to the Seaside Basin would depend upon the amount of drought
reserve water previously injected, so that the CalAm Water supply extraction of GWR water
(including production plus the previous reserve deposits) would continue to total 3,500 AFY in
every year. The results and assumptions of this analysis are contained in $SSHQGL[ % UHY.
Descriptions of the source waters discussed above are summarized in the following
descriptions.

2.7.2.3 Unused Treated Wastewater from MRWPCA Regional Treatment Plant


Description and Estimated Yield
Secondary effluent from the Regional Treatment Plant currently is used as influent for the
tertiary treatment plant that is referred to as the Salinas Valley Reclamation Plant, which
supplies tertiary treated recycled water for agricultural irrigation use via the distribution system
that comprises the CSIP. To determine how much and when to treat the secondary effluent to a
tertiary level outside of the growing season, the growers submit water orders one to three days
before water is needed. This prevents MRWPCA from creating excess tertiary-treated water that
would remain too long in the tertiary storage pond creating too much algae to be used by the
growers. During the growing season, MRWPCA treats as much recycled water as possible. If
the storage pond fills, then MRWPCA slows down or stops creation of recycled water. If the
pond water level descends to a specific elevation, Salinas River water stored behind the Salinas
River Diversion Facility is pumped, screened, disinfected, and mixed into the pond.
Secondary effluent in excess of the CSIP demands is not sent to the tertiary treatment plant,
and instead is discharged to the Monterey Bay through MRWPCAs existing ocean outfall.
Under the Proposed Project, effluent that otherwise would be discharged through the ocean
outfall would instead be sent to the AWT Facility and treated for injection into the Seaside

Pure Water Monterey GWR Project


Consolidated Final EIR

2-45

October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Chapter 2 Project Description

Groundwater Basin. In addition, some of the secondary effluent that otherwise would be sent to
the ocean outfall during winter months would be used to produce additional recycled water for
crop irrigation during low demand periods. The Salinas Valley Reclamation Plant was designed
for a minimum daily flow of 8.0 mgd. Facility modifications within the plant would be
implemented to lower the minimum daily flow. See 6HFWLRQ  for a description of those
improvements.
No new off-site conveyance facilities would need to be constructed to use water from this
source.19 Therefore, use of this source is preferred over other potential new sources.
The quantity of excess secondary effluent that otherwise would be discharged to the ocean
outfall each year is highly variable, because the CSIP demands are both weather-dependent,
peaking in dry years, and crop dependent, varying by what is planted. Ocean outflows have
ranged from 4,600 AFY (water year 2013, record low rainfall) to 12,100 AFY (water year 2006,
above average rainfall with a particularly wet spring). Average unused secondary effluent flows
are estimated to total 6,242 AFY in 2017 (the anticipated year that the GWR Features would
commence operations). Depending upon the water year type and the drought reserve status,
the Proposed Project may use from 3,000 AFY to 4,800 AFY from this source, predominantly in
the winter months. The methodology for estimating these available flows is found in $SSHQGL[
%UHY of this EIR.

Diversion Method and Facilities


As described above, municipal wastewater is conveyed to the Regional Treatment Plant through
existing infrastructure, and undergoes primary and secondary wastewater treatment before
being either supplied to the Salinas Valley Reclamation Plant for tertiary treatment or
discharged through the ocean outfall. To use this treated wastewater, the Proposed Project
would include construction of a new diversion structure on the existing secondary effluent
pipeline to capture unused secondary-treated effluent. This facility is described as part of the
Treatment Facilities at the Regional Treatment Plant in 6HFWLRQ

Construction
Construction of the secondary-treated effluent diversion structure and pipeline is discussed as
part of the Treatment Facilities at the Regional Treatment Plant in 6HFWLRQ

Operations and Maintenance


Operation of the secondary-treated effluent diversion is discussed as part of the Treatment
Facilities at the Regional Treatment Plant in 6HFWLRQ

2.7.2.4 Agricultural Wash Water


Description and Estimated Yield
Salinas agricultural wash water, 80 to 90% of which is water used for washing produce, is
currently conveyed to the Salinas Treatment Facility for treatment (aeration) and disposal by
evaporation and percolation.
19

Use of wastewater from member agencies would not require construction of new source water delivery
infrastructure.

Pure Water Monterey GWR Project


Consolidated Final EIR

2-46

October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Chapter 2 Project Description

To use water from this source for the Proposed Project, this water would be diverted to the
existing Salinas Pump Station using a new diversion structure and new short pipelines
connecting the existing agricultural wash water pipeline to the existing municipal wastewater
system just prior to the Salinas Pump Station. The agricultural wash water would then mix with
the municipal wastewater and be conveyed through the existing 36-inch diameter Salinas
interceptor to the Regional Treatment Plant. A temporary connection was installed in April 2014,
diverting all agricultural wash water to the Regional Treatment Plant to augment the Salinas
Valley Reclamation Plant production of recycled water during the current drought, to provide
data regarding treatability of the agricultural wash water (with and without municipal wastewater)
using the demonstration facility, and to allow the City of Salinas to perform maintenance on the
Salinas Treatment Facility. The new physical facilities proposed to be constructed to divert this
source water are described below.
Agricultural wash water influent to the Salinas Treatment Facility totaled 3,228 AF in 2013, and
is projected to total 3,733 AF in 2017 (the anticipated year that GWR Features would
commence operations) based on data showing that agricultural processing wastewater flows
have increased by about 0.25 mgd each year since 2010. The feasibility analysis for the
Proposed Project did not assume any continued increases in this source beyond 2017, although
development of new or expanded facilities may continue to occur pursuant to the Salinas
Agricultural Industrial Center Specific Plan, contributing additional wastewater flows to the
Salinas industrial wastewater collection system beyond that year.
Agricultural wash water would be available year-round, with peak flows occurring during the
summer harvest season. To maximize the use of all available sources, agricultural wash water
would only be diverted directly to the Regional Treatment Plant during the peak irrigation
demand months (typically April through October). From November through March, agricultural
wash water flows would be sent to the Salinas Treatment Facility for treatment and stored in the
existing ponds, which can hold approximately 1,250 acre-feet. From May to October, the
incoming flows would be diverted to the Salinas Pump Station, and stored water would be
pumped from the Salinas Treatment Facility ponds back to the Salinas Pump Station. Taking
into consideration evaporative losses, seepage losses and recovery of stored water, the Salinas
Treatment Facility ponds would be empty by the end of each irrigation season. The net yield
after accounting for storage losses would be approximately 2,710 AFY. The following section
describes the facility modifications that would be needed to achieve this yield.

Diversion Method and Facilities


Salinas Pump Station Diversion Structure and Pipelines
Two of the proposed sources of raw water for the Proposed Project would be captured and
diverted from subsurface conveyance structures to the existing MRWPCA Salinas Pump
Station: agricultural wash water and City of Salinas urban runoff (described in 6HFWLRQ).
Both of these sources would necessitate construction of new diversion structures and short
pipelines near the existing Salinas Pump Station, as shown in )LJXUH  6DOLQDV 3XPS
6WDWLRQ6RXUFH:DWHU'LYHUVLRQ&RQFHSWXDO6LWH3ODQ. The Salinas Pump Station Diversion
site (also referred to as Treatment Plant 1, or TP1) would include several new diversion facilities
to redirect flows of agricultural wash water and City of Salinas stormwater and dry weather
runoff to the existing Salinas Pump Station for blending with Salinas municipal wastewater and
treatment and recycling at the Regional Treatment Plant. The combined storm and waste waters
would be conveyed from the existing Salinas Pump Station through the MRWPCAs existing 36inch diameter interceptor to the Regional Treatment Plant. The diversion facility would also

Pure Water Monterey GWR Project


Consolidated Final EIR

2-47

October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Chapter 2 Project Description

accommodate the routing of agricultural wash water and winter stormwater to the Salinas
Treatment Facility for seasonal storage, and would provide a termination point for the pipeline
that would carry returned flows of stored waters to the Salinas Pump Station. Key existing and
proposed facilities at this site are shown in )LJXUH6DOLQDV3XPS6WDWLRQ6RXUFH:DWHU
'LYHUVLRQ&RQFHSWXDO6LWH3ODQ. Generally, these facilities include the following:20

A new underground junction structure to be constructed over the existing 48-inch


sanitary sewer line, to mix sanitary, agricultural wash water and stormwater flows.
This structure would also receive agricultural wash water and stormwater return flow
from the Salinas Treatment Facilitys Pond 3.
Modifications to the existing agricultural wash water underground diversion structure,
and addition of approximately 150-foot long 42-inch diameter underground pipeline
and metering structure between this structure and the new junction structure to be
constructed over the existing 48-inch sanitary sewer line.
An underground stormwater diversion structure (Stormwater Diversion Structure No.
1) and underground pipeline between this new structure and the existing 33-inch
agricultural wash water line.
An underground stormwater diversion structure (Stormwater Diversion Structure No.
2) near the existing stormwater pump station and underground pipeline to divert
stormwater flow to the Salinas Pump Station through an existing 30-inch abandoned
pipeline.
Meters, valves, electrical and control systems, and fencing around the diversion
structures.

Salinas Treatment Facility Pond Storage and Recovery


The City of Salinas is constructing a new 42-inch industrial wastewater pipeline to replace the
existing 33-inch gravity main between the Citys TP1 site (the site on which the Salinas Pump
Station is located) and the Salinas Treatment Facility. Winter flows of agricultural wash water
and Salinas urban stormwater runoff would be conveyed to the ponds using the new 42-inch
pipeline. Water within the Salinas Treatment Facility currently moves as gravity overflows from
the aeration basin to Pond 1, then Pond 2 and finally, Pond 3.

20

As of October 2014, the Citys planned new 42-inch industrial wastewater pipeline is under
construction. In addition, a separately proposed sanitary sewer overflow structure and pipeline is planned
to be built prior to the release of the Draft EIR, independent from the Proposed Project; therefore, these
facilities are shown as planned on )LJXUH  3URSRVHG 6DOLQDV 7UHDWPHQW )DFLOLW\ 6WRUDJH DQG
5HFRYHU\&RQFHSWXDO6LWH3ODQ

Pure Water Monterey GWR Project


Consolidated Final EIR

2-48

October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Chapter 2 Project Description

Seasonal storage of agricultural wash water and Salinas urban stormwater runoff at the Salinas
Treatment Facility ponds would require construction of a new return pipeline and pump station
to return the stored water to the Salinas Pump Station Diversion site. The proposed return
pipeline would be an 18-inch pipeline, installed inside the existing, soon to be abandoned 33inch pipeline. A new return pump station, and a new valve and meter vault would be located
within the existing Salinas Treatment Facility site near the existing pump station. The new return
pump station would include two variable frequency drive pumps, a primary and a secondary. A
new pipeline would be constructed from the lower end of the Pond 3 to the new return pump
station. A second new pump station near the lower end of Pond 3 would be needed to lift stored
agricultural wash water and stormwater into a pipeline returning to the return pump station. A
new short pipeline would also be constructed to convey the treated wastewater from the
aeration basin to the pipeline that returns water from Pond 3 or directly to the return pump
station. The proposed new pipelines and pumps are shown in )LJXUH3URSRVHG6DOLQDV
7UHDWPHQW)DFLOLW\6WRUDJHDQG5HFRYHU\&RQFHSWXDO6LWH3ODQ

Construction
Salinas Pump Station Diversion Site
Construction activities at this site would include demolition, excavation, site grading and
installation of new junction structures, new meter vault or flow measurement structures and
short pipeline segments. Existing pump stations operations would be ongoing during
construction due to the uninterruptible nature of conveyance of wastewater (and in some cases,
stormwater flows). For this reason, temporary shunts of various waters may be necessary to
maintain the collection and conveyance of waters to treatment facilities. Construction may occur
up to 24 hours per day, 7 days per week due to the necessity of managing wastewater flows;
however, major construction of new facilities would be limited to daytime hours. Approximately
0.75 acres would be temporarily disturbed and up to 0.25 acres of new impervious surfaces
would be added to the site. The permanent facilities would be subsurface. The site would be
under construction for up to five months.

Salinas Treatment Facility Storage and Recovery


The majority of the construction activity for the Salinas Treatment Facility Storage and Recovery
Facilities would occur within the existing 281-acre Salinas Treatment Facility site. New pipelines
from Pond 3 and the aeration basin to the return pump station, including precast concrete
manholes, would be constructed within the existing unpaved access road and parallel to the
existing pipelines. A new lift station would be constructed at Pond 3 to return water to the return
pump station. This new lift station would be constructed adjacent to the existing City of Salinas
irrigation transfer station in Pond 3. If the work for the new lift station in Pond 3 must be
performed while it is full, sheet piling and dewatering equipment will be required. The return
pump station would be located near the existing influent pump station at the east end of the site.
Return pump station and pipelines construction would include trenching and installation of new
pipelines, new pump and lift station, new pumps/pump motors, electrical facilities, valve vaults
and flow meter, requiring equipment delivery trucks, loaders, compactors, and backhoes.

Pure Water Monterey GWR Project


Consolidated Final EIR

2-49

October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Chapter 2 Project Description

The recovery or return pipeline from the Salinas Treatment Facility to the Salinas Pump Station
Diversion site would be constructed inside the existing 33-inch influent pipeline, which is
scheduled to be abandoned in place in late 2015 after a new 42-inch pipeline is completed.
Installing a new pipeline inside the existing pipeline would require excavating access pits every
600-ft to 800-ft along the existing alignment, cutting into the existing pipe, pulling the new
assembled pipe into the existing pipe and connecting the new pipe segments before closing the
pit. The work area at each pit would be up to 20-ft wide, approximately 60-ft long and up to 10feet deep. Equipment would include equipment delivery trucks, loaders, backhoes, pipe cutting
and welding equipment, pipeline fusing equipment (if fusible pipe is used), and pipeline pulling
equipment. If work must occur in an existing street, paving equipment would be required for
repairing the site.

Operations and Maintenance


The Salinas Pump Station Diversion site is adjacent to and north of the existing Salinas Pump
Station within the Citys Treatment Plant 1 site (also called, TP1), and would be maintained by
the same MRWPCA operations staff as currently operate the pump station. No additional
employee site visits would be required at the Salinas Pump Station site. The facility would
operate continually using automated flow metering, gates and valves. Operations would consist
of seasonally adjusting the diversion settings to direct flows to the Pump Station or to the
Salinas Treatment Facility. Gates and valves would be exercised annually if not operated more
frequently. Installed flow meters would require periodic inspection and calibration on a lessthan-annual frequency. Power usage at the site would be incidental to the existing pump station
and would only be needed for SCADA and metering and controls for the gates and valves. No
ongoing materials delivery or solid waste generation would occur.
Similarly, the new storage and recovery facilities at the Salinas Treatment Facility would be
managed by the same number of staff that currently operates the Salinas Treatment Facility.
During the storage season (November to April), the return pumps would not be operated. The
Salinas Treatment Facility aeration pond would continue to operate as it currently does.
Volumes in Ponds 1, 2, and 3 would be monitored. If inflows exceed the storage capacity, some
flows would be diverted to the existing drying beds, or adjustments may be made at the Salinas
Pump Station Diversion to send some agricultural wash water to the Regional Treatment Plant.
The return pumps at the Salinas Treatment Facility and the Pond 3 lift station would be
inspected during the storage season, and routine mechanical services would be scheduled
during this season. Trucks with lifting equipment would be required to pull the pumps out of the
wet wells for maintenance.
During the return pumping season (June to October), the return pump station would operate
during the period of off-peak electrical rates, at flow rates up to 5 mgd, depending upon the daily
volume of new agricultural wash water diverted directly to the Salinas Pump Station. The
pumping rate may be reduced during the peak hours of agricultural wash water flows. Stored
water in Pond 3 (the westernmost pond at the Salinas Treatment Facility) would be conveyed to
the return pump station using a new lift state and gravity pipeline. At the end of this season, the
Salinas Treatment Facility ponds would be empty or nearly empty, allowing maintenance to be
performed, if needed, on the gates, valves, overflow structures, pump stations and levee banks.

Pure Water Monterey GWR Project


Consolidated Final EIR

2-50

October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Chapter 2 Project Description

2.7.2.5 City of Salinas Urban Runoff to Salinas River


Description and Estimated Yield
City of Salinas urban runoff and stormwater from the southwest portion of the city is currently
discharged into the Salinas River near Davis Road via a 66-inch outfall line. Rain events may
occur year-round, but the majority of the flows occur between November and April.
Under the Proposed Project, City of Salinas urban runoff and stormwater would be diverted to
the Regional Treatment Plant rather than discharged to the Salinas River. This source is
estimated to yield an average raw water supply of 225 AFY, based upon estimated daily runoff
from the contributing portions of the city and available capacity at the Salinas Pump Station (see
7DEOH  (VWLPDWHG 8UEDQ 5XQRII $YDLODEOH IRU &DSWXUH IURP WKH &LW\ RI 6DOLQDV WR
6DOLQDV 5LYHU LQ $) ). The memorandum describing the methodology for calculating flows
available for, and capable of, diversion to the Regional Treatment Plant is found in $SSHQGL[2
UHY(Schaaf & Wheeler, 2015a).
Table 2-14
Estimated Urban Runoff Available for Capture from the City of Salinas to Salinas River
(in AF)
$YHUDJH

2FW
8

1RY
23

'HF
47

-DQ
52

)HE
41

0DU
34

$SU
16

0D\
2

-XQ
0

-XO
0

$XJ
0

6HS
2

7RWDO
225

To use water from this source for the Proposed Project, stormwater would be diverted by gravity
from the existing city stormwater pipelines to the existing MRWPCA Salinas Pump Station using
one or two new diversion structure(s). It would also be diverted into the Industrial Wastewater
System for storage at the Salinas Treatment Facility ponds and returned to the Salinas Pump
Station for conveyance to the Regional Treatment Plant for recycling and summer use (as
discussed under Agricultural Wash Water).
Consistent with existing conditions, excess stormwater during large rain events, which exceeds
the available Salinas Pump Station capacity or the conveyance capacity to the Salinas
Treatment Facility, would be discharged to the Salinas River through the existing stormwater
infrastructure. In extreme storm events, stormwater also could continue to overflow to the
Blanco Detention Basin, an existing earthen depression adjacent to the Salinas Pump Station
that currently captures excess stormwater runoff that cannot be conveyed to the storm drain
pipeline that discharges to the Salinas River.

Diversion Method and Facilities


The Salinas Pump Station Diversion structures and pipelines that are described in 6HFWLRQ
 would also be used to divert Salinas urban runoff to the Regional Treatment Plant for
recycling for crop irrigation demands and use by the AWT Facility.

Construction
Construction of the Salinas Pump Station urban runoff diversion structure is discussed as part of
the Agricultural Wash Water facility construction in 6HFWLRQ

Operations and Maintenance


Operation of the Salinas Pump Station diversion structures is discussed as part of the
Agricultural Wash Water facility operation in 6HFWLRQ

Pure Water Monterey GWR Project


Consolidated Final EIR

2-51

October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Chapter 2 Project Description

2.7.2.6 Reclamation Ditch / Tembladero Slough


Description and Estimated Yield
Two source water diversions from the Reclamation Ditch system are proposed as sources of
supply for the Proposed Project, requiring water rights permits for diversion and use, which
would be pursued through an amendment to a previously-submitted water right application.21
The first diversion point would be located on the Reclamation Ditch at Davis Road, where an
existing 54-inch City of Salinas sanitary sewer main crosses the Reclamation Ditch. A new
diversion structure would be installed in the ditch, and a new pump station, valve and meter
vaults would be installed on the southern bank, to divert flows, when available, into the existing
54-inch sanitary sewer main, which conveys wastewater to the MRWPCA Salinas Pump
Station. Based on the available conveyance capacity in the gravity sewer system between the
point of diversion and the Salinas Pump Station and the historic flows in the Reclamation Ditch,
diversions of up to 6 cubic feet per second (cfs) were estimated, assuming an in-stream (bypass) flow requirement of 0.69 cfs in the months of June to November, and 2.0 cfs during the
months of December to May for fish migration. This source would yield an average 1,522 AFY
for a 6 cfs water right permit. Monthly yields are presented in 7DEOH(VWLPDWHG$YHUDJH
<HDU'LYHUVLRQIURPWKH5HFODPDWLRQ'LWFKDW'DYLV5RDG DFUHIHHW .
Table 2-15
Estimated Average-Year Diversion from the Reclamation Ditch at Davis Road (acre-feet)
0D[LPXP
5DWH

-DQ

)HE

0DU

$SU

0D\

-XQ

-XO

$XJ

6HS

2FW

1RY

'HF

7RWDO

FIV

162

143

165

162

97

132

129

121

80

87

98

146



Note: Assumes 0.69 cfs remains in-stream from Jun-Nov, and 2.0 cfs remains in-stream Dec-May

The other diversion point would be located on Tembladero Slough just west of Highway 1, at the
MRWPCA Castroville Pump Station. A new diversion structure would be installed in the
Tembladero Slough, and a small pump station would be installed on the northern bank, to divert
flows, when available, to the existing pump station that feeds the existing MRWPCA Castroville
interceptor pipeline. Based on the existing conveyance capacity within the MRWPCA system
and the historic flows, diversions up to 3 cfs were estimated, assuming an in-stream (by-pass)
flow requirement of 1.0 cfs year-round. This portion of the Reclamation Ditch system is tidally
influenced, so the lower bypass flow rate would be needed to maintain the required depth of
water in the channel. This source would yield an average of 1,135 AFY as shown in 7DEOH
(VWLPDWHG$YHUDJH<HDU'LYHUVLRQIURPWKH7HPEODGHUR6ORXJKDW&DVWURYLOOH DFUHIHHW .

21

SWRCB Permit Application No. A032263, filed by Monterey County Water Resources Agency.

Pure Water Monterey GWR Project


Consolidated Final EIR

2-52

October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Chapter 2 Project Description

Table 2-16
Estimated Average-Year Diversion from the Tembladero Slough at Castroville (acre-feet)
0D[LPXP
5DWH

-DQ

)HE

0DU

$SU

0D\

-XQ

-XO

$XJ

6HS

2FW

1RY

'HF

7RWDO

FIV

131

117

142

154

145

67

66

62

41

45

50

115



Note: Assumes 1.0 cfs remains in-stream and 6.0 cfs is diverted at Davis Road

Based on the availability of other supply sources for the Proposed Project, diversions from these
sources may be reduced during the winter months. The proposed diversion facilities would be
equipped with supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) equipment which allows the
diversions to be turned off remotely. If excess treated municipal wastewater is available at the
Regional Treatment Plant, these diversions would be shut off rather than diverting surface water
while simultaneously discharging treated wastewater to the ocean outfall. The methodology
used for estimating available flows is found in $SSHQGL[3 (Schaaf & Wheeler, 2015b).

Diversion Method and Facilities


Reclamation Ditch Diversion Pump Station at Davis Road
The Reclamation Ditch Diversion would consist of a new intake structure on the channel bottom,
connecting to a new wet well (manhole) on the channel bank via a new gravity pipeline. The
new intake would be screened to prevent fish and trash from entering the pump station. Two
submersible pumps would be installed in the wet well, controlled by variable frequency drives.
The electrical controls and drives would be in a locked, weatherproof cabinet near the wet well
and above flood level. The new pump station would discharge through two new short force
mains (approximately 50-ft each), discharging to an existing manhole on the City of Salinas 54inch sanitary sewer main. Two new underground vaults would be installed along the force main,
one to hold the check and isolation valves, and one for the flow meter. The channel banks and
invert near the pump station intake would be lined with concrete to prevent scouring and
facilitate the management of by-pass flows. Key existing and proposed facilities at this site are
shown in )LJXUH  5HFODPDWLRQ 'LWFK 'LYHUVLRQ &RQFHSWXDO 6LWH 3ODQ DQG &URVV
6HFWLRQ

Tembladero Slough Diversion Pump Station at Castroville


The Tembladero Slough Diversion would consist of a new intake structure on the channel
bottom, connecting to a new lift station wet well (manhole) on the channel bank via a new
gravity pipeline. The new intake would be screened to prevent fish and trash from entering the
new pump station. Two submersible pumps would be installed in the wet well, controlled by
variable frequency drives. The electrical controls and drives would be in a locked, weatherproof
cabinet near the wet well and above flood level. The new pump station would discharge through
a new short force main (approximately 100-ft in length), discharging to the existing wet well at
the MRWPCA Castroville Pump Station. A new underground valve vault would be installed
along the force main to hold the check valves, isolation valves and flow meter. The channel
banks and invert near the pump station intake would be lined with concrete to prevent scouring
and facilitate the management of by-pass flows. Key existing and proposed facilities at this site
are shown in )LJXUH 7HPEODGHUR6ORXJK'LYHUVLRQ&RQFHSWXDO6LWH3ODQDQG&URVV
6HFWLRQ

Pure Water Monterey GWR Project


Consolidated Final EIR

2-53

October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Chapter 2 Project Description

Construction
Reclamation Ditch Diversion Site
Construction of the Reclamation Ditch diversion would include minor grading, installation of a
wet well/diversion structure, modification of an existing sanitary sewer manhole and a short
pipeline from the existing manhole to the new pump station. The work would disturb
approximately 0.15 acres of land, including the Reclamation Ditch banks and channel bottom.
The channel carries flow year-round, so a temporary coffer dam would be required above and
below the site, with a small diversion pump to convey existing channel flows past the project
construction area. The temporary coffer dams would consist of waterproof tarps or membranes
wrapped around gravel fill material, which would be removed when the work is completed.
The new pump station wet well, intake structure and pipelines would be constructed using opentrench excavation. The construction excavation may be as large as 40-feet long by 10-feet wide.
Due to the steepness of the banks and depth of the excavation, a tracked, long-arm excavator
would be required. The below-grade components may use pre-cast concrete structures, so that
the underground work would take less than a week to complete. Once the excavations are
closed, the channel protection (concrete or riprap) may be installed and the temporary
cofferdams and by-pass pumping system removed. The pumps and controls would be installed
in the wet well and valve vault using a large excavator or crane.
During the period the channel is blocked with temporary cofferdams, the work may proceed 7
days a week to minimize the impact and duration. Electrical power used during construction
may come from a temporary electrical service by PG&E, from permanent electrical service by
PG&E if installed in advance of the site work, or from portable generators. The by-pass pumps
would need to operate until the in-channel work is complete, so power would be required 24hours a day. The site is in an industrial area, so there are no nearby residents to be disturbed by
the noise at night.

Tembladero Slough Diversion Site


Construction of the Tembladero Slough diversion would include minor grading, installation of a
new wet well/diversion structure, modification of the existing wet well at the Castroville Pump
Station and construction of a short pipeline from the wet well to the new pump station. The work
would disturb approximately 0.25 acres of land, including the Tembladero Slough banks and
channel bottom. The channel carries flow year-round, so a temporary coffer dam would be
required around the construction site, with a small channel left open to allow flows past the
project site. The temporary coffer dams may consist of geomembrane tubes filled with water or
driven sheet piles, depending upon the site conditions. Any cofferdam installed would be
removed when the work is completed.
The new pump station wet well, intake structure and pipelines would be constructed using opentrench excavation. The construction excavation may be as large as 100-feet long by 10-feet
wide. Due to the steepness of the banks and depth of the excavation, a tracked, long-arm
excavator would be required. The below-grade components may use pre-cast concrete
structures, so that the underground work would take less than a week to complete. Once the
excavations are closed, the channel protection (concrete or riprap) would be installed and the
temporary cofferdams and dewatering pumping system removed. The diversion pumps and
controls would be installed in the wet well and valve vault using a tracked excavator or crane.
Modification of the existing pump station wet well may require by-pass pumping of the existing
wastewater flows within the pump station. A portable electric or engine-driven by-pass pump

Pure Water Monterey GWR Project


Consolidated Final EIR

2-54

October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Chapter 2 Project Description

may be required. The new pipeline connecting the new pump station to the existing wet well
would be installed using open trench methods.
During the period the channel is blocked with temporary cofferdams, the work may proceed 7
days a week to minimize the impact and duration.
Electrical power used during construction may come from a temporary electrical service by
PG&E, the permanent electrical service by PG&E if installed in advance of the site work, or from
portable generators. The dewatering pumps would need to operate until the in-channel work is
complete, so power would be required 24-hours a day. The site is in an agricultural area, with
only one nearby residence located approximately 1,000 feet north of the site.

Operations and Maintenance


Both the Reclamation Ditch Pump Station and the Tembladero Slough Pump Station would be
configured to operate autonomously, based upon diversion and by-pass flow settings. A system
operator would visit each site at most once per day to check for alarms and vandalism, and to
visually inspect the intake screen for clogging. The Tembladero Slough site is adjacent to the
MRWPCA Castroville Pump Station, so those inspections would be performed by the same
operator at that pump station, requiring no additional staff or visits. The Reclamation Ditch is
assumed to require one employee visit per day at most (two one-way trips). Approximately once
per month an operator would need to access the channel bottom to physically clear vegetation
or debris from the intake screen. The pumps would require annual inspection and servicing,
using a lift truck to remove the pumps from the wet well. The flow meters would require
inspection and calibration less than once per year.

2.7.2.7 Blanco Drain


Description and Estimated Yield
Potential flow diversion from the Blanco Drain was analyzed using data from the existing pump
station location, based on station operating records. Due to the limited flow data available, the
yield was estimated as a percentage of the applied irrigation and rainfall across the watershed.
An average annual yield of 2,620 AFY was calculated, which equates to an average return rate
of 17%. A water right permit for diversions up to 6 cfs would be required to capture that full
amount. The monthly yields are provided in 7DEOH  (VWLPDWHG $YHUDJH<HDU 'LYHUVLRQ
IURPWKH%ODQFR'UDLQ DFUHIHHW . Due to the existing pump station and slide gate operations,
poor water quality, and lack of aquatic habitat in this channel, these yield estimates assume that
all available flow would be diverted, and none would be required to remain in-stream.
Table 2-17
Estimated Average-Year Diversion from the Blanco Drain (acre-feet)
5DWH
FIV

-DQ
209

)HE
223

0DU
246

$SU
252

0D\
225

-XQ
274

-XO
277

$XJ
244

6HS
184

2FW
168

1RY
133

'HF
185

7RWDO
2,620

The Blanco Drain is the only source of supply not located near an existing wastewater collection
facility which might be used to convey flows to the Regional Treatment Plant. Development of
this source would require not only a new pump station, but also a two-mile pipeline that would
cross under the Salinas River

Pure Water Monterey GWR Project


Consolidated Final EIR

2-55

October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Chapter 2 Project Description

Diversion Method and Facilities


The proposed new Blanco Drain Diversion pump station would be located adjacent to the
existing seasonal pump station operated by Monterey County Water Resources Agency. The
new pump station would consist of a new intake structure on the channel bottom, connecting to
a new wet well (manhole) on the channel bank via a new gravity pipeline. The intake would be
screened to prevent debris and trash from entering the pump station. Two submersible pumps
would be installed in the wet well, controlled by variable frequency drives. The electrical controls
and drives would be in a locked, weatherproof cabinet above the wet well and above flood level.
The new pump station would discharge through a new 18-inch force main running from the
pump station to a connection in the existing 36-inch Salinas Interceptor before it discharges into
the headworks of the Regional Treatment Plant.22 The segment of the pipeline crossing the
Salinas River would be installed using trenchless methods. A new underground valve vault
would be installed adjacent to the pump station to hold the check and isolation valves, and a
second vault would hold the flow meter. Due to the high pressure in the pipeline, a new surge
tank would be installed at the new pump station. The channel banks and invert near the pump
station intake would be lined with concrete to prevent scouring. When the new pump station is
operating, the existing slide gate in the channel would be closed to facilitate diversion of all
flows to the Regional Treatment Plant. Key existing and proposed facilities at this site are shown
in )LJXUH  %ODQFR 'UDLQ 'LYHUVLRQ 3XPS 6WDWLRQ DQG )RUFH 0DLQ &RQFHSWXDO 6LWH
3ODQ

Construction
Construction of the Blanco Drain Diversion would include minor grading, installation of a new
wet well/diversion structure, installation of a new force main by open trench and by trenchless
methods. The work would temporarily disturb approximately 0.15 acres of land at the pump
station, including the Blanco Drain banks and channel bottom, and approximately 5 acres along
the pipeline alignment including the excavation pits for constructing the pipeline under the
Salinas River. The channel carries flow year-round, so a temporary coffer dam would be
required above the construction site, with a small diversion pump to convey existing channel
flows past the project site and the existing slide gate downstream of the adjacent Monterey
County Water Resources Agency pump station. The temporary coffer dam would consist of a
waterproof tarps or membrane wrapped around gravel fill material, which would be removed
when the work is completed. West of the river crossing and south of the landfill site, the new
force main would intersect the existing MRWPCA Salinas Interceptor. The new Blanco Drain
source water force main would connect to the existing Salinas Interceptor to the Regional
Treatment Plant headworks. A hydraulic analysis of the Salinas Interceptor will be conducted
during final design to determine the feasibility of the upstream connection from the Blanco Drain
source water force main. The EIR analysis in Chapter 4 assumes that the new pipeline would go
all the way to the headworks at the Regional Treatment Plant. Any reduction in length of the
pipeline that might be achieved through this modification would result in less environmental
impacts.

22

Two options are currently being considered to connect the Blanco Drain diversion pipeline to the
Salinas Interceptor before it enters the headworks. One option connects at the headworks and the other
option connects 1,000 feet further upstream. The current proposal for the location of the connection is
shown on )LJXUH%ODQFR'UDLQ'LYHUVLRQ3XPS6WDWLRQDQG)RUFH0DLQ&RQFHSWXDO6LWH3ODQ.

Pure Water Monterey GWR Project


Consolidated Final EIR

2-56

October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Chapter 2 Project Description

The new pump station wet well, intake structure and on-site pipelines would be constructed
using open-trench excavation. The construction excavation may be as large as 40-feet long by
10-feet wide. Due to the steepness of the banks and depth of the excavation, a tracked, longarm excavator would be required. The below-grade components may use pre-cast concrete
structures, so that the underground work would take less than a week to complete. Once the
excavations are closed, the channel protection (concrete or riprap) may be installed and the
temporary cofferdam and by-pass pumping system removed. The concrete deck, pumps and
controls would be installed in the wet well and valve vault and hydropneumatic tank installed
using a tracked excavator or crane. Some cast-in-place concrete work is expected, requiring
concrete trucks accessing the site.
During the period the channel is blocked with temporary cofferdams, the work may proceed 7
days a week to minimize the impact and duration. A portion of the new pipeline must be
installed using trenchless methods. That work may require 24-hour operations during the drilling
phase. A portion of the pipeline would be installed within the existing Regional Treatment Plant
site. That work may be performed at night to minimize impacts to plant operations.
The force main pipeline must cross under the Salinas River. This work would be performed
using a trenchless method, most likely directional drilling. The crossing method would be
determined during detailed design and permitting. Trenchless construction would require work
areas approximately 40-ft by 60-ft on each side of the river. The rest of the pipeline may be
installed using open-trench methods. The final portion of the pipeline would cross the existing
Regional Treatment Plant site and may require limited bore and jack construction to cross
existing utilities which must remain in-service.
Electrical power used during construction may come from a temporary electrical service by
PG&E, the permanent electrical service by PG&E if installed in advance of the site work, or from
portable generators. Permanent electrical service already exists on-site at the Monterey County
Water Resources Agency pump station and Regional Treatment Plant site, so it is anticipated
that a temporary construction power service would be available. The by-pass pumps would
need to operate until the in-channel work is complete, so power would be required 24-hours a
day. The site is isolated from any urban uses within an agricultural area, so there are no nearby
residents to be disturbed by nighttime construction.

Operations and Maintenance


The Blanco Drain Pump Station would be similar to the Reclamation Ditch and Tembladero
Slough Pump Stations, configured to operate autonomously based upon diversion settings. A
system operator would visit the site once a day to check for alarms, vandalism and to visually
inspect the intake screen for clogging. The site is adjacent to the Monterey County Water
Resources Agencys Blanco Drain Pump Station, and may require separate visits by operators
from the two agencies or the two agencies can enter into an agreement for shared maintenance
responsibilities. The existing Monterey County Water Resources Agency pump station operates
currently and the diversion would operate in a similar way. Consequently the number of daily
operator visits would not increase measurably. Approximately once per month an operator
would need to access the channel bottom to physically clear vegetation or debris from the intake
screen. The pumps would require annual inspection and servicing, using a lift truck to remove
the pumps from the wet well. Since the two pump stations are the responsibility of different
agencies, scheduled maintenance would be independent of the adjacent pump station. The new
station flow meter would require inspection and calibration at a less-than-annual frequency.

Pure Water Monterey GWR Project


Consolidated Final EIR

2-57

October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Chapter 2 Project Description

The pipeline valves would be inspected and exercised once per year. Any above-grade airrelease valves would be inspected quarterly, requiring a system operator to drive the pipeline
alignment.

2.7.2.8 Lake El Estero Storage Management Water


Description and Estimated Yield
Monterey Peninsula urban stormwater and dry weather runoff that flows into Lake El Estero is
currently stored in the lake and then pumped by the City of Monterey, or allowed to flow by
gravity, through storm drain pipelines to Del Monte Beach.
To use water from this source for the Proposed Project, the portion of the Lake El Estero water
that currently is pumped or flows onto Del Monte Beach into Monterey Bay would, instead, be
diverted via a short new pipeline, using a new pump or by gravity flow, into the municipal
wastewater system at a sanitary sewer manhole immediately adjacent to the existing Lake El
Estero pump station. After the lake water enters the manhole, it would flow through an existing
21-inch City sanitary sewer main into the existing Pacific Grove interceptor and then to the
existing MRWPCA Monterey Pump Station.23 From there, the water would flow through the
existing MRWPCA conveyance system to the Regional Treatment Plant. This new diversion
system would capture stormwater which would otherwise be discharged to the Monterey Bay;
the average lake level would remain unchanged. The new physical facilities proposed to be
constructed to divert this source water are described in 6HFWLRQ
This source would yield an average raw water supply of 87 AFY, based upon estimated daily
runoff into the Lake and available conveyance capacity in the municipal wastewater system.
This flow estimate is based on monitoring data collected between November 2013 and March
2014 at the existing 21-inch City of Monterey sanitary sewer gravity main between the Lake El
Estero diversion site and the MRWPCA collection system. Monitoring indicated that the gravity
main is half full at the daily peak hour, leaving an estimated 2,400 gallons per minute (or 3.5
mgd) of available wet weather capacity.
The memorandum describing the methodology for calculating flows available for diversion to the
Regional Treatment Plant is found in $SSHQGL[5 (Schaaf & Wheeler, 2014a).

Diversion Method and Facilities


The Lake El Estero Source Water Diversion System would consist of one of the following
options: (1) installation of a new pumping system, consisting of a new column pump installed in
the wet well of the existing lake management pump station, upgrades to the existing electric
panel, and a new 30-foot long, 12-inch diameter discharge pipe to the sanitary sewer; or (2)
installation of a new gravity system, consisting of a new headwall and screened intake pipe on
the lake bank, a new 40-foot long, 12-inch diameter discharge pipe to the sanitary sewer, and a

23

This Proposed Project component is intended to operate the same as the existing lake management
pumping activities conducted by the City except that pumping would occur to the sanitary sewer system in
lieu of pumping to Del Monte Beach. The City currently pumps down the lake levels to prevent flooding.
That practice would continue but the water would be diverted to the sewer system instead of released to
the beach. The City would continue to maintain adequate lake levels to allow the City to irrigate its nearby
parks with Lake El Estero water.

Pure Water Monterey GWR Project


Consolidated Final EIR

2-58

October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Chapter 2 Project Description

new controlled and motorized isolation valve. Both systems would be entirely underground or
within existing pump dry and wet well structures and the connecting pipeline would include a
flow meter and a check valve to prevent backflow of sewage into the lake. The City and
MRWPCA would select the preferred option based upon technical and economic considerations
at the time that design plans are prepared. Key existing and proposed facilities at this site are
shown in )LJXUH /DNH(O(VWHUR'LYHUVLRQ&RQFHSWXDO6LWH3ODQDQG&URVV6HFWLRQ
Either of the proposed new diversion systems would require some maintenance and would
include controls to prevent overloading the wastewater collection system.

Construction
At the Lake El Estero Diversion site, less than 0.1 acres of disturbance would occur. The
disturbance would be entirely within the paved area of the existing pump station at that site.
Pavement demolition, trenching and installation of new pumps/pump motors, electrical facilities,
and flow meters would all be installed below grade using only equipment delivery trucks,
loaders, and backhoes.

Operations and Maintenance


The Lake El Estero diversion pump station would operate autonomously, based upon lake
levels and water levels in the receiving sanitary sewer. System operators from the City would
visit the site with the same frequency as operators visit the existing pump station, approximately
once per week when not operating and multiple times per day while in operation. If a lakeside
intake is used, approximately once per month an operator may need to physically clear
vegetation or debris from the intake screen. The pumps would require annual inspection and
servicing, using a lift truck to remove the pumps from the wet well. This maintenance may be
scheduled to coincide with the adjacent pump station. The flow meter would require inspection
and calibration less than once per year.

2.8 TREATMENT FACILITIES AT THE REGIONAL TREATMENT


PLANT
2.8.1 Overview of Treatment Facilities at the Regional Treatment Plant
Under the Proposed Project, a new AWT Facility would be constructed to receive Regional
Treatment Plant secondary effluent for advanced treatment and, ultimately, injection into the
Seaside Groundwater Basin.24 In addition, modifications to the existing Salinas Valley
Reclamation Plant are proposed in order to enable increased use of tertiary treated wastewater
for crop irrigation during winter months. The proposed new and modified treatment facilities at
the Regional Treatment Plant, including the Advanced Water Treatment Facility (or AWT
Facility) and the Salinas Valley Reclamation Plant Modifications, would be constructed on
approximately 3.5 acres of land within the MRWPCA Regional Treatment Plant (Regional
24

As described in previous sections, the Proposed Project proposes to divert additional water sources
and convey those waters with municipal effluent to the Regional Treatment Plant, including urban and
agricultural runoff, agricultural wash water flows, and excess/unused Regional Treatment Plant
secondary-treated wastewater.

Pure Water Monterey GWR Project


Consolidated Final EIR

2-59

October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Chapter 2 Project Description

Treatment Plant) site west of the existing treatment facilities (see )LJXUH  3URMHFWHG
5HJLRQDO 7UHDWPHQW 3ODQW )ORZV  The following is a list of the proposed structures and
facilities proposed to be constructed at the Regional Treatment Plant (see )LJXUH 
$GYDQFHG:DWHU7UHDWPHQW)DFLOLW\6LWH3ODQ):

inlet source water diversion structure, an influent pump station, and an approximately
360-foot long, 24-inch diameter pipeline to bring secondary effluent to the AWT
Facility;
advanced treatment process facilities, including
chloramination,
ozonation,
biologically active filtration (if required),
automatic straining,
membrane filtration treatment,
booster pumping of the membrane filtration filtrate,
cartridge filtration,
chemical addition,
reverse osmosis membrane treatment,
advanced oxidation using ultraviolet light and hydrogen peroxide (advanced
oxidation),
decarbonation, and
product-water stabilization with calcium, alkalinity and pH adjustment;
final product storage and distribution pumping;
brine mixing facilities; and
modifications to the Salinas Valley Reclamation Plant (see 6HFWLRQ  for a
detailed description this Proposed Project component).

The proposed advanced treatment facilities would include several structures as tall as 31 feet
and totaling approximately 60,000 square feet. The proposed brine mixing facility would be up to
16 feet tall and totaling approximately 10,000 square feet. New pipes and pumps would be
underground. Additional information on each component of the AWT Facility is presented in the
following sections. )LJXUH  3URSRVHG $GYDQFHG :DWHU 7UHDWPHQW )ORZ 'LDJUDP
provides a simplified AWT Facility process flow diagram illustrating the proposed treatment
facilities.

2.8.1.1 AWT Facility Design Flows and System Waste Streams


The proposed new AWT Facility would have a design capacity of 4.0 mgd of product water. As
described in 6HFWLRQ , a range of monthly source water flows has been estimated,
depending upon the seasonal availability of source waters. The facility would be operated to
produce up to 3,700 AFY of purified recycled water for injection, which equates to an annual
production rate of 3.3 mgd. The 4.0 mgd facility size is required to allow for peak seasonal
operation and system down time. Similarly, the system components must be sized to allow for
losses during treatment such as backwashing and brine disposal. Additional information on the
proposed AWT Facility component design is presented in 7DEOHVDQG

Pure Water Monterey GWR Project


Consolidated Final EIR

2-60

October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Chapter 2 Project Description

Table 2-18
AWT Facilities Design Summary
'HVLJQ&DSDFLW\
6HH1RWHD
N/A
0.2 mg
2.7 to 5.9 mgd
5.9 mgd
5.5 mgd
4.9 mgd
2.2 to 4.9 mgd
4.0 mgd

&RPSRQHQW

Pipeline from secondary treatment system outfall pipe to AWT Facility


AWT Facility Influent Wetwell
Influent Pumping (see Note b)
Ozone System(see Note b)
Biologically Active Filtration (if required) (see Note c)
Membrane Filtration System
Reverse Osmosis System
Advanced Oxidation System, Product Water Stabilization and Pumping
Notes:
a. Capacities represent process feedwater flows; units are million gallons (mg) and million gallons per day (mgd).
b. For the case where biological filtration is not included, the range for the influent pumping would be 2.7 to 5.5 mgd,
and the ozone system would be sized for 5.5 mgd.
c. The biologically active filtration would be sized to treat up to 80 percent of the process flow; the 5.5 mgd represents
the total product flow when combined with the by-pass.

In producing highly purified water, the proposed new AWT Facility would also produce two to
three waste streams: biological filtration backwash (if included in the system), membrane
filtration backwash, and reverse osmosis concentrate. The biological filtration backwash and
membrane filtration backwash would be diverted back to the Regional Treatment Plant
headworks. The reverse osmosis concentrate would be piped to a proposed new brine and
effluent receiving, mixing, and monitoring facility. The AWT Facility is expected to be able to
produce water at up to 90% of design capacity, on average, due to some anticipated down time
for membrane clean in place practices and repairs. The down time is assumed to be evenly
distributed each month, though planned events would be scheduled for times when the least
source water is available. The AWT Facility would need to be large enough to produce the
required product water during the operational times (90% of each month). The resulting flow
quantities for the AWT Facility are shown in 7DEOH  3URSRVHG 3URMHFW $:7 )DFLOLW\
3URFHVV'HVLJQ)ORZ$VVXPSWLRQV below.
Based on these assumptions (including the 90% in-service, 81% reverse osmosis recovery,
90% microfiltration recovery), an AWT Facility design flow rate of 4.0 mgd would be required to
provide up to 3,700 AFY of high quality water for groundwater injection.
Table 2-19
Proposed Project AWT Facility Process Design Flow Assumptions
$QQXDO
)ORZV
$)<
5,496
4,481

$YHUDJH)ORZ
&RQGLWLRQV
PJG
4.9
4.0

0D[LPXP)ORZ
&RQGLWLRQV
PJG
5.9
4.8

$:7)DFLOLW\3URFHVV
Ozone System Feed
Biologically Active Filtration Feed
Biologically Active Filtration Backwash returned to Regional
421
0.4
0.5
Treatment Plant Headworks
Biologically Active Filtration Bypass3
1,015
0.9
1.1
Membrane Filtration Feed
5,075
4.5
5.5
Membrane Filtration Backwash retuned to Regional Treatment
508
0.5
0.6
Plant Headworks
Reverse Osmosis Feed
4,567
4.1
4.9
Reverse Osmosis Concentrate
867
0.8
0.9
Reverse Osmosis Product Water (AWT Facility Design Size)
3,700
3.3
4.0
Advanced Oxidation Process
3,700
3.3
4.0
Notes:
1
. Average annual flows reflect 3,700 AFY, typical annual production while building the drought reserve.
2
. Maximum flow condition reflects design peak production rate.
3
. 80% of the flow would pass through the Biologically Active Filtration, and 20% may bypass directly to the membrane
filtration

Pure Water Monterey GWR Project


Consolidated Final EIR

2-61

October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Chapter 2 Project Description

2.8.1.2 Inlet Raw Water Diversion Structure and Pump Station


A new diversion structure would be installed on an existing secondary effluent pipeline at the
Regional Treatment Plant to divert and convey secondary effluent source water through a new
gravity pipeline to the proposed AWT Facility. A new influent pump station consisting of a
subgrade wetwell and pumps would accept and equalize the Regional Treatment Plant
secondary effluent flow.

2.8.1.3 Raw Water Pretreatment


Before membrane filtration, the secondary effluent would be pretreated using pre-screening and
up to three separate subsystems:

Chloramination
Ozonation
Biological filtration (if required)

&KORUDPLQDWLRQ. Chloramines would be used to reduce biofouling of the membrane systems.


The chloramination system would include sodium hypochlorite storage, and chemical feed
pumps and an inline injection and mixing system. Sodium hypochlorite would be injected
upstream of ozonation or upstream of membrane filtration. Sodium hypochlorite reacts with
ammonia present in the source water to form chloramine, which is an effective biocide that
reduces biological fouling on the membrane filtration and reverse osmosis process membranes.
2]RQDWLRQ. Ozone treatment is proposed to provide a chemical/pathogen destruction barrier and
reduce the membrane fouling. The ozone system would be comprised of several components:
liquid oxygen storage and vaporizers or an onsite oxygen generator; a nitrogen boost system;
an ozone generator and power supply unit; a cooling water system; a side-stream injection
system; ozone contactor; and ozone destruct units. There are two potential approaches for
supplying high-purity oxygen for ozone generation: (1) liquid oxygen delivered to onsite
cryogenic storage tanks and evaporated through vaporizers, or (2) produce oxygen at the
treatment facility using a pressure-swing adsorption oxygen generation system. The liquid
oxygen system is included in the 10% design, but an on-site generation system would occupy
approximately the same amount of space. Ozone generators would convert oxygen gas into a
mixture of oxygen and ozone gas. The mixture of oxygen and ozone gas would be injected into
a side stream of feed water flow that would then be recombined with the main supply line after
ozone injection. The ozonated water would flow into one or more parallel contactors to provide
contact time for disinfection/oxidation, ozone residual decay, and off-gassing. Off-gas would be
treated through a catalytic-based ozone destruct system to prevent the release of ozone to the
atmosphere. Once dissolved in the process water, ozone reacts with various contaminants in
the water, resulting in several treatment benefits, including (1) reduction of organic compounds
that cause membrane fouling, (2) reduction of many constituents of emerging concern (CECs),25
and (3) inactivation of pathogenic microorganisms. A quenching system to eliminate any ozone
residual that remains in the water is included at the end of this process step. Quenching would
be performed through the addition of sodium bisulfite, hydrogen peroxide or calcium thiosulfate,
which would be stored on-site.
25

See &KDSWHU:DWHU4XDOLW\3HUPLWWLQJDQG5HJXODWRU\2YHUYLHZ for more information about the


current understanding and regulation of these substances.

Pure Water Monterey GWR Project


Consolidated Final EIR

2-62

October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Chapter 2 Project Description

%LRORJLFDOO\ $FWLYH )LOWUDWLRQ LI UHTXLUHG  This process may be used downstream of ozone
treatment to reduce the concentration of ammonia and residual organic matter present in the
ozone effluent and to reduce the solids loading on the membrane filtration process. The
biologically active filtration system would consist of gravity-feed filter basins with approximately
12 feet of granular media, and an underdrain/media support system. Ancillary systems would
include an alkalinity addition system for pH control, backwash water basin (also used for
membrane filtration backwash), backwash pumps, an air compressor and supply system for an
air scour system, an air compressor and supply system for process air, and a wash water basin
to facilitate filter backwashing. Depending upon the discharge permitting conditions, this process
step may not be required; therefore, it may not be constructed until the AWT Facility completes
initial start-up and testing.

2.8.1.4 Microfiltration/Ultrafiltration Membrane Treatment System


The membrane filtration system would remove suspended and colloidal solids, including
bacteria and protozoa through hollow fiber membrane modules. Additional components of the
membrane filtration system include valve manifolds to direct the flow of feed, filtrate, cleaning
system, backwash supply, backwash waste, and compressed air to the corresponding module
piping. Feed pumps would draw water from the feed clearwell and supply a pressurized feed to
pretreatment strainers and the membrane units. Cleaning chemicals would include acid, caustic,
and sodium hypochlorite, which would be stored on-site. Backwash and screening residuals
would be adjusted to a neutral pH and returned to the Regional Treatment Plant headworks,
along with residuals associated with the cleaning system. The projected recovery of treated
water from the membrane filter system is roughly 90%; this recovery accounts for waste
residuals associated with backwashing, cleaning, and pretreatment straining.

2.8.1.5 Reverse Osmosis Membrane Treatment System


A reverse osmosis process that employs semi-permeable membranes is proposed to remove
dissolved salts, inorganic and organic constituents, and pathogens from the membrane filtration
treated water. The proposed reverse osmosis system would consist of a single pass, which
separates the membrane filtration filtrate feed water into a purified product stream (permeate)
and a concentrated brine stream (concentrate). The proposed reverse osmosis would include a
second stage to increase the product water recovery.
The proposed reverse osmosis system would include individual process trains, housing the
process membranes in pressure vessels along with connecting piping and valve manifolds for
feed, permeate, concentrate, cleaning and flush supplies. The ancillary equipment for the
overall reverse osmosis system would include a membrane cleaning system and permeate flush
system. Reverse osmosis membrane cleaning chemicals would likely include proprietary
anticipant chemicals, acid, and caustic detergent, stored on-site.
Feed to the reverse osmosis system would be delivered from the upstream membrane filtration
system through an intermediate equalization tank. Low-pressure booster pumps would move
the water into the pretreatment system. Pretreatment would include cartridge filters, followed by
the addition of an antiscalant and acid to lower the pH, which would be injected into a low
pressure line. High-pressure feed pumps would move the water from pretreatment into the
reverse osmosis treatment trains. Concentrate from the reverse osmosis system would be
discharged to a new brine mixing structure with final disposal through the existing MRWPCA
ocean outfall. Product water would flow to the advanced oxidation system. Separate cleaning
and flush system equipment would also be included.

Pure Water Monterey GWR Project


Consolidated Final EIR

2-63

October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Chapter 2 Project Description

2.8.1.6 Advanced Oxidation Process System


The proposed advanced oxidation system would provide a final polishing step for pathogen
disinfection and an additional chemical destruction barrier for the reverse osmosis permeate.
The proposed advanced oxidation system would consist of a chemical feed to add hydrogen
peroxide and reactors housing arrays of ultraviolet lamps along with ballasts to power the
ultraviolet system. Ultraviolet light reacts with hydrogen peroxide to form hydroxyl radicals,
which, along with the ultraviolet light, oxidizes, destroys, or inactivates chemicals of concern and
pathogens. The system sizing would be driven by the requirement in the California Code of
Regulations, Title 22, 60320.200 et seq., Indirect Potable Reuse: Groundwater Replenishment
Subsurface Application criteria for advanced oxidation. Support facilities for the reactors
would include chemical storage and metering pumps, and ballasts. The advanced oxidation
product water would be directed to the post-treatment system for stabilization.

2.8.1.7 Post-Treatment System


Product water from the advanced oxidation process would be sent to the proposed posttreatment system. Due to the high removal of minerals that is achieved through reverse osmosis
treatment, post-treatment stabilization of the product water would be needed to prevent
corrosion of pipe materials in the product water conveyance system. Stabilization would also be
used to reduce the potential for product water to leach minerals and other chemicals from the
soils within the Seaside Groundwater Basin upon injection. Reverse osmosis permeate is a soft,
low alkalinity water, and the final product water quality would be adjusted to specific goals for
hardness, alkalinity, and pH. This adjustment would include decarbonation by air stripping to
remove carbon dioxide (CO2), the addition of calcium and alkalinity, and pH adjustment with
CO2 addition. There are two proposed options for calcium and alkalinity adjustment: (1) the
addition of purchased hydrate lime slurry (calcium hydroxide slurry), or (2) addition of sodium
hydroxide (NaOH) and calcium chloride (CaCl2). Sodium hypochlorite may be added to the
product water for secondary disinfection.

2.8.1.8 Product Water Pump Station


The new Product Water Pump Station would be located at the AWT Facility immediately south
of the product water stabilization facilities. This pump station is described in detail in 6HFWLRQ
, 3URGXFW:DWHU&RQYH\DQFH)DFLOLWLHV, below.

2.8.1.9 Brine Mixing Facility


As discussed above, the new AWT Facility would produce reverse osmosis concentrate water
that would be disposed or discharged via the MRWPCAs existing ocean outfall. In addition to
the AWT reverse osmosis reject water, other water that is currently discharged to the outfall
includes secondary effluent from the Regional Treatment Plant, and brine waste collected from
individual water softeners and private desalination facilities and delivered by truck to the
Regional Treatment Plant. Proper disposal of these waste streams to the outfall, and eventually
the ocean, requires flow metering and water quality sampling and monitoring. The proposed
new brine mixing facility would accomplish the required mixing, metering and sampling, using
the following processes and facilities:

Two (2) cast-in-place concrete vaults on the existing outfall, one to divert secondary
treated effluent to the mixing facility and one approximately 170-ft downstream to
return the blended flows to the outfall. Both structures would be equipped with two

Pure Water Monterey GWR Project


Consolidated Final EIR

2-64

October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Chapter 2 Project Description

slide gates to control the amount of secondary effluent diverted through the mixing
facility and passed through to the outfall
A cast-in-place concrete mixing structure, configured to receive secondary effluent
and brine waste from separate inflow pipes and equipped with a 60-inch (nominal)
static mixer in a fiberglass mixing pipe and an air release valve on the upstream end
of the static mixer
A 54-inch pipeline (high density polyethylene) from the diversion vault to the mixing
structure and then to the return vault
48-inch flow meters on the pipelines entering and leaving the mixing structure,
installed below-grade in concrete boxes
A sampling port in the return vault for access to measure total dissolved solids, pH,
dissolved oxygen temperature, and other constituents of the blended effluent as
required by permit conditions

Only one new above-grade structure, the Lab and Control Building would be built and would
receive architectural treatment similar to the other buildings at the Regional Treatment Plant.
The maximum depth of excavation would be 30 to 32 feet. A new cast concrete driveway would
extend from the existing road on the north side to the Lab and Control Building delivery door on
the north side. A new four-foot wide concrete walkway would extend along the south side. Storm
water drainage would be directed through site grading to a new retention basin at the west end
of the site for percolation.

2.8.1.10 Power Supply


The AWT Facility power would be supplied through a new PG&E utility connection to the
Regional Treatment Plant. The system components would include a utility service, transformers,
and switchgear. The major electrical loads would be from the new influent pumping, oxygen
generator (if liquid oxygen is not used), ozone generator, biological filtration backwash pumps (if
included in the final system), membrane filtration and reverse osmosis feedwater pumping,
ultraviolet light reactors, and product water pumping. In the case of a power failure, the AWT
Facility would shut down and the secondary treated influent water would bypass the AWT
Facility and be discharged to Monterey Bay, if not used first by the Salinas Valley Reclamation
Plant. The Regional Treatment Plant has three power supplies: cogeneration, utility connection,
and a standby diesel generator. If all three power supplies fail, there are provisions to connect
mobile generators to the critical facilities. See 6HFWLRQ  for a summary of the power
demands of the proposed Treatment Facilities at the Regional Treatment Plant. (Source: V.
Badani, E2 Consulting Engineers; A. Wesner, SPI Engineering; B. Holden MRWPCA; and T.G.
Cole, October 2014)

2.8.1.11AWT Facility Construction


Construction workers would access the proposed AWT Facility site via Charles Benson Road
and existing access roads serving the existing treatment plant. Construction activities would
include cutting, laying, and welding pipelines and pipe connections; pouring concrete footings
for foundations, tanks, and other support equipment; constructing walls and roofs; assembling
and installing major advanced treatment process components; installing piping, pumps, storage
tanks, and electrical equipment; testing and commissioning facilities; and finish work such as
paving, landscaping, and fencing the perimeter of the site. Construction equipment would
include excavators, backhoes, graders, pavers, rollers, bulldozers, concrete trucks, flatbed
trucks, boom trucks and/or cranes, forklifts, welding equipment, dump trucks, air compressors,

Pure Water Monterey GWR Project


Consolidated Final EIR

2-65

October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Chapter 2 Project Description

and generators. Mechanical components of the pretreatment, membrane filtration systems,


reverse osmosis, advanced oxidation, and post-treatment facilities would be prefabricated and
delivered to the site for installation. Approximately 3.5 acres would be disturbed during
construction. Construction activities related to the AWT Facility are expected to occur over 18
months, plus three months for testing and start-up.

2.8.1.12AWT Facility Operation


Regional Treatment Plant secondary effluent that would include a treated mixture of the source
waters would be drawn from a new diversion structure on an existing main pipeline. Pumping
facilities would be controlled remotely through the AWT SCADA system. The AWT Facility
would operate at an overall water recovery rate of 81 percent.26 Waste residuals would include
backwash from the biological filtration system (if included), backwash and cleaning wastes from
the membrane filtration treatment system and concentrate and cleaning wastes from the reverse
osmosis system. Cleaning wastes from each system would be neutralized and returned to the
head of the Regional Treatment Plant, along with backwash waste residuals from the
membrane treatment system. Reverse osmosis concentrate would be discharged through a new
brine mixing structure to the existing Regional Treatment Plant ocean outfall. The AWT Facility
would target an annual production rate of up to 3,700 AFY, requiring an average annual reverse
osmosis feed supply of 4,568 AFY and producing waste residuals (reverse osmosis
concentrate) of 868 AFY.

2.8.2 Overview of Salinas Valley Reclamation Plant Modifications


The existing Salinas Valley Reclamation Plant produces tertiary-treated, disinfected recycled
water for agricultural irrigation within the CSIP service area. The Salinas Valley Reclamation
Plant can only operate within the range of 5 to 29.6 mgd. When off-peak irrigation demands
fall below the minimum plant capacity, those demands are met using Salinas Valley
Groundwater. The Proposed Project includes Salinas Valley Reclamation Plant
modifications to allow tertiary treatment at lower daily production rates, facilitating increased
use of recycled water during the late fall, winter and early spring months to meet demands
as low as 0.5 mgd.
The existing Salinas Valley Reclamation Plant uses a three step chemical and filtration process
()LJXUH 6DOLQDV9DOOH\5HFODPDWLRQ3ODQW3URFHVV)ORZ'LDJUDP). Secondary treated
effluent from the Regional Treatment Plant is pumped to a flocculation basin where an alum
polymer is introduced to bind together any remaining dissolved organic matter. This creates tiny
clumps called floc. In the second step, the floc is removed in the tertiary filters. Treated water
filters through a 6-foot bed of anthracite coal, sand and gravel in which the floc is trapped. After
filtration, the water flows to the third step for disinfection in the chlorine contact basins.
Disinfection destroys pathogens by maintaining a specific chlorine level in the water for at least
one and one half hours. The final product is clear, odorless and safe to use for irrigation of food

26

This recovery rate does not include the filter backwash flows routed through the Regional Treatment
Plant, as these flows would be recycled through the plant and return as source water, thus not decreasing
the system recovery.

Pure Water Monterey GWR Project


Consolidated Final EIR

2-66

October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Chapter 2 Project Description

crops. The recycled water is temporarily held in an 80 acre-foot storage pond before it is
distributed to growers via the CSIP pipelines27.
The Salinas Valley Reclamation Plant has a design capacity from 8 mgd to 29.6 mgd. Through
operational efficiencies, the plant managers can meet irrigation demands as low as 5 mgd,
which is still not small enough for winter and wet-year demands. These small irrigation demands
are currently met using Salinas Valley groundwater. Under the Proposed Project, the Salinas
Valley Reclamation Plant would be enhanced to enable the plant to produce more continuous
flows in the winter when demand by the CSIP growers decreases to as low as 0.5 mgd.
Proposed improvements would include new sluice gates, a new pipeline between the existing
inlet and outlet structures within the storage pond, chlorination basin upgrades, and a new
storage pond platform. Instead of holding recycled water in the 80 acre-foot pond, one of the
chlorine contact basins would be used as a wet-season storage reservoir, while the second
basin would continue to function as the disinfection step. All of the modifications would occur
within the existing Salinas Valley Reclamation Plant footprint. This component is expected to
facilitate the delivery of up to 1,283 AFY of additional recycled water to the CSIP area.

2.8.2.1 Construction
Modification of the existing Salinas Valley Reclamation Plant would primarily occur within the
existing 16-acre plant site. Installation of motorized sluice gates in the chlorine contact basins,
installation of a motorized sluice gate and platform at the entrance of the storage pond,
installation of a pipeline between the entrance and exit structures within the storage pond, and
motorizing the existing sluice gate at the exit of the storage pond all would be within the existing
Salinas Valley Reclamation Plant. Construction activities would include cutting, laying, and
welding pipelines and pipe connections; pouring concrete footings for foundations, and other
support equipment; installing piping, sluice gates and electrical equipment; testing and
commissioning facilities; and finish work such as repairing the existing storage pond lining.
Construction equipment would include excavators, backhoes, concrete trucks, flatbed trucks,
boom trucks and/or cranes, forklifts, welding equipment, dump trucks, air compressors,
temporary tanks and generators. Construction activities related to the Salinas Valley
Reclamation Plant Modifications are expected to occur over 12 months. Any work requiring a full
system shut-down would occur during the winter months when irrigation demands for recycled
water are lowest.

2.8.2.2 Salinas Valley Reclamation Plant Facility Operation and Maintenance


Operation of the modified facility would be similar to the current operational method. During the
peak irrigation season, the plant would operate at full capacity with both chlorine contact basins
used for disinfection and the 80 acre-foot pond used for tertiary-treated product water storage.
During the off-peak, low demand months, normal low flow (5 to 8 mgd) volumes of flow would
be sent to the plant, one or two coagulation/flocculation tanks would be used, between one and
three filters would be active, and only one chlorine contact tank would be used for disinfection,
while the other tank would provide product water storage. When the tertiary-treated product
water has filled the storage basin, the flow to the Salinas Valley Reclamation Plant could be

27

Salinas Valley Reclamation Plant description at:


http://www.mrwpca.org/about_facilities_water_recycling.php, accessed October 2014.

Pure Water Monterey GWR Project


Consolidated Final EIR

2-67

October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Chapter 2 Project Description

reduced or stopped until additional water is needed. This production would reduce the amount
of secondary-treated wastewater discharged to the ocean outfall.
Operation of the system year-round would increase the time required for system maintenance,
because portions of the treatment train would remain in operation as compared to the current
winter shut-down. These operations occur year-round within the overall MRWPCA facility, so
this increased maintenance window should not affect the overall daily level of maintenance
effort.

2.9 PRODUCT WATER CONVEYANCE FACILITIES


The Proposed Project would include construction of a new pipeline to convey the advanced
treated product water from the proposed AWT Facility to the Seaside Groundwater Basin for
injection, along one of two potential pipeline alignments. The first alignment option, referred to
herein as the RUWAP Alignment, would generally follow what is commonly known as the
RUWAP (Regional Urban Water Augmentation Project) recycled water pipeline route through
the City of Marina, California State University Monterey Bay, and the City of Seaside. The
second alignment option, referred to herein as the Coastal Alignment, would follow in parallel
with a portion of CalAms proposed new Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project desalination
product water pipeline along the eastern side of the Transportation Agency of Monterey County
(Transportation Agency) railroad tracks. See )LJXUH  3URSRVHG 3URMHFW )DFLOLWLHV
2YHUYLHZ. The southern portion of the Coastal Alignment would also be located in the former
Fort Ord within the cities of Marina and Seaside. These two options for product water pipeline
alignments are discussed in more detail below.
The northernmost component of the proposed new product water conveyance system would be
the new AWT Product Water Pump Station (hereafter, the AWT Pump Station). As noted
previously, the new AWT Pump Station is proposed to be located within the site of the proposed
AWT Facility, all of which would be constructed within the current boundary of the MRWPCAs
Regional Treatment Plant. The new AWT Pump Station would pump the AWT product water
into the product water conveyance pipeline.
Farther down the new pipeline, either of the two alignments for the conveyance pipeline system
would also require a new approximately 2,100 square foot and up to 25 feet tall Booster Pump
Station to provide adequate pressure to convey the AWT product water to the proposed new
Injection Well Facilities.
For the RUWAP Alignment, the 2,100 square-foot Booster Pump Station is proposed to be
located on the east side of 5th Avenue, just south of 3rd Street in Marina. For the Coastal
Alignment, the Booster Pump Station is proposed to be located at the southwest corner of the
intersection of Divarty Street and Second Avenue, within the City of Seaside. The exact location
for the Booster Pump Station at this intersection is yet to be determined; however, for the
purposes of environmental analysis in this EIR, the location is assumed to be immediately
adjacent to the intersection to minimize conflicts with future plans for development of that site.
Each pipeline alignment option would also require new flow control valves, isolation valves, blow
down structures for maintenance, air and vacuum release valves, and other appurtenant below
ground facilities within the pipeline conveyance alignment. The proposed Booster Pump Station
sites are shown on )LJXUH3URSRVHG3URMHFW)DFLOLWLHV2YHUYLHZ.

Pure Water Monterey GWR Project


Consolidated Final EIR

2-68

October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Chapter 2 Project Description

2.9.1 Design Criteria of Product Water Conveyance


The proposed new Product Water Conveyance system is designed to convey a total of up to
3,700 AFY of product water to the proposed new injection wells. The conveyance system design
would accommodate an average monthly flow of 3.3 mgd and a peak daily flow rate of 4.0 mgd.
The AWT Facility may operate at daily rates as low as 1.3 mgd during periods when water is
being withdrawn from the drought reserve. Several factors are expected to affect the actual
daily flow rates through the conveyance system: seasonal variations; source water supply
variations; down-time for maintenance of mechanical equipment of pumping systems and the
AWT Facility; and maintenance of the wells. Hence, it is necessary and prudent to size facilities,
particularly the conveyance pipeline, to handle these flow variations to enable the project to
meet the annual recharge target volume of 3,700 AFY in a variety of conditions. Using this
design flow criterion, the pipeline size would be 24 inches in diameter. A maximum daily flow of
4.0 mgd was used for the design criteria for the pump stations.
Other product water conveyance facility design provisions include standby pumping units for
pump stations; in-line isolation valves on the pipeline approximately every 2,000 feet, in case an
unforeseen leak occurs or subsequent construction activities result in damage to the pipeline;
compliance with pipeline separation requirement by the SWRCB Division of Drinking Water; and
remote monitoring of the Booster Pump Station performance and pipeline pressure via SCADA
system. The design of any buildings associated with the booster pumps shall consist of
Monterey/Mission style architecture to match the design of the structures that have been built on
the Santa Margarita ASR site and the Seaside Middle School ASR Site, per the City of
Seasides comments.

2.9.1.1 RUWAP Product Water Alignment


The RUWAP Alignment would follow a portion of the recycled water pipeline alignment of
Marina Coast Water Districts previously approved and partially-constructed Regional Urban
Water Augmentation Program Recycled Water Project. The proposed new product water
conveyance pipeline would be located primarily along paved roadway rights-of-way within urban
areas. The Recycled Water Project was approved by the Marina Coast Water District in 2005;
however, only portions of the recycled water distribution system have been built and no recycled
water has been delivered to urban users. MRWPCA and the Water Management District may
pursue a shared easement to accommodate both pipelines in some portions of the alignment
(i.e., leaving space for completion of the planned separate RUWAP pipeline). It is also possible
that in the future these agencies may decide to jointly use a single pipeline for both the Product
Water Conveyance and the RUWAP Recycled Water Project agreements and permits to use a
portion or portions of the pipeline originally proposed and/or constructed for the Recycled Water
Project by Marina Coast Water District (i.e., converting the purpose of the pipeline for use by
both the Proposed Project to convey advanced-treated Product Water from the AWT Facility to
the Injection Well Facilities as well as to convey water to MCWD pursuant to the 2009 RUWAP
MOU) or they may pursue a shared easement to accommodate both pipelines in some portions
of the alignment. However, joint use of a shared pipeline is beyond the scope of the Proposed
Project. MCWD has stated that it appreciates MRWPCA's inclusion of the Project Water
Conveyance RUWAP Alignment Option in the Draft EIR and remains willing to discuss potential
mutually beneficial options for use of the RUWAP facilities and/or alignment by the Proposed
Project. That said, MCWD notes that such options must ensure that MCWD can meet its
contractual obligations to provide water supplies to the Ord Community.

Pure Water Monterey GWR Project


Consolidated Final EIR

2-69

October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Chapter 2 Project Description

If the RUWAP Alignment is selected, the new product water conveyance pipeline would begin at
the AWT Facility and run southeast along its western boundary and then depart the Regional
Treatment Plant site in a southeasterly direction before turning southwest across the open
country of the Armstrong Ranch and then entering the City of Marina street system. The
alignment would follow Crescent Avenue south for about 4,000 feet, and then through several
other streets, including California Avenue and 5th Avenue, until eventually intersecting General
Jim Moore Boulevard (General Jim Moore). The pipeline route would be in the northbound lanes
of General Jim Moore approximately 2 miles, past the developed, military housing area (called
Fitch Park), through the open land around a water reservoir used by the nearby golf courses,
connecting to Eucalyptus Road, then southerly to the Injection Well Facilities area. The portion
of conveyance system from Normandy Drive south is common to both the Coastal and RUWAP
Alignments. These alignments are shown on )LJXUH  3URSRVHG 3URMHFW )DFLOLWLHV
2YHUYLHZ.
Construction drawings prepared by Carollo Engineers, (90% design, dated December 2006)
show the details of this RUWAP alignment up to Normandy Road. Portions of the pipeline within
this alignment have been constructed by Marina Coast Water District, which reported that a
segment in General Jim Moore from Normandy Road south to a point just north of Eucalyptus
Road/Coe Avenue was constructed using 20-inch diameter pipe, and the pipeline continues
south in General Jim Moore using 16-inch diameter pipe all the way to South Boundary Road.
If the RUWAP Alignment for the GWR product water conveyance pipeline is selected, the
pipeline may be constructed by Marina Coast Water District in accordance with the currently
designed RUWAP or MRWPCA may construct a separate pipeline parallel to the currently
designed pipeline. )LJXUH  3URGXFW :DWHU &RQYH\DQFH 2SWLRQV QHDU 5HJLRQDO
7UHDWPHQW 3ODQW shows the location of the AWT Pump Station and the beginning portions of
both product water alignment options.

2.9.1.2 Coastal Product Water Alignment


The Coastal Alignment would follow a portion of CalAms proposed new Monterey Peninsula
Water Supply Project desalination product water conveyance pipeline alignment that is currently
the subject of CalAms CPUC Application A.12-04-019.
If the Coastal Alignment is selected, the GWR product conveyance pipeline would depart from
the Regional Treatment Plant site and run along its western boundary northerly to the Marina
interceptor right of way.28 From there, it would turn southwesterly along the Marina interceptor
right of way to Del Monte Boulevard. The pipeline would turn south on Del Monte Boulevard and
be located within land owned by the Transportation Agency for Monterey County
(Transportation Agency) adjacent to the roadway. If the Coastal Alignment is selected, SWRCB
Division of Drinking Water would require that MRWPCA and CalAm provide adequate
separation between the existing MRWPCA wastewater interceptor in this area, the new GWR
product water pipeline and CalAms Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project desalination
product water pipeline.

28

Use of the MRWPCA easement for the land portion of the ocean outfall alignment was also considered
as an option for a portion of the Coastal Alignment of the product water pipeline between the Regional
Treatment Plant and Del Monte Boulevard and is discussed and analyzed as a component alternative in
Chapter 7, Alternatives to the Proposed Project.

Pure Water Monterey GWR Project


Consolidated Final EIR

2-70

October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Chapter 2 Project Description

The Coastal Alignment would continue south, under the Highway 1 overpass, past MRWPCAs
Fort Ord Pump Station. The Fort Ord gravity interceptor is farther away from the proposed
alignments of both CalAms Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project desalination product
water pipeline and the GWR product water pipeline than the separation distance required by
SWRCB Division of Drinking Water. Hence, pipeline separation distance is not a concern in this
area. The pipeline would continue south in the Transportation Agencys land to the Seaside city
limit. From this point, the Coastal Alignment would cease to parallel CalAms Monterey
Peninsula Water Supply Project proposed desalination product pipeline alignment. For more
information about CalAms desalination product pipeline, see the relevant California Public
Utilities Commission website at: www.cpuc.ca.gov/Environment/info/esa/mpwsp/index.html.
The GWR Project Coastal Alignment would cross under Highway One at the Divarty Street
underpass. The pipeline would follow Divarty Street to Second Avenue, where the new Booster
Pump Station would be located. This portion of the alignment and the Booster Pump Station site
were recommended by the City of Seaside, Fort Ord Reuse Authority, and Marina Coast Water
District representatives at a meeting on 13 November 2013. )LJXUH  3URSRVHG%RRVWHU
3XPS 6WDWLRQ 2SWLRQV shows the proposed location of, and conceptual site plan for, the
Booster Pump Station for the Coastal Alignment.
From the proposed Booster Pump Station site, the pipeline would turn south and follow on the
west side of Second Avenue to Lightfighter Drive within CSUMB property. At the intersection of
Second Avenue and Lightfighter Drive the pipeline would be constructed under Lightfighter
Drive by either directional drilling or bore and jack techniques to avoid disruption to this main
thoroughfare. From this intersection the alignment would turn eastward and would be
constructed on the south side of the Lightfighter Drive roadway, but off the pavement, up to the
intersection with General Jim Moore. The pipeline would follow the southbound ramp from
Lightfighter Drive onto General Jim Moore where it would merge to the same alignment as the
RUWAP alignment. )LJXUH3URSRVHG3URMHFW)DFLOLWLHV2YHUYLHZ shows the remainder
of the proposed Product Water Pipeline alignment in General Jim Moore to a cut-off route
through open space to the Injection Well Facilities site. This portion is coincident with the
RUWAP Alignment option.

Booster Pump Station


The proposed new Booster Pump Station would receive flow from the first leg of the Product
Water Conveyance Pipeline. The product water would flow under pressure to the pump(s) in the
Booster Pump Station. The pipeline supplying the Booster Pump Station would have residual
pressure (about 5 to 10 psi) available to prime the booster pumps. The Booster Pump Station
would pump the product water into one of the two proposed alternative alignments that merge to
a single alignment along General Jim Moore.
Because of noise considerations, the pump motors and discharge piping would be housed in a
split-faced block, or similar building measuring approximately 30 feet by 70 feet and up to 25
feet tall with architectural treatment consistent with nearby facilities subject to approval by the
City of Seaside and California State University Monterey Bay. In addition to the pumps and
motors, the building would include electrical power equipment and HVAC, instrumentation and
control equipment. Maintenance access would be provided to and around the building. Electrical
supply transformer and a pressurized surge tank for the pump system would be located outside
the pump station building. )LJXUH  3URSRVHG %RRVWHU 3XPS 6WDWLRQ 2SWLRQV presents
conceptual site plans for the Booster Pump Station for both the RUWAP and Coastal
Alignments.

Pure Water Monterey GWR Project


Consolidated Final EIR

2-71

October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Chapter 2 Project Description

2.9.2 Construction of Product Water Conveyance


2.9.2.1 Pipeline Construction
To implement the Proposed Project, workers would install approximately 10 miles of Product
Water pipelines primarily within existing roads and infrastructure easements. Pipeline
installation would generally progress by 250 feet per day within or along roadways. For some
pipelines in open (undeveloped) areas, work could progress at up to 400 feet per day. Progress
at intersections or major utility crossings may be slower. Most pipeline segments would be
installed using conventional open-trench technology; however, where it is not feasible or
desirable to perform open-cut trenching, trenchless methods would be used.
Typical construction equipment for pipeline installation would include flatbed trucks, backhoes,
excavators, pipe cutting and welding equipment, haul trucks for spoils transport, trucks for
materials delivery, compaction equipment, Baker tanks, pickup trucks, arch welding machines,
generators, air compressors, cranes, drill rigs, and skip loaders. Pipeline segments would
typically be delivered and installed in 6- to 40-foot-long sections. Soil removed from trenches
and pits would be stockpiled and reused, to the extent feasible, or hauled away for offsite
disposal. Expected soil haulage quantities are provided in 7DEOH  3URSRVHG 3URMHFW
&RQVWUXFWLRQ$VVXPSWLRQV
Under typical circumstances, the width of the disturbance corridor for pipeline construction
would vary from 50 to 100 feet, depending on the size of the pipe being installed. Trenchless
technologies could require wider corridors at entry and exit pits. Pipeline installation would be
ongoing throughout the entire 18-month construction period for the Proposed Project, with
multiple pipe segments being installed simultaneously. Pipeline installation would be sequenced
to minimize land use disturbance and disruption to the extent possible.

Open-Trench Construction
For pipeline segments to be installed using open-trench methods, the construction sequence
would typically include clearing and grading the ground surface along the pipeline alignments;
excavating the trench; preparing and installing pipeline sections; installing vaults, manhole
risers, manifolds, and other pipeline components; backfilling the trench with non-expansive fills;
restoring preconstruction contours; and revegetating or paving the pipeline alignments, as
appropriate. A conventional backhoe, excavator, or other mechanized equipment would be used
to excavate trenches. The typical trench width would be 6 feet; however, vaults, manhole risers,
and other pipeline components could require wider excavations. In addition, much of the project
construction area is underlain by sandy soils that may require a laid-back trench cross-section
due to considerations such as duration of construction, efficiency, and safety. In these cases,
trench widths may be up to 12 feet wide. Work crews would install trench boxes or shoring or
would lay back and bench the slopes to stabilize the pipeline trenches and prevent the walls
from collapsing during construction. After excavating the trenches, the contractor would line the
trench with pipe bedding (sand or other appropriate material shaped to support the pipeline).
Construction workers would then place pipe sections (and pipeline components, where
applicable) into the trench, connect the sections together by welding or other applicable joining
methods as trenching proceeds, and then backfill the trench. Most pipeline segments would
have 4 to 5 feet of cover. Open-trench construction would generally proceed at a rate of about
150 to 250 feet per day. Steel plates would be placed over trenches to maintain access to
private driveways or public recreation areas. Some pipeline installation would require
construction in existing roadways and could result in temporary lane closures or detours.

Pure Water Monterey GWR Project


Consolidated Final EIR

2-72

October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Chapter 2 Project Description

Trenchless Technologies
Where it is not feasible or desirable to perform open-cut trenching, trenchless methods such as
jack-and-bore, drill-and-burst, horizontal directional drilling, and/or microtunneling would be
employed. Pipeline segments located within heavily congested underground utility areas would
likely be installed using horizontal directional drilling or microtunneling. Jack-and-bore methods
would also be used for pipeline segments that cross beneath highways, major roadways, or
drainages.
Jack-and-Bore and Microtunneling Methods. The jack-and-bore and microtunneling methods entail
excavating an entry pit and receiving pit at either end of the pipe segment. A horizontal boring
machine or auger is used to drill a hole, and a hydraulic jack is used to push a casing through
the hole to the opposite pit. As the boring proceeds, a steel casing is jacked into the hole and
pipe is installed in the casing.
Drill-and-Burst Method. The drill-and-burst method involves drilling a small pilot hole at the
desired depth through a substrate, and then pulling increasingly larger reamers multiple times
through the pilot hole until the hole reaches the desired diameter. The pipe is then installed
through the drilled hole. 
Horizontal Directional Drilling. Horizontal directional drilling requires the excavation of a pit on
either end of the pipe alignment. A surface-launched drilling rig is used to drill a small horizontal
boring at the desired depth between the two pits. The boring is filled with drilling fluids and
enlarged by a back reamer or hole opener to the required diameter. The pipeline is then pulled
into position through the boring. Entry and receiving pits would range in size depending on the
length of the crossing, but typically would have dimensions of approximately 50 by 50 feet.

2.9.2.2 Pump Station Construction


Two pump stations would be constructed: the AWT Product Water Pump Station and the
Booster Pump Station (the latter would be located in one of two potential locations based upon
the Product Water Conveyance alignment selected, either Coastal or RUWAP). Construction
crews would prepare the pump station sites by removing vegetation and grading the sites to
create a level work area. Construction activities would include excavations for wet wells,
installing shoring and forms, pouring concrete footing for foundations; assembling and installing
piping, pumps, and electrical equipment; constructing concrete enclosures and roofs; and finish
work such as paving, landscaping, and fencing the perimeter of the pump station sites.
Construction access would be provided via existing access roads and roadways.
The AWT Product Water Pump Station would be constructed on a new concrete pad adjacent to
the new product water stabilization facilities at the Regional Treatment Plant. It is assumed that
the entire 3.5-acre AWT Facility site could be disturbed during project construction activities.
Construction of either Booster Pump Station would result in approximately 2,400 square feet of
temporary disturbance and permanent facility (including driveways and fenced areas).

2.9.3 Operation and Maintenance


It is assumed that the proposed pump stations and pipelines could operate continuously for up
to 24 hours a day. Although pump stations would typically be operated remotely via SCADA,
facility operators would conduct routine visits to the pump station sites approximately once daily
to monitor operations, conduct general maintenance activities, and service the pumps.

Pure Water Monterey GWR Project


Consolidated Final EIR

2-73

October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Chapter 2 Project Description

General operations and maintenance activities associated with pipelines would include annual
inspections of the cathodic protection system and replacement of sacrificial anodes when
necessary; inspection of valve vaults for leakage; testing, exercising and servicing of valves;
vegetation maintenance along rights-of-way; and repairs of minor leaks in buried pipeline joints
or segments. Above-grade surge tanks would require periodic inspection (once every five years)
and recoating (once every twenty years).

2.10 INJECTION WELL FACILITIES


Under the Proposed Project, product water would be injected into the Seaside Groundwater
Basin using new injection wells. The proposed new Injection Well Facilities would be located
east of General Jim Moore Boulevard, south of Eucalyptus Road in the City of Seaside,
including a total of eight injection wells (four deep injection wells, four vadose zone wells), six
monitoring wells, and back-flush facilities. Space would be included within the Injection Well
Facilities area to accommodate the future construction of replacement injection wells which
would be built only if the adjacent deep injection well fails, which typically would occur after the
wells estimated 20 to 30 year life. The proposed site plan for the new injection wells and backflush facilities are shown in )LJXUH UHY ,QMHFWLRQ:HOO 6LWH 3ODQ. As shown on Figure 232rev, the injection wells, backflush facilities, and connecting driveway with pipelines and
electrical conduits below it, would be located within a 150-foot wide corridor along the City of
Seasides eastern border. This area is also referred to as the Borderland development area
adjacent to the Natural Resources Management Area owned by the U.S. Bureau of Land
Management in the Fort Ord Habitat Management Plan (USACOE, Sacramento District,
1997).The proposed new deep injection wells are numbered DIW-1 through DIW-4 and the
proposed new vadose zone wells are numbered VZW-1 through VZW-4, going from north to
south, in the order of anticipated sequence for construction of the wells. DIW-1 and VZW-1
would be built in close proximity to each other to share electrical, motor control, pumps, and site
building pad infrastructure. Similarly, DIW-2 and VZW-2, would be constructed in close proximity
to one another, as would each successive pair of wells. Each site is referred to as a well cluster.
Each well cluster would include concrete pads at each well head, approximately 10-ft by 10-ft, a
back-flushing pump and motors for the deep well, above and below grade injection and backflush wash pipelines, valves and flow meters, and a small building (approximately 16-ft by 24-ft)
to hold the electrical and control equipment in a fenced area measuring up to 7,000 square feet.
Suitable paint colors, materials, and screening landscape around each fenced enclosure would
be provided subject to approval of the City of Seaside. )LJXUH  ,QMHFWLRQ :HOO &URVV
6HFWLRQ shows a cross-section of the proposed injection wells in relation to the groundwater
basins and other facilities. )LJXUH  &RQFHSWXDO ,QMHFWLRQ 6FKHPDWLF shows the
relationship between the proposed and existing facilities, underground water flow paths, and the
groundwater basin. )LJXUH  &RQFHSWXDO 6LWH 3ODQ DQG 6FKHPDWLF RI 7\SLFDO :HOO
&OXVWHUis an example of the details of one of the four proposed well clusters.

2.10.1 Design of Injection Well Facilities


2.10.1.1Injection Wells
Wells within the same target aquifer are proposed to be spaced from 800 to 1,000 feet apart to
minimize well interference. Separate turnouts with isolation valves would be provided to each
individual well site from the product water conveyance pipeline. Proceeding southwesterly, the

Pure Water Monterey GWR Project


Consolidated Final EIR

2-74

October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Chapter 2 Project Description

pipeline would step down in size after the third well. Each deep injection well would have an
isolation valve, flow meter and an air release shutoff valve at the well head to prevent air from
entering the well during injection operations.
Four deep injection wells and four vadose zone wells are proposed so that the product water
could readily be allocated among the two well types and aquifers. With water levels below sea
level in both the Paso Robles Aquifer, the uppermost aquifer that is unconfined, and the Santa
Margarita Aquifer, the deeper confined aquifer, it has been determined by the Watermaster that
recharge into both aquifers would be beneficial for protection against seawater intrusion and for
water supply. However, most of the basin production is from the Santa Margarita aquifer where
water levels are below sea level throughout the northern coastal subarea and more than 40 to
60 feet below sea level down-gradient and adjacent to the Injection Well Facilities site (see
)LJXUH  UHY 6HDVLGH *URXQGZDWHU %DVLQ *URXQGZDWHU /HYHOV  Groundwater modeling
was performed to identify the optimal allocation of recharge to the two aquifers to minimize both:
(1) water outflow from the basin, and (2) changes in storage in the basin (Hydrometrics WRI,
2013).
Based on the modeling performed for the Proposed Project, the Santa Margarita aquifer is
targeted to receive 90% of the product water from the Project and the Paso Robles aquifer is
targeted to receive 10% of the product water. Injection to the Paso Robles aquifer would be
through vadose zone wells (relatively shallow and less expensive to construct and operate than
deep injection wells). This project configuration would provide maximum flexibility for well
operation and for managing short-term production benefits with the benefits of long-term
storage.
Deep injection well design capacity (or maximum volumetric flowrate of water that can be
injected in the well for a short period) is conservatively estimated at 1,000 gpm, based on
nearby Aquifer Storage and Recovery wells operated by Water Management District (see
)LJXUH  $TXLIHU 6WRUDJH DQG 5HFRYHU\ 3URMHFW /RFDWLRQ 0DS for location of Aquifer
Storage and Recovery wells). Using an additional conservative factor of 80% capacity to
account for occasional time offline for maintenance (including well back-flushing), four wells
would have an operational injection capacity of about 3,200 gpm of water. A preliminary design
for the deep injection wells is shown on )LJXUH 'HHS,QMHFWLRQ:HOO3UHOLPLQDU\'HVLJQ
this design is based on the design and functional capability of the nearby Santa Margarita
Aquifer Storage and Recovery wells.
Vadose zone well capacity is less certain, but a preliminary analysis by Todd Groundwater
indicates that 500 gpm would be a reasonable estimate of capacity (Todd Groundwater, 2015).
Using this estimated rate, a total of four vadose zone wells would provide an additional capacity
of about 2,000 gpm. A conceptual vadose well diagram is shown on )LJXUH9DGRVH=RQH
:HOO 3UHOLPLQDU\ 'HVLJQ The design is based, in part, on details provided by the City of
Scottsdale, Arizona, where several hundred similar vadose zone wells have been successfully
operated for many years.
Collectively, the four shallow and four deep injection wells represent a maximum injection
capacity of about 6,000 gpm. This capacity is well above the Proposed Project design flows of
3,700 AFY (with an anticipated maximum daily flow rate of 2,780 gpm with no downtime), and
thus would allow for backup of pumping capacity if one or more wells are not functioning, well
maintenance, and other operational benefits. In addition, GWR product water could readily be

Pure Water Monterey GWR Project


Consolidated Final EIR

2-75

October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Chapter 2 Project Description

re-allocated among the two well types and aquifers as basin conditions change in the future and
to ensure compliance with SWRCB Division of Drinking Water requirements (i.e., response
retention time).29 In addition, if there are future changes in the daily flow rates, sufficient number
and total capacities of wells would be available to accommodate peak flows. Wells may be
installed in a phased approach (from north to south) as actual well capacity and required peak
flow rates are more clearly defined. This EIR assumes all eight injection wells would be built.
The design of the buildings associated with the Injection Well Sites would consist of
Monterey/Mission style architecture to match the design of the structures that have been built on
the Santa Margarita ASR site and the Seaside Middle School ASR Site, as requested by the
City of Seaside.

2.10.1.2Back-flush Facilities
Over time, injection well capacity can decrease because of several factors, including air
entrainment, filtration of suspended or organic material, bacterial growth, and other factors. To
regain lost capacity, the deep injection wells are planned to be pumped periodically, a process
referred to as back-flushing. For back-flushing, wells are usually pumped at an extraction rate
that is twice the injection rate. Each deep injection well would be equipped with a well pump to
back-flush the well. The back-flushing rate would be approximately 2,000 gallons per minute
(gpm) and would require a well pump and motor. Pump speed would be variable by inclusion of
a variable frequency drive, so that back-flushing can be ramped up (manually or with an
automated program) from initial lower flow to full flow. The shallow vadose zone wells would not
be equipped with back-flushing pumps as the bottom of those wells would be over one hundred
feet above the aquifer.
Based on the experience of the Water Management District in the operation of its nearby
Aquifer Storage and Recovery wells, back-flushing of each deep injection well would occur
about weekly and would require discharge of the back-flush water to a percolation basin (basin),
with a storage capacity of about 240,000 gallons. Water percolated through the basin would
recharge the Paso Robles aquifer. )LJXUH  UHY ,QMHFWLRQ :HOO 6LWH 3ODQ shows the
proposed basin in the middle of the injection well facilities site. The operational size of the basin
would be approximately 50-feet wide by 180-feet long by 3-feet of water depth. The overall
basin depth would be five feet (three feet water depth plus two feet free board). The
embankment of the basin would have 3:1 side slopes and 12-foot wide perimeter access road.
The basin would be located in an area between the middle two injection well clusters.
Each well would have a flow meter to monitor the amount of water applied for recharge. A
separate pipeline would measure rate of flow and convey the back-flushed water to the Basin.
Each deep injection well would have a back-flush pump and motor. The estimated motor size for
each pump is approximately 400 hp. Electrical cabinets would be located at each well for
electrical supply, monitoring and supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) connections.

2.10.1.3 Monitoring Wells


Monitoring wells would be used to monitor project performance and compliance with State
Board Division of Drinking Water regulations. Because the Proposed Project would recharge
29

This concept is defined in more detail in &KDSWHU  :DWHU 4XDOLW\ 3HUPLWWLQJ DQG 5HJXODWRU\
2YHUYLHZ

Pure Water Monterey GWR Project


Consolidated Final EIR

2-76

October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Chapter 2 Project Description

two separate aquifers (Paso Robles and Santa Margarita aquifers), monitoring wells would be
installed in both. The monitoring wells would also be used to satisfy regulatory requirements for
monitoring of subsurface travel time, tracer testing, and other requirements for a groundwater
replenishment project. The City of Seaside has indicated that its approval of the proposed
Injection Well Facilities monitoring wells and roadway/pipeline alignments would be conditioned
to require that the project owner relocate any monitoring well within the interior lands of the
Injection Well Facilities site that would create a substantial interference with future development
opportunities in the City of Seaside. Based on current State Board regulations, a minimum of
four monitoring wells would be required: two for each of the two aquifers. One set of monitoring
wells would be located approximately 100 feet from the injection wells between the injection
wells and the nearest down-gradient water supply wells. The second set of monitoring wells
would be located between the project wells and the nearest down-gradient water supply wells.
)LJXUH UHY ,QMHFWLRQ :HOO 6LWH 3ODQ shows the approximate location of the monitoring
wells whose locations are subject to discretionary approval by the City of Seaside and the State
Water Resources Control Board and Regional Water Quality Control Board.

2.10.1.4Electrical Power Supply and Instrumentation for Injection Wells


Injection wells would require a new permanent power supply to the site, including electrical
equipment, electrical control buildings for back-flush pumps, external electrical control cabinets
at the well clusters, wiring and connections of electrical power and instrumentation and control
facilities. Power supply capability by the utility company, PG&E, must be confirmed prior to final
design of the electrical power supply facilities. There are high-voltage (21 kV) overhead power
lines in close proximity to the Injection Well Facilities Site; therefore, it is likely that the PG&E
power at 4.16 kV would be brought to each cluster site from offsite overhead power poles.
However, the locations for connections and conveyance are unknown at this time. From this
location, the power line would likely be in a buried conduit, encased in concrete, routed to the
locations of the power demand, namely near the motor control and electrical building at each of
the four well sites (discussed in 6HFWLRQ  above) The proposed electrical control
buildings would each house the SCADA and electrical controls and pump drive and adjacent to
each building would be a transformer (approximately 400 to 450 kVA), located such that it would
step down the line voltage from 4.16 kV to 3-phase, 60 Hz, 480-volt power for the well pumps.
Further step down from 480-volt to 220 and 120 volt would be required for power supply to
instrumentation and SCADA equipment, site lighting, building lighting and ventilation and other
small, miscellaneous needs. In addition to incidental power requirements (instrumentation and
monitoring equipment, site lighting, isolation valve motor operators, etc.), major power supply
would be required to drive only one back-flush pump motor at a time.
Step-down transformers would be outdoor type units located near the electrical buildings.
Adequate clearance would be provided around the transformer to meet electrical code
requirements.
An electrical building would house the motor control center and variable frequency drive unit at
each cluster site and would be located near the transformer. The electrical building would
measure approximately 400 square feet and would be up to 15 feet tall. The material of
construction would be brick-faced concrete block with architectural treatment of the buildings
subject to review and approval by the City of Seaside.

Pure Water Monterey GWR Project


Consolidated Final EIR

2-77

October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Chapter 2 Project Description

2.10.2 Construction
2.10.2.1Well Construction
Installation of any of the wells (deep injection, vadose zone and monitoring wells) typically
follows a three-step process: drilling and logging, installation, and testing and equipping. This
section describes these three processes.

Drilling and Logging


The deep injection well would be drilled with rotary drilling methods. The method would be
customized to minimize borehole impacts from drilling fluids and may incorporate air rotary
methods or specialized drilling fluids (such as polymers). Cuttings from the borehole would be
logged by a California Certified Hydrogeologist. Open-hole geophysical logging would also be
conducted.
It is anticipated that one of the deeper, Santa Margarita monitoring wells would be installed prior
to the installation of the first deep injection well. This would provide site-specific information and
inform details of injection well design. The well would also provide a critical monitoring point
during injection well testing. The direct rotary drilling method would likely be used for the
monitoring wells.

Installation
The deep injection well design would be based on the Aquifer Storage and Recovery wellfield
design and would incorporate 18-inch to 20-inch diameter production casing and a wire-wrap
stainless steel screen. Based on downhole velocity logs completed following construction of the
downgradient Aquifer Storage and Recovery project wells and the first GWR monitoring well
north of the proposed Injection Well Facilities, the lower 200 feet of the aquifer has been found
to be the most productive section of the Santa Margarita and would be targeted for the injection
zone screen. Screen selection and filter pack design would be developed using both cuttings
from the adjacent monitoring well (to be drilled as part of the Proposed Project) in addition to
data collected from nearby Aquifer Storage and Recovery wells. Mechanical and pumping
techniques would be used to develop the well after installation.

Testing and Equipping


Both constant discharge and constant injection testing would be completed in the injection well
following well drilling. Test details have not yet been developed but an 8-hour test for each test
is assumed. Constant rate tests would be preceded by step tests, as appropriate, to identify
preferred rates for each test. Flowmeter surveys would be conducted following pumping and
injection testing to identify water movement within the wellbore. Depending on the objectives of
the test, both static and dynamic flow testing may be recommended.
At the end of the constant rate discharge test, a water quality sample would be collected to
confirm local groundwater quality. Constituents targeted for analysis would be based on
compliance with the Drinking Water regulations and Engineering Report as well as ambient
groundwater quality in the Santa Margarita aquifer in the area. The Aquifer Storage and
Recovery wells had some power constraints from PG&E and incorporated a 400-horsepower,
variable speed pump. For planning and cost purposes, a similar pump is envisioned for each
proposed deep injection well.

Pure Water Monterey GWR Project


Consolidated Final EIR

2-78

October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Chapter 2 Project Description

2.10.2.2Back-flush Pipeline Facilities Construction


As described above, the back-flush facilities at each injection well site would include a flow
meter, a back-flush pump and 400-hp motor, and an electrical cabinet, monitoring and SCADA.
A main electrical power supply/transformer and motor control building would be built for PG&E
power supply. In addition to incidental power requirements (instrumentation and monitoring
equipment, site lighting, etc.), major power supply would be required to drive only one injection
pump motor at a time. To construct the back-flush pipeline and basin, the contractor would
excavate pipe trenches, retain the spoilage on site, import and install bedding material, and lay
pipe, backfill & compact trench.
Estimated construction time for this component is approximately 4 months. The temporary
construction area along the alignment of the 14-inch diameter back-flush water pipeline would
be approximately 25 to 50 feet wide, for its approximate 3,000-foot length. Hence, the ground
surface disturbance area would be between 1.75 and 3.5 acres. The construction area width is
to provide space for a backhoe, trucks for hauling excess soil material and imported bedding
material. The depth of the pipeline trench would be approximately five feet to allow for bedding
of the pipe and about three to four feet of cover material.

2.10.2.3Pump Motor Control/Electrical Conveyance Construction


A main electrical power supply/transformer and motor control building would be built at each
injection well facility site for PG&E power supply. In addition to incidental power requirements
(instrumentation and monitoring equipment, site lighting, etc.), major power supply would be
required to drive only one injection pump motor at a time. The following activities would be
required to construct the pump motor control and electrical conveyance facilities:

excavation, spoilage handling, import and install bedding material, building


foundation, trench, place concrete, backfill & compact trench, finish concrete floor of
electrical building;
install exterior electrical control cabinets on the paved area at the four clusters of
vadose and deep injection wells; and
for electrical buildings, construct block walls, doors, louvers, roof and appurtenances,
then interior finishes, lighting and HVAC; and electrical equipment and wiring.

The estimated construction period for these facilities is approximately 6 months. The temporary
construction area would be approximately 25 to 50 feet wide within the alignment of the 14-inch
diameter back-flush water pipeline, which is approximately 3,000 feet long.). There would be no
additional surface disturbance for construction of electrical conduits beyond that for the 14-inch
back-flush water pipeline, described in the previous section. Construction activities would
include a buried electrical power conduit and instrumentation conduits, all of which would be
underground and encased in a concrete ductbank, which would run in parallel and near the 14inch back-flush pipeline. The depth of the ductbank trench would be approximately 4.5 to 5 feet
to allow for about 3 feet of cover material. The electrical control building that would house the
electrical and instrumentation (SCADA) transmission equipment would be approximately 16 feet
by 24 feet. Its foundation construction would be slab-on-grade; hence, excavation would be only
about 3 feet deep. The construction surface area would be about 600 square feet.

Pure Water Monterey GWR Project


Consolidated Final EIR

2-79

October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Chapter 2 Project Description

2.10.3 Operation and Maintenance


Injection wells and associated electrical and mechanical systems would operate 24 hour per
day, 7 days per week throughout the year, although it is unlikely that all eight wells would be
actively injecting at the same time for any length of time. Operations and maintenance staff
would visit the Injection Well Facilities site most likely once daily Monday through Friday nearly
every week. In addition to operation and maintenance of the wells, the workers would inspect
above ground valves and appurtenances to assure they are properly functioning and to conduct
and monitor the back-flush operations.
For the purposes of evaluating the injection impacts on groundwater basin, MRWPCA has
evaluated the availability and amounts of source waters, capacity of the AWT Facility, minimum
delivery targets, and operational guidelines in order to develop potential delivery schedules for
recharge to the Seaside Basin. Based on this analysis, there are eight potential delivery
schedules that could occur, based on two water management decision points made in each
year of GWR operation. These eight delivery schedules were presented in 7DEOH3URSRVHG
3URMHFW 0RQWKO\ )ORZV IRU 9DULRXV )ORZ 6FHQDULRV The two management decisions that
determine appropriate deliveries to the Seaside Basin are described below.
The first management decision would be made by October 1, the beginning of the water year,30
and would dictate which of two delivery schedules is followed during October through March of
that water year. The decision would be based on whether or not the drought reserve account is
full. If the account is full (1,000 AF), the project would deliver monthly amounts from October
through March based on average annual deliveries (highlighted in purple on 7DEOH ,
3URSRVHG 3URMHFW 0RQWKO\ )ORZV IRU 9DULRXV )ORZ 6FHQDULRV; for example, see October
through March deliveries for Schedule 2 and Schedule 8). If the account balance is 800 AF of or
less on October 1, then an additional 200 AF would be delivered from October through March
(highlighted on 7DEOH3URSRVHG3URMHFW0RQWKO\)ORZVIRU9DULRXV)ORZ6FHQDULRV in
blue; for example, see October through March delivery schedules 1, and 3 through 7). For wet
or normal years, these two recharge schedules would produce a total of 3,700 AFY (Schedule
1) or a total of 3,500 AFY (Schedule 2) (7DEOH  3URSRVHG 3URMHFW 0RQWKO\ )ORZV IRU
9DULRXV)ORZ6FHQDULRV).
Based on the experience of the Water Management District in the operation of its nearby
Aquifer Storage and Recovery wells, back-flushing of each injection well would occur for about
four hours weekly and would require discharge of the back-flush water to the percolation basin.
The Water Management District conducts manual back-flushing and visual checks and fieldtests the back-flush water discharge to confirm adequate flushing time has been provided.
Approximately once per year, a disking machine would be used to scarify the bottom of the
pond to increase/restore the percolation rate.
Monitoring wells would be used to monitor project performance and compliance with State
Board Drinking Water Division regulations. Because the Proposed Project would recharge two
separate aquifers (Paso Robles and Santa Margarita Aquifers), monitoring wells would be
sampled to satisfy regulatory requirements for monitoring of subsurface travel time, tracer
testing, and other requirements for a groundwater replenishment project.

30

A Water Year is defined as October 1 through September 30, and is based on the annual precipitation
pattern in California. The Water Year is designated by the calendar year in which it ends.

Pure Water Monterey GWR Project


Consolidated Final EIR

2-80

October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Chapter 2 Project Description

2.11 CALAM DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM


CalAm would use existing Seaside Groundwater Basin wells, in addition to existing treatment
facilities and existing pipelines in its Monterey District Service area, to recover, treat and deliver
potable water from the Seaside Groundwater Basin to its customers; the water that CalAm
extracts would include some of the Proposed Project product water along with other
groundwater from the Basin.
In addition to using existing wells, treatment facilities, and pipelines, CalAm would need to
construct additional pipeline segments to deliver the full amount of product water to its
customers. Because the CalAm system was initially built to deliver water from Carmel Valley to
the Monterey Peninsula cities, a hydraulic trough currently exists in the CalAm peninsula
distribution system that prevents water delivery at adequate quantities from the Seaside
Groundwater Basin to most of Monterey, and all of Pacific Grove, Pebble Beach, Carmel Valley,
and the City of Carmel areas. The hydraulic trough is an area of the CalAm distribution system
with very small pipe diameters and very low elevation such that the required high flow rates of
water and high pressures needed to convey water from the north between two pressure zones
of the system cannot be achieved with the current infrastructure. This system deficiency would
need to be addressed regardless of whether the Proposed GWR Project is implemented by
itself, CalAms Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project with the full-size desalination plant is
implemented without the GWR Project, or the variant to the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply
Project that includes both a smaller desalination plant and the GWR Project is implemented.
Under all three of these scenarios, for CalAm to be able to deliver increased quantities of water
extracted from the Seaside Groundwater Basin to its customers, the company would need to
construct pipeline improvements to bridge this trough. In CalAms Monterey Peninsula Water
Supply Project, CalAm is proposing to construct two new pipelines--the Transfer and Monterey
pipelines--to bridge this trough. In addition, CalAm is proposing to construct a new Terminal
Reservoir to add storage and pressure equalization within the water supply system; however,
MRWPCA understands that the Terminal Reservoir would not be needed if the GWR Project is
implemented by itself. Therefore, the Transfer and Monterey Pipelines are the only CalAm
Distribution System components proposed to be built by CalAm and included in the analysis of
impacts of the Proposed Project.
While MRWPCA would not be approving, constructing or operating the CalAm distribution
improvements, the improvements would be needed for a stand-alone GWR Project, and
therefore they are included in the environmental evaluation of the Proposed GWR Project.
These same CalAm improvements are also included in the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply
Project as a component of that project. The proposed alignment of these pipelines is shown in
)LJXUHV  &DO$P 'LVWULEXWLRQ 6\VWHP 3LSHOLQH (DVWHUQ 7HUPLQXV, and  &DO$P
'LVWULEXWLRQ6\VWHP3LSHOLQH:HVWHUQ7HUPLQXV.31

31

Alternative routes for the Monterey and Transfer Pipelines have been submitted to the California Public
Utilities Commission by CalAm. The alternative routes are addressed in this EIR within Chapter 7,
Alternatives to the Proposed Project.

Pure Water Monterey GWR Project


Consolidated Final EIR

2-81

October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Chapter 2 Project Description

2.11.1 Transfer Pipeline


The new three-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter Transfer Pipeline would allow for flows to be
conveyed in either direction and would be used to convey potable water extracted from the
Seaside Groundwater Basin to CalAm customers by conveying the water to the Monterey
Pipeline.32 From the intersection of Del Monte Boulevard/La Salle Avenue, the proposed
Transfer Pipeline would be routed east along La Salle Avenue for approximately 0.9 mile to
Yosemite Street, turn south and continue for approximately 1 mile to Hilby Avenue, and then
continue east for approximately 0.4 mile along Hilby Avenue to General Jim Moore Blvd (see
)LJXUH&DO$P'LVWULEXWLRQ6\VWHP3LSHOLQH(DVWHUQ7HUPLQXV).

2.11.2 Monterey Pipeline


The new 5.4-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter Monterey Pipeline would allow for bi-directional flows
and would convey potable water supplies from the new Transfer Pipeline to the Monterey
Peninsula. The Monterey Pipeline would utilize the pressure (called hydraulic head) provided
by CalAm extraction operations to convey water to the Monterey Peninsula cities. The Monterey
Pipeline would connect two pressure zones in the CalAm system (one in the area of the City of
Pacific Grove and one in the area of the City of Seaside). With implementation of this pipeline,
water stored in Forest Lake Tanks could flow via gravity to the lower Carmel Valley or be
pumped to the upper Carmel Valley.
The eastern terminus of the new Monterey Pipeline would be connected to the new Transfer
Pipeline33 at the intersection of Del Monte Boulevard/La Salle Avenue. The Monterey Pipeline
would be routed southwest on the west side of Del Monte Boulevard, generally following the
Monterey Peninsula Recreational Trail and Transportation Agency right-of-way. The alignment
would pass under Highway 1, and adjacent to the Naval Postgraduate School and El Estero
Park. East of El Estero Park, the pipeline would turn south on Figueroa Street and west along
Franklin Street. At High Street, the alignment would bear north and traverse the Presidio of
Monterey by paralleling an existing CalAm pipeline in an existing CalAm easement. At the
western boundary of the Presidio of Monterey, the alignment would continue on to Spencer
Street. The alignment would then turn from Spencer Street southwest on Eardley Street and
terminate near the existing Eardley Pump Station (see )LJXUH  &DO$P 'LVWULEXWLRQ
6\VWHP3LSHOLQH:HVWHUQ7HUPLQXV).

2.11.3 Construction of CalAm Extraction / Distribution System


Construction of CalAms Transfer Pipeline and Monterey Pipeline would use similar equipment
and methods as those described in 6HFWLRQ for the Product Water Conveyance Pipeline,
and are omitted here for brevity. Pipeline installation would generally progress at a rate of 150 to
250 feet per day. The Transfer Pipeline construction is anticipated to take 6-months, and
32

If the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project is approved and implemented, the Transfer pipeline
would also be used to: convey desalinated product water from the Transfer Pipeline east to the Terminal
Reservoir for storage; convey Aquifer Storage and Recovery product water west to the Monterey Pipeline;
and convey water stored in the Terminal Reservoir west to the Monterey Pipeline.
33
In the case of the proposed Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project, the Monterey Pipeline would
also connect with the Transmission Main at this location.

Pure Water Monterey GWR Project


Consolidated Final EIR

2-82

October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Chapter 2 Project Description

construction of the Monterey Pipeline is anticipated to take 12-months. Construction of the


pipelines may be performed concurrently under one or separate contracts.

2.11.4 Operation of CalAm Extraction / Distribution System


Unlike the injection period for Aquifer Storage and Recovery supplies, which is limited to periods
of high flow between December and May in the lower stretches of the Carmel River, GWR
product water would be injected into the Seaside Groundwater Basin year-round. GWR product
water would typically be pumped from the groundwater basin during summer months and
periods of peak demand. Operation of the existing Aquifer Storage and Recovery wells and
groundwater wells for extraction and delivery of GWR Project water from the Seaside
Groundwater Basin would match the current CalAm operational practices.
It is assumed that the distribution system pump stations could operate continuously for up to 24
hours a day. Although pump stations would typically be operated remotely via SCADA, facility
operators would conduct routine visits to the pump station sites to monitor operations, conduct
general maintenance activities, and service the pumps.
General operations and maintenance activities associated with the new Transfer and Monterey
pipelines would include annual inspections of the cathodic protection system and replacement
of sacrificial anodes when necessary; inspection of valve vaults for leakage; testing, exercising
and servicing of valves; vegetation maintenance along rights-of-way; and repairs of minor leaks
in buried pipeline joints or segments.

2.12 PROPOSED PROJECT CONSTRUCTION SUMMARY


The Proposed Project construction activities would include site preparation, grading, and
excavation; pavement demolition; concrete and paving; installation of prefabricated components
(e.g., pretreatment and advanced treatment processes, storage tanks, etc.); construction of
buildings to house electrical, pump motors, and chemicals; construction of pipelines; well drilling
and development; installation of overhead and underground powerlines; and disposal of
construction waste and debris. Construction equipment and materials associated with the
various components of the Proposed Project would be staged and stored within the respective
construction work areas. Construction equipment and materials associated with pipeline
installation would be stored along the pipeline alignments and at nearby designated staging
areas. Staging areas would not be sited in sensitive areas such as riparian areas or critical
habitat for protected species. To the extent feasible, parking for construction equipment and
worker vehicles would be accommodated within the construction work areas and on adjacent
roadways.
Before construction mobilization for the source water diversion facilities, AWT Facility, pipeline
installation, and the proposed injection wells, the contractors would clear and grade construction
areas (including temporary staging areas), and remove vegetation and debris as necessary, to
provide a relatively level surface for the movement of construction equipment. Workers would
clear the construction work areas in stages as construction progresses to limit soil erosion. In
addition to grading the ground surface, the contractor might need to mow or place gravel over
staging areas for fire prevention. Upon completion of construction activities, the construction
contractor would remove any added gravel, contour the construction work areas and staging
areas to their original profile, and hydro-seed or repave the areas, as appropriate.

Pure Water Monterey GWR Project


Consolidated Final EIR

2-83

October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Chapter 2 Project Description

A preliminary construction schedule is provided in )LJXUH  3URSRVHG 3URMHFW


&RQVWUXFWLRQ6FKHGXOHto show the general timeframes, durations, and overlap of construction
activities of the various components of the Proposed Project. As shown, the Proposed Project is
anticipated to require approximately 18 months to construct, plus 3-months of testing and startup, and is planned for initial operation by late 2017. MRWPCA is currently evaluating the use of
alternative construction approaches, such as design-build, to expedite the construction
schedule. 7DEOH  &RQVWUXFWLRQ $UHD RI 'LVWXUEDQFH DQG 3HUPDQHQW )RRWSULQW
summarizes the construction areas of disturbance and permanent footprint for each of the
Proposed Project construction sites. General construction activities, equipment, and hours are
summarized in 7DEOH  3URSRVHG 3URMHFW &RQVWUXFWLRQ $VVXPSWLRQV. In the sections
following the table, the construction activities at each site are described in more detail.

Table 2-20
Construction Area of Disturbance and Permanent Footprint
&RQVWUXFWLRQ
%RXQGDU\ IHHW

3HUPDQHQW&RPSRQHQW)RRWSULQW IHHW
:LGWK

0D[LPXP
+HLJKW DERYH
JURXQG
VXUIDFH

0D[LPXP
'HSWK EHORZ
JURXQG
VXUIDFH

3URMHFW&RPSRQHQW
/HQJWK

:LGWK

/HQJWK

6RXUFH:DWHU'LYHUVLRQDQG6WRUDJH6LWHV
6DOLQDV3XPS6WDWLRQ'LYHUVLRQ
VHYHUDOGLVFUHWHWUHQFKHVDQGSLWVWRWDOLQJDFUHV
6DOLQDV7UHDWPHQW)DFLOLW\6WRUDJHDQG5HFRYHU\
5HFRYHU\3XPS6WDWLRQ
5HFRYHU\3LSHOLQH 1RWH 
3RQGSXPSVWDWLRQDQGLQOHWVWUXFWXUH
3LSHOLQHIURP3RQG
5HFODPDWLRQ'LWFK'LYHUVLRQ
7HPEODGHUR6ORXJK'LYHUVLRQ
%ODQFR'UDLQ'LYHUVLRQ
'LYHUVLRQ3XPS6WDWLRQ
)RUFH0DLQDQG*UDYLW\3LSHOLQH LQFOXGLQJSLSHOLQHVORFDWHG
DWWKH5HJLRQDO7UHDWPHQW3ODQW 
/DNH(O(VWHUR'LYHUVLRQ

175

175

30

25

20

50
500
50
6,000
120
200

50
20
50
20
50
50

30
7,700
15
6,000
80
50

15
<6
30
<6
20
20

10
0
10
0
10
10

50

50

50

20

10

8,500

20

8,500

<6

50

50

20

10
10
20
10
20
20
10 (trenched
sections); 25
(trenchless
sections and
pits)
15

7UHDWPHQW)DFLOLWLHVDW5HJLRQDO7UHDWPHQW3ODQW
$:7)DFLOLW\

10

%ULQH0L[LQJ)DFLOLW\
3LSHOLQHV$:7SURGXFWZDWHUSXPSVWDWLRQ

450

500
(triangular)

31

600

350

16
0

31
15

6DOLQDV9DOOH\5HFODPDWLRQ3ODQWPRGLILFDWLRQV

700

400

600

300

25

10

900

20

900

<6

10













10 (trenched
sections); 25
(trenchless
sections and
pits)
10

6DOLQDV9DOOH\5HFODPDWLRQ3ODQWSLSHOLQH

3URGXFW:DWHU&RQYH\DQFH)DFLOLWLHV
3URGXFW:DWHU3LSHOLQHV 1RWH
58:$3$:7WR%RRVWHU3XPS6WDWLRQ
58:$3%RRVWHU3XPS6WDWLRQWR,QMHFWLRQ:HOOV
&RDVWDO$:7)DFLOLW\WR%RRVWHU3XPS6WDWLRQ
&RDVWDO%RRVWHU3XPS6WDWLRQWR,QMHFWLRQ:HOOV
%RRVWHU3XPS6WDWLRQ RQHRIWZRRSWLRQDOVLWHV

Pure Water Monterey GWR Project


Consolidated Final EIR













2-84







October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Chapter 2 Project Description

Table 2-20
Construction Area of Disturbance and Permanent Footprint
&RQVWUXFWLRQ
%RXQGDU\ IHHW

3HUPDQHQW&RPSRQHQW)RRWSULQW IHHW

3URMHFW&RPSRQHQW
/HQJWK

:LGWK

/HQJWK

&RQVWUXFWLRQ
%RXQGDU\ IHHW

:LGWK

:LGWK

0D[LPXP
'HSWK EHORZ
JURXQG
VXUIDFH

3HUPDQHQW&RPSRQHQW)RRWSULQW IHHW
/HQJWK

:LGWK

0D[LPXP
+HLJKW DERYH
JURXQG
VXUIDFH

0D[LPXP
'HSWK EHORZ
JURXQG
VXUIDFH

3URMHFW&RPSRQHQW
/HQJWK

0D[LPXP
+HLJKW DERYH
JURXQG
VXUIDFH

,QMHFWLRQ:HOO)DFLOLWLHV
Well cluster, including: one Deep Injection Well, one Vadose
Zone Well, motor control building, transformer, and space for
replacement wells (4)

100

100

85

90

15

1,050 (Deep)
600 (Vadose)

Back-flush basin

280

150

225

125

2-3 for pipe


outlet only

10

100

100

900

4200

40

4200

20

10

Electrical conduit along Eucalyptus Rd.

1200

10

1200

Access roads to monitoring wells

1000

20

1000

10

Monitoring wells, including: up to six well clusters with two


wells at each site (6)
Access Roads to Injection Wells, including: underground
pipeline & electrical

&DO$P'LVWULEXWLRQ6\VWHP,PSURYHPHQWV
Note
15 (trenched
0
3
sections); 25
(trenchless
Note
Monterey Pipeline
28,700
3080
28,700
0
sections, pits)
3
Note 1: The existing 33-inch industrial wastewater conveyance pipeline would be slip-lined with the new 18-inch recovery pipeline. This would require
the excavation of up to 12 sending/receiving pits measuring approximately 60-feet long by up to 20-feet wide.
Note 2: The Product Water Conveyance Pipeline between the Regional Treatment Plant and the General Jim Moore Boulevard /Lightfighter Rd
intersection would be built within either the RUWAP or the Coastal Alignment, not both.
Note 3: Pipeline trenches would generally be no more than seven (7) feet wide, except in areas with sandy soils and lack of constraints to a wider
trench. Constraints include known sensitive or protected resources, geography such as steep slopes, existing utilities, buildings, or other facilities that
restrict the construction area. A trench section with a ground surface width of up to approximately 10 to 15 feet would be potentially used in some soil
types to increase efficiencies related to shoring the trench.
Transfer Pipeline

13,000

3080

13,000

Pure Water Monterey GWR Project


Consolidated Final EIR

2-85

October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Chapter 2 Project Description

Table 2-21
Proposed Project Construction Assumptions
3URMHFW&RPSRQHQW

([FHVV
6SRLOV'HEULV
WR2II+DXO
FXELF\DUGV

&RQVWUXFWLRQ(TXLSPHQW
VHH$SSHQGL[($LU4XDOLW\DQG
*UHHQKRXVH*DV7HFKQLFDO$QDO\VLVIRU
PRUHGHWDLOV

&RQVWUXFWLRQ6KLIWVDQG:RUN+RXUV
VHH7DEOHLQ6HFWLRQ
7UDIILFDQG7UDQVSRUWDWLRQIRU
DVVXPHGFRQVWUXFWLRQZRUNHUDQG
WUXFNWULSLQIRUPDWLRQ

6RXUFH:DWHU'LYHUVLRQDQG6WRUDJH6LWHV
6DOLQDV3XPS6WDWLRQ'LYHUVLRQ
1) wet well/diversion structures (up to 4)
2) pipelines totaling 100 linear feet
3) electrical/SCADA box
6DOLQDV7UHDWPHQW)DFLOLW\6WRUDJHDQG5HFRYHU\
Recovery Pump Station, flow meter and valves, electrical/SCADA
cabinet, approximately 7,700 linear feet of pipeline from the site to
Salinas Pump Station site, inlet pump station at Pond 3, approximately
6,000 linear feet of pipeline from Pond 3 to recovery pump station,
approximately 50 linear feet of gravity pipeline from aeration basin to
connect with pipeline from Pond 3 to recovery pump station

Flatbed trucks, backhoes, excavators, pipe


cutting and welding equipment, haul trucks
for spoils transport, trucks for materials
delivery, compaction equipment, baker
tank(s), pickup trucks, arc welding machine,
generators, air compressors, 80-ton crane,
skip loader, pavers and rollers
Flatbed trucks, backhoes, excavators, pipe
cutting and welding equipment, haul trucks
for spoils transport, trucks for materials
delivery, compaction equipment, baker
tank(s), pickup trucks, arc welding machine,
generators, air compressors, skip loader,
pavers and rollers, directional drilling
equipment
Flatbed trucks, backhoes, excavators, pipe
cutting and welding equipment, haul trucks
for spoils transport, trucks for materials
delivery, compaction equipment, baker
tank(s), pickup trucks, arc welding machine,
generators, air compressors, 80-ton crane,
skip loader, pavers and rollers

100

1,200

Two daytime shifts: Shift 1 from 7 AM to


3 PM and Shift 2 from 12 PM to 8 PM
Monday through Saturday; some
workers may have to be on-site at night
to ensure continual operations of the
wastewater conveyance facilities.

Two daytime shifts: Shift from 7 AM to


3 PM and Shift 2 from 12 PM to 8 PM
Monday through Saturday

5HFODPDWLRQ'LWFK'LYHUVLRQ
1) wet well/diversion structure
2) flow meter, valves and approximately 60 linear feet of
pipelines
3) electrical/SCADA cabinet
4) concrete lining of channel banks and invert at intake

20

7HPEODGHUR6ORXJK'LYHUVLRQ
1) wet well/diversion structure
2) flow meter, valves and approximately 100 linear feet of
pipelines
3) electrical/SCADA cabinet
4) concrete lining of channel banks and invert at intake

20

Same as above, plus crane and vibratory


driver for cofferdam to work within the tidal
portion of the Tembladero Slough

One daytime shift from 7 AM to 6 PM


Monday through Saturday

1,500

Flatbed trucks, backhoes, excavators, pipe


cutting and welding equipment, haul trucks
for spoils transport, trucks for materials
delivery, compaction equipment, baker
tank(s), pickup trucks, arc welding machine,
generators, air compressors, 80-ton crane,
skip loader, pavers and rollers, directional
drilling equipment

One daytime shift: from 7 AM to 6 PM


Monday through Saturday).

%ODQFR'UDLQ'LYHUVLRQ
1) wet well/diversion structure
2) flow meter, valves and on-site surge tank
3) electrical/SCADA cabinet
4) concrete lining of channel banks and invert at intake
5) approximately 8,500 linear feet of force main and gravity
pipeline from the site to the Regional Treatment Plant

Pure Water Monterey GWR Project


Consolidated Final EIR

2-86

One daytime shift from 7 AM -6 PM


Monday through Saturday

October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Chapter 2 Project Description

Table 2-21
Proposed Project Construction Assumptions
3URMHFW&RPSRQHQW

/DNH(O(VWHUR'LYHUVLRQ
pipeline, valves, flow meters, and new pumps in existing pump station
at the northwest corner of lake and,
7UHDWPHQW)DFLOLWLHVDWWKH5HJLRQDO7UHDWPHQW3ODQW
$:7)DFLOLW\
Inlet source water diversion structure and influent pump station to bring
secondary effluent AWT Facility, prescreening, ozonation, upflow
biologically active filtration (optional), chemical addition, membrane
filtration treatment, booster pumping of the membrane filtration filtrate
(potentially with intermediate storage), cartridge filtration (optional),
chemical addition, reverse osmosis membrane treatment, advanced
oxidation using ultraviolet light and hydrogen peroxide (advanced
oxidation), decarbonation (optional), product-water stabilization with
calcium, alkalinity and pH adjustment, product water pump station (AWT
Pump Station), brine mixing facilities.

([FHVV
6SRLOV'HEULV
WR2II+DXO
FXELF\DUGV

&RQVWUXFWLRQ(TXLSPHQW
VHH$SSHQGL[($LU4XDOLW\DQG
*UHHQKRXVH*DV7HFKQLFDO$QDO\VLVIRU
PRUHGHWDLOV

&RQVWUXFWLRQ6KLIWVDQG:RUN+RXUV
VHH7DEOHLQ6HFWLRQ
7UDIILFDQG7UDQVSRUWDWLRQIRU
DVVXPHGFRQVWUXFWLRQZRUNHUDQG
WUXFNWULSLQIRUPDWLRQ

10

Flatbed trucks, backhoes, excavators, pipe


cutting and welding equipment, haul trucks
for spoils transport, trucks for materials
delivery, compaction equipment, baker
tank(s), pickup trucks, arc welding machine,
generators, air compressors, 80-ton crane,
skip loader, pavers and rollers

Two daytime shifts: Shift 1 from 7 AM to


3 PM and Shift 2 from 12 PM to 8 PM
Monday through Saturday.

510

Excavators, backhoes, air compressors,


loaders, boom trucks, cranes, pavers and
rollers, concrete transport trucks, concrete
pump trucks, flatbed trucks, generators,
pickup trucks, trucks for materials delivery

Up to four (4) shifts with construction


occurring 24-hours per day, 7 days per
week

Flatbed trucks; backhoes; pipe cutting and


welding equipment; trucks for materials
One daytime shift from 7 AM to 6 PM
6DOLQDV9DOOH\5HFODPDWLRQ3ODQW0RGLILFDWLRQV
delivery; compaction equipment; pickup
Monday through Saturday). Pipeline
New sluice gates, chlorination basin upgrades, a new platform in the
trucks; arc welding machine; generators; air
150
installation would occur during the
80AF pond and a pipeline connecting the existing inlet and outlet
winter months when the 80 AF pond is
compressors; skip loader, specialty
structures in the 80AF pond.
equipment for cutting and seaming the pond
dewatered.
liner
3URGXFW:DWHU&RQYH\DQFH (LWKHU58:$3RU&RDVWDOZRXOGEHEXLOWEXWQRWERWK7KHSURGXFWZDWHUSXPSVWDWLRQDWWKH$:75HJLRQDO7UHDWPHQW3ODQWLVLQFOXGHG
DERYH

58:$33LSHOLQH$OLJQPHQW

58:$33LSHOLQH$OLJQPHQW

5HJLRQDO7UHDWPHQW3ODQWWR%RRVWHU3XPS6WDWLRQ

5,090

%RRVWHU3XPS6WDWLRQWR,QMHFWLRQ:HOO)DFLOLWLHV

3,580

Flatbed trucks ; backhoes; excavators; pipe


cutting and welding equipment; haul trucks
for spoils transport; trucks for materials
delivery; compaction equipment; baker
tank(s); pickup trucks; arc welding machine;
generators; air compressors; 80-ton crane;
skip loader; pavers and rollers

&RDVWDO3LSHOLQH$OLJQPHQW
5HJLRQDO7UHDWPHQW3ODQWWR%RRVWHU3XPS6WDWLRQ

5,290

%RRVWHU3XPS6WDWLRQWR,QMHFWLRQ:HOO)DFLOLWLHV

2,890

Pure Water Monterey GWR Project


Consolidated Final EIR

2-87

Two daytime shifts: Shift 1 from 7 AM to


3 PM and Shift 2 from 12 PM to 8 PM
Monday through Saturday

&RDVWDO3LSHOLQH$OLJQPHQW
Two daytime shifts: Shift 1 from 7 AM to
3 PM and Shift 2 from 12 PM to 8 PM
Monday through Saturday

October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Chapter 2 Project Description

Table 2-21
Proposed Project Construction Assumptions
3URMHFW&RPSRQHQW

%RRVWHU3XPS6WDWLRQ
(applies to either Coastal or RUWAP alignment option location)

([FHVV
6SRLOV'HEULV
WR2II+DXO
FXELF\DUGV

&RQVWUXFWLRQ(TXLSPHQW
VHH$SSHQGL[($LU4XDOLW\DQG
*UHHQKRXVH*DV7HFKQLFDO$QDO\VLVIRU
PRUHGHWDLOV

&RQVWUXFWLRQ6KLIWVDQG:RUN+RXUV
VHH7DEOHLQ6HFWLRQ
7UDIILFDQG7UDQVSRUWDWLRQIRU
DVVXPHGFRQVWUXFWLRQZRUNHUDQG
WUXFNWULSLQIRUPDWLRQ

180

Excavator, backhoe, air compressor, boom


truck or small crane, generator, concrete
pump truck, paving equipment, flatbed truck,
pavers and rollers, welding equipment, baker
tank

Two daytime shifts, Shift 1 from 7 AM to


3 PM and Shift 2 from 12 PM to 8 PM
Monday through Saturday

600
320
320

Loader backhoe, bucket auger drill rig,


reverse rotary rig, forklift (reverse rotary
support), truck-mounted pump rig, generator,
concrete delivery and pumper trucks

,QMHFWLRQ:HOO)DFLOLWLHV

1)
2)
3)

Deep Injection Wells (4)


Vadose Zone Wells (4)
Monitoring Wells (12)

Up to four shifts because construction


would occur for up to 24-hour/day, 7
days/week

%DFNIOXVK:DWHU3LSHOLQHDQG%DVLQ

4,000

5RDGZD\VSLSHOLQHVDQGHOHFWULFDOFRQGXLW

3,500

Tractor/loader/backhoe, excavators, dumper


trucks, rubber tired dozers

3URSRVHG3URMHFW7RWDO([FHVV&RQVWUXFWLRQ6SRLOV
(without CalAm Distribution System Pipelines)

21,080

See above

Overall Construction Schedule: mid


summer 2016 through Mar. 2018,
including 3 months of testing/start-up

a) 10,680
b) 3,330

Flatbed trucks, backhoes, excavators, pipe


cutting and welding equipment, haul trucks
for spoils transport, trucks for materials
delivery, compaction equipment, baker
tank(s), pickup trucks, arc welding machine,
generators, air compressors, 80-ton crane,
skip loader, pavers and rollers

To the extent feasible, pipeline


installation and associated construction
activities would occur during daytime
hours (with some nighttime construction
at certain locations to expedite pipeline
installation schedule)

&DO$P'LVWULEXWLRQ6\VWHP3LSHOLQHV

a) Monterey Pipeline
b) Transfer Pipeline

&DO$P7RWDO([FHVV6SRLOVDQG'HEULV
&RPELQHG([FHVV6SRLOVDQG'HEULVWR2II+DXO

Pure Water Monterey GWR Project


Consolidated Final EIR

Approx.
14,010

35,090 cubic
yards

Monterey and Transfer Pipelines


proposed construction Schedule July
2016 to December 2017 (18 months)

 

2-88

October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Chapter 2 Project Description

2.13 PERMITS AND APPROVALS


This EIR is intended to inform decision-makers of the environmental consequences associated
with implementation of the Proposed Project. In addition, the Proposed Project would be subject
to various regulations and would require discretionary permits from federal, state, and local
jurisdictions. 7DEOH  /LVW RI 3HUPLWV DQG $XWKRUL]DWLRQV lists the permits and
authorizations that would likely be required to construct, operate, and maintain the Proposed
Project.

Pure Water Monterey GWR Project


Consolidated Final EIR

2-89

October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Chapter 2 Project Description

Table 2-22
List of Permits and Authorizations
$JHQF\(QWLW\

3HUPLWWLQJ5HJXODWLRQ$SSURYDO5HTXLUHPHQW

'LVFXVVLRQ

)HGHUDO$JHQFLHV
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA)

Class V Underground Injection Control Program (Part C, Safe


Drinking Water Act ) Registration

Monterey Bay National Marine


Sanctuary (MBNMS)

Review and coordination of all Regional Water Quality Control


Board (RWQCB) 404, Section 10, and National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System permits

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service


(USFWS)

Endangered Species Act (ESA) compliance Section 7


consultation

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 USC 661-667e; Act of


March 10, 1934; ch. 55; 48 stat. 401)

National Oceanic and


Atmospheric Administration
(NMFS)

Army Corps of Engineers


(USACE)

Endangered Species Act compliance Section 7 consultation

Nationwide or Individual Section 404 Permit (Clean Water Act, 33


USC 1341)
Section 10, Rivers and Harbors Act Permit (33 U.S.C. 403)

Federal Aviation Administration


(FAA)

Form SF 7460-1 Notice of Proposed Construction & Alteration for


Airport Airspace Aeronautical

6WDWH$JHQFLHV
California Public Utilities
Commission (CPUC)

Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP) Certificate


of Public Convenience and Necessity (Application No. 12-04-019)

State Water Resources Control


Board (SWRCB), Regional
Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB)
Pure Water Monterey GWR Project
Consolidated Final EIR

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)


General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with
Construction Activity (99-08-DWQ)
2-90

The EPA Underground Injection Control program requires, at a minimum, that the disposed fluid
will not endanger the groundwater and that the operator submit the proper inventory information
to the permitting authority.
Authorization by the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuarys superintendent is required for
any permit, lease, license, approval, or other authorization issued or granted by a federal, state,
or local agency for activities within the sanctuary. This authorization indicates that the Monterey
Bay National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council does not object to issuance of the permit or
other authorization, including the terms and conditions deemed necessary to protect sanctuary
resources and qualities.
MRWPCA may be required to consult with the USFWS to determine whether the proposed action
is likely to adversely affect a federally listed terrestrial or freshwater animal or plant species under
USFWS jurisdiction, or the designated critical habitat for such species; jeopardize the continued
existence of such species that are proposed for listing under ESA; or adversely modify proposed
critical habitat. To make this determination, the project applicant prepares a Biological
Assessment, the outcome of which determines whether the USFWS will conduct formal
consultation and issue a Biological Opinion concerning the effects of the project. If the USFWS
finds that the project may jeopardize the species or destroy or modify critical habitat, reasonable
and prudent alternatives to the action must be considered.
Under Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, a proposed water resource development project that
receives federal funds or permits and that may impact to fish and wildlife is required to consult
with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries and USFWS.
The need for a federal permit requires the project applicant to consult with NMFS to determine
whether the proposed action is likely to adversely affect a federally listed marine species or
designated critical habitat for such species, jeopardize the continued existence of such species
that are proposed for listing under ESA, or adversely modify proposed critical habitat. To make
this determination, the project applicant prepares a Biological Assessment, the outcome of which
determines whether NMFS will conduct formal consultation with the agency and issue a
Biological Opinion concerning the effects of the proposed action. If NMFS finds that the action
may cause jeopardy or critical habitat destruction or modification, it will propose reasonable and
prudent alternatives to the action. Alternatively, if no jeopardy is found, then the action can
proceed.
Projects that would discharge dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including
wetlands, require a USACE permit under Clean Water Act Section 404.
Any obstruction or alteration of any navigable water requires a Section 10 permit. This includes
work that affects the course, location or condition of the water body.
14 CFR Part 77.9 requires that a project proponent submit notification of proposed construction
at least 45 days prior notification of construction or alteration within 10,000 feet of a public use or
military airport which exceeds a 50:1 surface from any point on the runway of each airport with its
longest runway no more than 3,200 feet.
The CPUC has the authority to issue a Water Purchase Agreement to CalAm for purchase of
water produced by the GWR Project.
Any discharge of stormwater to surface waters of the United States from a construction project
that encompasses one (1) acre or more of soil disturbance requires compliance with the General
Permit: Development and implementation of a stormwater pollution prevention plan that specifies
best management practices to prevent construction pollutants from contacting stormwater, with
the intent of keeping all products of erosion from moving offsite into receiving waters;
October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Chapter 2 Project Description

Table 2-22
List of Permits and Authorizations
$JHQF\(QWLW\

3HUPLWWLQJ5HJXODWLRQ$SSURYDO5HTXLUHPHQW

'LVFXVVLRQ

Water rights permit for development of new surface water


diversions (Water Code Section 1200 et seq) and wastewater
point of discharge change application/approval (Water Code
Section 1211 et seq)
Waste Discharge Requirements (Water Code 13000 et seq.)

401 Water Quality Certification (Clean Water Act Section 401)

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit


(Clean Water Act Section 402)
State Water Resources Control
Board Division of Drinking
Water
California State Lands
Commission

California Department of Fish


and Wildlife (CDFW)

Permit to Operate a Public Water System (California Health and


Safety Code Section 116525)
Approval for Recharge of Purified recycled Water
Right-of-Way Permit (Land Use Lease) (Public Resource Code
Section 1900); Lease amendment
Incidental Take Permits (California Endangered Species Act Title
14, Section 783.2 (potential)
Streambed Alteration Agreement (California Fish and Wildlife
Code Section 1602) (potential)

California Coastal Commission


(CCC)

Coastal Development Permit (Public Resources Code 30000 et


seq.)

California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans)

Encroachment Permit (Streets and Highway Code Section 660)

California State Historic


Preservation Officer (SHPO)

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106


Consultation (16 USC 470)

California State University

Right of Way Agreements and/or Easements

Pure Water Monterey GWR Project


Consolidated Final EIR

2-91

Elimination or reduction of non-stormwater discharges to storm sewer systems and other waters
of the U.S. and inspection of all best management practices.
A water right permit is an authorization to develop a water diversion and use project. , including
for diversions proposed at the Reclamation Ditch, Tembladero Slough, Blanco Drain, and Lake El
Estero. A wastewater point of discharge change application would also be needed for the
diversions of agricultural wash water to the Regional Treatment Plant.
Any activity that results or may result in a discharge of waste that directly or indirectly impacts the
quality of waters of the state (including groundwater or surface water) or the beneficial uses of
those waters is subject to waste discharge requirements.
Under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, the RWQCB must certify that actions receiving
authorization under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act also meet state water quality standards.
Any applicant for a federal license or permit to conduct any activity including, but not limited to,
the construction or operation of facilities, which may result in any discharge into navigable
waters, must provide the licensing or permitting agency a certification that the activity meets state
water quality standards.
Discharges of effluent into surface waters of the United States, including wetlands and MBNMS,
requires NPDES permit approval. It is assumed that the MRWPCA Waste Discharge
Requirements Order No. R3-2008-0008 NPDES Permit No. CA0048551 would be revised to
include the Proposed Project reverse osmosis reject water (concentrate or brine).
The State Board has permitting authority over the operation of a public water system and
provides oversight with respect to the quality of the product water produced.
Approval of Engineering Report (see Chapter 3 for discussion).
Issuance of a grant of right-of-way across state lands allows the permittee to conduct work or
construction on public lands.
The take of any endangered, threatened, or candidate species may be allowed by permit if it is
incidental to an otherwise lawful activity and if the impacts of the authorized take are minimized
and fully mitigated. No permit may be issued if the activity would jeopardize the continued
existence of the species.
In order to substantially divert, obstruct, or change the natural flow or the bed, channel, or bank of
any river, stream, or lake in California that supports wildlife resources, or to use any material from
the streambeds, the CDFW must first be notified of the proposed activity.
Development proposed within the Coastal Zone requires a Coastal Development Permit from the
CCC, except where the local jurisdiction has an approved Local Coastal Program (LCP) in place.
If an approved LCP is in place, primary responsibility for issuing permits in coastal areas shifts
from the CCC to the local government, although the CCC will hear appeals on certain local
government coastal development decisions. Regardless of whether a Coastal Development
Permit must be obtained from a local agency in accordance with an approved Local Coastal
Program, the CCC retains coastal development permit authority over new development proposed
on the immediate shoreline, including intake and outfall structures on tidelands, submerged
lands, and certain public trust lands, and over any development that constitutes a major public
works project. (Public Resources Code Sections 30601, 30600[b][2]).
Caltrans has permitting authority over encroachments in, under, or over any portion of a state
highway right-of-way.
The NHPA requires federal permitting agencies to consider the effects of proposed federal
undertakings on historic properties. Federal agencies are required to initiate consultation with the
SHPO and give the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to
comment as part of the Section 106 review process.
A right-of-way agreement with the State of California for access across state lands around
October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Chapter 2 Project Description

Table 2-22
List of Permits and Authorizations
$JHQF\(QWLW\

3HUPLWWLQJ5HJXODWLRQ$SSURYDO5HTXLUHPHQW

'LVFXVVLRQ

Monterey Bay (CSUMB)


5HJLRQDO/RFDO$JHQFLHV

Cities of Seaside and Marina,


Sand City, Monterey, Salinas

CSUMB.

Use Permits, encroachment/easement permits, grading permits


and erosion control permits may be required pursuant to local
city/county codes.

Fort Ord Reuse Authority

Coordination with Fort Ord Reuse Authority for right of entry

Marina Coast Water District

Ownership/easements of RUWAP pipeline and its alignment and


recycled water rights per Third Amendment to the 1992
Agreement between Monterey County Water Resources Agency,
MRWPCA, and Marina Coast Water District

Monterey Bay Unified Air


Pollution Control District

Authority To Construct (Local district rules, per Health and Safety


Code 42300 et seq.) and Permit To Operate (local district rules)
Well Construction Permit (Monterey County Code, Title 15
Chapter 15.08, Water Wells)
Hazardous Materials Business Response Plan (Health and
Safety Code Chapter 6.95)

Monterey County Health


Department, Environmental
Health Division

Hazardous Materials Inventory (Health and Safety Code Chapter


6.95)
Review/approval of Injection Well Operations/Discharges
Variance from Monterey County Noise Ordinance (MCC
10.60.030)

Pure Water Monterey GWR Project


Consolidated Final EIR

2-92

The Cities of Seaside, Marina, Sand City, Monterey, and Salinas may require discretionary
permits for encroachment, tree removal or trimming, building permits, grading or variances.
Note: City of Marina does not allow trenchless construction under an encroachment permit; the
project must comply with Marina Municipal Code section 12.20.100.
Excavations greater than 10 cubic yards within an Ordinance Remediation District, in the Former
Fort Ord areas, require a permit in compliance with Chapter 15.34, Digging and Excavation, on
the Former Fort Ord Ordinance (Seasides Ordinance). Permit approval is subject to
requirements placed on the property by an agreement executed between the city, the citys
redevelopment successor agency, Fort Ord Reuse Authority, and California Department of Toxic
Substances Control. In the event that the project proponents do not pursue a consolidated permit
as discussed in the above line item of this table related to the Coastal Commissions permitting
authority, local agency approvals of one or more Coastal Development Permits may be required
for one or project components in areas that are: (1) in the Coastal Zone, and (2) governed by
Coastal Commission-approved Local Coastal Programs/Land Use Plans. The potential
components/areas that may require local approval are: (1) the Tembladero Slough diversion and
a short segment of the Coastal alignment option of the Product water Conveyance pipeline in the
Monterey County North Land Use Plan area, (2) the Coastal alignment option of the Product
Water Conveyance pipeline in the City of Marina, and (3) the Monterey Pipeline component of the
CalAm Distribution System in Monterey, Sand City, and Seaside. Agreements would be required
with the County of Monterey for surface water diversions from the Reclamation Ditch,
Tembladero Slough, and Blanco Drain, with the City of Salinas for diversion of agricultural wash
water and urban runoff, and with the City of Monterey for diversion of Lake El Estero water. See
Appendix C rev and Section 4.18 of the Draft EIR for more information.
In order to access specific sites during construction and operations, MRWPCA will be required to
coordinate with Fort Ord Reuse Authority.
Possible lease agreement for use of RUWAP pipeline or easement and possible agreement to
utilize a portion of secondary effluent for which Marina Coast Water District has rights
An authorization to construct permit is required for projects that propose to build, erect, alter, or
replace any article, machine, equipment, or other contrivance that may emit air contaminants
from a stationary source or may be used to eliminate, reduce, or control air contaminant
emissions. Applicable to gas-powered generators.
Construction of new water supply / monitoring wells requires written permit approval from
Monterey Countys health officer, whose decisions may be appealed to the Board of Supervisors.
Hazardous Materials Management Services is designated as the local Certified Unified Program
Agency in Monterey County and is responsible for inspecting facilities in the county to verify
proper storage, handling and disposal of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes. A Materials
Business Response Plan is required during specific types of construction.
A Hazardous Materials Inventory and Certification form will have to be submitted to the Monterey
County Environmental Health Division.
MRWPCA may need to submit an application to the Monterey County Environmental Health
Department for review of Waste Discharge Requirements and/or Injection Well Facilities
operations.
The Proposed Project may require a noise ordinance permit if operation or equipment noise
levels exceed 85dBA at 50 feet.
October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Chapter 2 Project Description

Table 2-22
List of Permits and Authorizations
$JHQF\(QWLW\

3HUPLWWLQJ5HJXODWLRQ$SSURYDO5HTXLUHPHQW

'LVFXVVLRQ

Monterey County Public Works


Department

Encroachment Permit (Monterey County Code (MCC) Title 14


Chapter 14.040)

Designated activities within the right-of-way of a county highway require encroachment permit
approval by the director of the Public Works Department.
A Use Permit is either issued by the zoning department of the Planning Commission, depending
on the specific zoning and intended use; this permit may be needed for the Product Water
Conveyance Pipeline (both options) between the Regional Treatment Plant and the City of
Marina.
A Coastal Development Permit is a document required by the California Coastal Act to permit
construction of certain uses in a designated Coastal Zone. Any project in the Coastal Zone, which
requires discretionary approval, may require a Coastal Permit.
Grading, subject to certain exceptions, may require a permit from the Monterey County Planning
and Building Inspection Department..
An Erosion Control Permit from the Director of Building Inspection may be required for any
project development and construction activities (such as site cleaning, grading, and soil removal
or placement) that is causing or is likely to cause accelerated erosion.
Coordination/agreements for Proposed Project components within Monterey County Water
Resources Agency-controlled waterways, including agreements to assign/transfer water rights to
allow diversion, and involving the Castroville Seawater Intrusion Project and Salinas Valley
Reclamation Project.
A permit is required for any project activity that would expand the water delivery system within the
Monterey Peninsula Water Management District jurisdiction.
The Proposed Project will require a water purchase agreement that describes the arrangement
between MRWPCA, Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, and CalAm for the
purchase of GWR product water or the rights to pump it from the Seaside Groundwater Basin.
A power purchase agreement between Monterey Peninsula Water Management District and
MRWPCA and PG&E for a specific amount of time and cost.
Injection/extraction/storage activities that would affect the Seaside Groundwater Basin require
approval of the Seaside Groundwater Basin Watermaster.
An encroachment permit may be necessary to conduct investigations and to install a conveyance
pipeline across this agencys property.

Use Permit (MCC Chapter 21.74 Title 21) may be required


pursuant to County codes.

Monterey County Resource


Management Agency

Coastal Development Permit. (Public Resources Code 30000 et


seq.)
Grading Permit (Grading and Erosion Control Ordinance,
Monterey County Code 16.08 16.12)
Erosion Control Permit (Grading and Erosion Control Ordinance,
Monterey County Code 16.08 16.12)

Monterey County Water


Resource Agency

Monterey Peninsula Water


Management District

Ownership of flood control waterways and SWRCB water rights


application for diversions from surface water bodies
Water System Expansion Permit (Monterey Peninsula Water
Management District Board of Directors Ordinance 96)
Water purchase agreement

Monterey Regional Waste


Management District

Electric Power Purchase Agreement

Seaside Basin Watermaster

Permit for Injection/Extraction/Storage

Transportation Agency of
Monterey County
Monterey Peninsula Airport
District//Airport Land Use
Commission
3ULYDWH(QWLWLHV

Easement/ encroachment permit

Landowners

Land lease/sale; easements and encroachment agreements

California American Water


Company (CalAm)

Water purchase agreement

Pacific Gas and Electric

Electric Power Will-Serve Letter/Purchase Agreement

Pure Water Monterey GWR Project


Consolidated Final EIR

Lake El Estero Diversion site is within Monterey Airport Influence Area; construction may require
a Consistency Determination by the Airport Land Use Commission

Consistency determination

Construction that may occur on private lands may require lease agreements and easements for
access.
The Proposed Project will require a water purchase agreement that describes the arrangement
between MRWPCA, Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, and CalAm for the
purchase of GWR product water or the rights to pump it from the Seaside Groundwater Basin.
New construction and/or commercial additions will need an ability to serve letter stating that
Pacific Gas and Electric can serve power from existing (or if necessary, upgraded) infrastructure.

2-93

October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Chapter 2 Project Description

2.14 REFERENCES
California Department of Water Resources, 2004. %XOOHWLQ&DOLIRUQLDV*URXQGZDWHU, 2004
Update
California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) 2012. 1RWLFHRI3UHSDUDWLRQRIDQ(QYLURQPHQWDO
,PSDFW5HSRUWIRUWKH&DO$P0RQWHUH\3HQLQVXOD:DWHU6XSSO\3URMHFW. October 2012.
CPUC, 2013. 6HWWOLQJ 3DUWLHV 0RWLRQ WR $SSURYH 6HWWOHPHQW $JUHHPHQW RQ 3ODQW 6L]H DQG
2SHUDWLRQ. Filings for Proceeding A1204019, July 13, 2013 and available online at:
http://www.watersupplyproject.org/Websites/coastalwater/files/Content/3877658/Sizing_
Agreement_PDFA.pdf, accessed November 2014.
Casagrande, J. & Watson, F., 2006. Reclamation Ditch Watershed Assessment and
Management Strategy: Part A - Watershed Assessment. Monterey County Water
Resources Agency and The Watershed Institute, California State University Monterey
Bay,
283
pp.
Available
online
at:
http://www.mcwra.co.monterey.ca.us/documents/documents/Final_Rec_Ditch_Report.pd
f
Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, 2000. 6DOLQDV 5LYHU :DWHUVKHG
&KDUDFWHUL]DWLRQ5HSRUW, Central Coast Ambient Monitoring program, July 2000
Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, 2011.:DWHU4XDOLW\&RQWURO3ODQIRUWKH
&HQWUDO&RDVW%DVLQ, 2011 Update
Greater Monterey County Regional Water Management Group, 2013. )LQDO *UHDWHU 0RQWHUH\
&RXQW\,QWHJUDWHG5HJLRQDO:DWHU0DQDJHPHQW3ODQ
HydroMetrics, 2013. *:53URMHFW'HYHORSPHQW0RGHOLQJ. October 2, 2013.
HydroMetrics, 2014. 6HDVLGH*URXQGZDWHU%DVLQ6DOWDQG1XWULHQW0DQDJHPHQW3ODQ
Monterey Peninsula Water Management District/Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc., 2014.
0RQWHUH\ 3HQLQVXOD &DUPHO %D\ DQG 6RXWK 0RQWHUH\ %D\ ,QWHJUDWHG 5HJLRQDO :DWHU
0DQDJHPHQW3ODQ. June 2014.
Montgomery Watson, 1993. &DVWURYLOOH 6HDZDWHU ,QWUXVLRQ 3URMHFW 'HVLJQ &ULWHULD 5HSRUW
prepared for Monterey County Water Resources Agency.
Nellor Environmental Associates, February 2015. 'UDIW 3XUH :DWHU 0RQWHUH\ *URXQGZDWHU
5HSOHQLVKPHQW 3URMHFW :DWHU 4XDOLW\ 6WDWXWRU\ DQG 5HJXODWRU\ &RPSOLDQFH 7HFKQLFDO
5HSRUW[see $SSHQGL[']
Schaaf & Wheeler, 2014a.*URXQGZDWHU5HSOHQLVKPHQW3URMHFW8UEDQ5XQRII&DSWXUHDW/DNH
(O(VWHUR, April 2014 [$SSHQGL[5]
Schaaf & Wheeler, 2014b. %ODQFR 'UDLQ <LHOG 6WXG\, prepared for Monterey Peninsula Water
Management District, December 2014 [$SSHQGL[4UHY]
Schaaf & Wheeler, 2015a. *URXQGZDWHU 5HSOHQLVKPHQW 3URMHFW 6DOLQDV 5LYHU ,QIORZ ,PSDFWV,
prepared for MRWPCA, February 2015 [$SSHQGL[2UHY]
Pure Water Monterey GWR Project
Consolidated Final EIR

2-94

October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Chapter 2 Project Description

Schaaf & Wheeler, 2015b. Monterey Peninsula Water Management District,5HFODPDWLRQ'LWFK


<LHOG6WXG\, prepared for MPWMD, March 2015 [$SSHQGL[3]
Schaaf

& Wheeler/MPWMD/MRWPCA, 2015c. Pure Water Monterey Groundwater


Replenishment Project Proposed Source Water Availability, Yield, and Use, prepared
for MPWMD, March 2015 [$SSHQGL[%UHY]

Todd Groundwater, 2015a. 5HFKDUJH ,PSDFWV $VVHVVPHQW 5HSRUW SUHSDUHG IRU 0RQWHUH\
5HJLRQDO:DWHU3ROOXWLRQ&RQWURO$JHQF\, March 2015 [see $SSHQGL[/]
Todd Groundwater, 2015c. 7HFKQLFDO0HPRUDQGXPIRUWKH3XUH:DWHU0RQWHUH\*URXQGZDWHU
5HSOHQLVKPHQW 3URMHFW ,PSDFWV RI &KDQJHV LQ 3HUFRODWLRQ DW WKH 6DOLQDV ,QGXVWULDO
:DVWHZDWHU 7UHDWPHQW )DFLOLW\ RQ *URXQGZDWHU DQG WKH 6DOLQDV 5LYHU. February 2015
[see $SSHQGL[1]
Yates, E.B., M.B. Feeney, and L.I. Rosenberg, 2005. 6HDVLGH*URXQGZDWHU%DVLQ8SGDWH2Q
:DWHU 5HVRXUFHV &RQGLWLRQV, prepared for Monterey Peninsula Water Management
District

Pure Water Monterey GWR Project


Consolidated Final EIR

2-95

October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Chapter 2 Project Description

This page is intentionally blank

Pure Water Monterey GWR Project


Consolidated Final EIR

2-96

October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

SANTACRUZ
COUNTY

SANBENITO
COUNTY

MONTEREYBAY

MONTEREYCOUNTY
PROJECT
LOCATION

MOSS
LANDING

PRUNEDALE
156

CASTROVILLE

183

MONTEREYBAY
MRWPCA
REGIONALTREATMENT
PLANT

SALINAS
101

MARINA

SALINAS
PUMPSTATION
SALINAS
INDUSTRIALWASTEWATER
TREATMENTFACILITY

FORMER
FORTORD

SEASIDE

PACIFIC
GROVE

68

LAKE
ELESTERO

MONTEREY
PEBBLE
BEACH

IVER
S R

DELREY
OAKS

CARMEL
BYTHE
SEA

Legend
SalinasRiverWatershedUrbanRunoffArea

SA

A
L IN

CARME
LR
I

VE

CalAmServiceArea

SeasideGroundwaterBasin*
CastrovilleSeawaterIntrusionProject
*AsdefinedbytheDraftSaltandNutrientManagementPlan
(Hydrometrics,WRI,2014)

NOTTOSCALE

Figure

Project Location Map


Pure Water Monterey GWR Project
Draft EIR

April 2015
2-97

2-1

Figure

MRWPCA Service Area Map


Pure Water Monterey GWR Project
Draft EIR

April 2015
2-98

2-2

Adjudicated Seaside
Groundwater Basin Boundary
Adjudicated Basin Boundary
Subarea Boundary
Seaside Area Subbasin of
Salinas Valley Goundwater
Basin (DWR Bulletin 118)
Seaside Basin Boundary
per Monterey Peninsula
IRWMP

Figure

Seaside Groundwater Basin Boundaries


This figure has been revised in response to comment N-6.
Pure Water Monterey GWR Project
Final EIR

September 2015
2-99

2-3 rev

N
"
0

2,000

Legend
Legend

Scale in Feet

Shallow
Zone
Water
Elevation
Contour
(feet
MSL)
Deep
Zone
Water
Elevation
Contour
(feet
MSL)
Deep
Zone
Paso
Robles
Water
Elevation
Contour
(feet MSL)
GWR
Project
Location
GWR
Project
Location
of Injection Wells
GWR
Project
Location
Basin
Subarea
Boundary
Basin
Subarea
Boundary
Basin
Subarea
Boundary

-10

20

-40

Figure 4
Paso Robles
Water Levels
July/August 2013

20

40

-2
0

N
"
0

2,000

Scale in Feet

Legend
DeepZone
ZoneSanta
Water
Elevation
Contour
(feetContour
MS
Deep
Margarita
Water
Elevation
(feet MSL)
GWR
Project
Location
GWR
Project
Location
of Injection Wells

-4
0

BasinSubarea
Subarea
Boundary
Basin
Boundary

Legend
Deep Zone Water Elevation Contour (feet MSL)
GWR Project Location
Basin Subarea Boundary

20

Santa Margarita
Water Levels
July/August 2013

Source: Todd Groundwater, April 2014

Seaside Groundwater Basin Groundwater Levels


This figure has been revised in response to comment N-7.
Pure Water Monterey GWR Project
Final EIR

September 2015
2-100

Figure

2-4 rev

Source: Schaaf & Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers, 2014

Figure

Salinas River Basin


Pure Water Monterey GWR Project
Draft EIR

April 2015
2-101

2-5

Source: Schaaf & Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers, 2014

Figure

Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin


Pure Water Monterey GWR Project
Draft EIR

April 2015
2-102

2-6

Legend

Historic Seawater Intrusion Map

Historic Seawater Intrusion Map

Pressure 180 Foot Aquifer - 500 mg/L Chloride Areas

Pressure 400 Foot Aquifer - 500 mg/L Chloride Areas

Seawater Intrusion Levels by Year

Figure

Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin Seawater Intrusion


This figure has been revised in response to comment H-40.
Pure Water Monterey GWR Project
Final EIR

September 2015
2-103

2-7 rev

2-7a new

Figure

Source: Geoscience Support Services, 2013

Pure Water Monterey GWR Project


Final EIR

Salinas Valley Groundwater Levels and Flow Directions


This figure was added in response to comment H-39.

September 2015
2-104

Solar Array

Sludge
Dewatering
Brineport

Headworks
Primary
Treatment

Outfall
Junction
Storm
Water
Detention
Secondary

Trickling
Filters

Pilot Plant
Building

Liquid
Waste Facility

Digesters

Sludge
Drying
Beds

Sludge
Thickeners

Generation Facility
Admin
Building

Maintenance
Building

Vehicle
Storage Building

Recycled Water Storage Pond

Salinas Valley Reclamation


Project - Tertiary Treatment

Figure

Existing Regional Treatment Plant Facilities Map


Pure Water Monterey GWR Project
Draft EIR

April 2015
2-105

2-8

Figure

Historic Regional Treatment Plant Flows


Pure Water Monterey GWR Project
Draft EIR

April 2015
2-106

2-9

Figure

Projected Regional Treatment Plant Flows


Pure Water Monterey GWR Project
Draft EIR

April 2015
2-107

2-10

Figure

Salinas Pump Station Monthly Average Discharge


Pure Water Monterey GWR Project
Draft EIR

April 2015
2-108

2-11

MOSS LANDING PS
DESIGN = 0.309 MGD
PWWF = 0.389 MGD
ADWF = 0.085 MGD

CASTROVILLE PS
DESIGN = 2.7 MGD
PWWF = 2 MGD
ADWF = 0.7 MGD

Flow Rates (MGD)

Facility Name
Monterey Interceptor (MI) Flows
Salinas Interceptor (SI) Flows
Castroville Interceptor (CI) Flows

ADWF

PWWF

6.7

19.8

11.8

15.0

0.7

2.0

Total RTP Influent Flows to Headworks

19.2

36.8

RTP Permitted Design Flows

29.6

75.6

CI
MRWPCA

RTP
MI
FORT ORD PS
DESIGN = 37.09 MGD
PWWF = 18 MGD
ADWF = 5.5 MGD

SI
SALINAS PS
DESIGN = 35 MGD
PWWF = 15 MGD
ADWF = 11.8 MGD

MARINA PS
DESIGN = 5.5 MGD
PWWF = 1.8 MGD
ADWF = 1.2 MGD

SEASIDE PS
DESIGN = 29.06 MGD
PWWF = 14 MGD
ADWF = 4.6 MGD
MONTEREY PS
DESIGN = 17.5 MGD
PWWF = 8.0 MGD
ADWF = 3.6 MGD

Monterey
LEGEND
REESIDE PS*
DESIGN = 3.2 MGD
PWWF = UNK
ADWF = UNK

FOUNTAIN AVE PS
DESIGN = 7.2 MGD
PWWF = 3.5 MGD
ADWF = 1.0 MGD

PWWF = Peak Wet Weather Flow


ADWF = Average Dry Weather Flow
MGD = Million Gallons Per Day

Pacific Grove

PS = Pump Station
RTP = Regional Treatment Plant

CORAL ST PS
DESIGN = 3.8 MGD
PWWF = 1.6 MGD
ADWF = 0.6 MGD

UNK = Unknown

Source: Brezack & Associates, September 2013

MRWPCA Wastewater Collection System Network Diagram and Pump


Station Flows
Pure Water Monterey GWR Project
Draft EIR

April 2015
2-109

Figure

2-12

Drying Beds

Pond 3
Transfer
Pumping
Station

Influent
Pumping
Station

Influent

Percolation
Pond 3

Percolation
Pond 1

Percolation
Pond 2

Davis Road

Aeration
Lagoon

Emergency
Storage
Basin

To Temporar y R apid I nfiltration Basins

Salinas River

Salinas Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facility Process Flow Schematic


Pure Water Monterey GWR Project
Draft EIR

April 2015
2-110

Figure

2-13

HIG
H

WA
Y1

01

CITY OF SALINAS

BLANCO ROAD

BLANCO DRAIN

MRWPCA
SALINAS
PUMP STATION

HITCHCOCK ROAD

DAVIS ROAD

68
WAY
HIGH

SALINAS
INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER
TREATMENT FACILITY

FOSTER ROAD

Existing 33 inch diameter City Wastewater Pipeline


Proposed (by City) 42 inch diameter City Wastewater Pipeline
General Location ofAgricultural Wash Water Generating Industries
SA
L

Existing City Facilities

INA

SR

Existing Wastewater/Sanitary Sewer Interceptor (36 inch diameter force main)

IV E
R

1.25

Figure

Salinas Industrial Wastewater System Location Map


Pure Water Monterey GWR Project
Draft EIR

April 2015
2-111

2.5 MILES

2-14

Source: Central Coast Watershed Studies, Monterey County Water Resources Agency Reclamation Ditch Watershed Assessment and Management Strategy, undated

Figure

Reclamation Ditch Watershed Boundary


Pure Water Monterey GWR Project
Draft EIR

April 2015
2-112

2-15

The pump station shown has been replaced with a new one that is shown on Figure 2-25a.

Source: Schaaf & Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers, 2014

Figure

Blanco Drain Storm Drain Maintenance District


This figure has been revised in response to comment M-8.
Pure Water Monterey GWR Project
Final EIR

September 2015
2-113

2-16 rev

Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project Location Map


Pure Water Monterey GWR Project
Draft EIR

April 2015
2-114

Figure

2-17

Approximately 4 miles
northeast of the
Regional Treatment Plant

Matchline

(
!

Castroville

Existing
Ocean Outfall

Treatment
Facilities at Regional
Treatment Plant

[
156
156

Tembladero Slough
Diversion

! Blanco Drain
(

183

Diversion

Recla
atio
m

[
183

nD

on

itc

i
pt

as

Co

Reclamation
Ditch Diversion

Bla n c

al

(
!

ra

P
R UWA O p

Marina

Matchline

Coastal
Booster Pump
Station Option

tio

in

Salinas

( Salinas Pump
!
Station Diversion

(
!

11

RUWAP
Booster Pump
Station Option

(
!

Salinas Industrial Wastewater


Treatment Facility
Storage and Recovery

iver
sR
lina
Sa

Monterey
Bay
Seaside
Pacific
Grove

Sand
City

[
68

Legend

Fort Ord
National Monument

(
!

Proposed Booster Pump Station Options

(
!

Proposed Diversion Site

Existing Wastewater Pipelines


Proposed Source Water Pipeline
Proposed Product Water Pipeline Options
Proposed CalAm Distribution System Pipelines

Project ^
_
Location

Proposed Injection Well Facilities

[
218

Monterey

68
68

Existing Ocean Outfall


Injection
Well Facilities

Lake El Estero
Diversion

City Limits

(
!

2 Miles

Highways

68

Figure

Proposed GWR Project Facilities Overview


Pure Water Monterey GWR Project
Draft EIR

April 2015
2-115

2-18

This page is intentionally blank.

2-116

Proposed
Reclamation Ditch
Diversion

Cit

Proposed Salinas
(south) Stormwater
Diversion

yo
fS

Proposed
Agricultural Wash Water
Diversion

ali
na
an
ita

Castroville
Pump
Station

sS

Proposed Blanco
Drain Diversion

ry
Se
r
we
e
Pip
lin

Proposed
Tembladero Slough
Diversion

Pip

MRWPCA Regional
Wastewater
Treatment Plant

Salinas
Pump
Station

Salinas Interceptor

Existing 33-in pipe


(to be slip-lined)

Castroville Interceptor

Monterey Peninsula Interceptor/Pump Stations

Fort Ord Pump Station

Existing 42-in pipe (built 2014)

w
Ne

Key:
Source Water Types:
Seaside Pump Station

Monterey Pump Station

Raw Municipal Wastewater

Proposed Increase in Flows in


Existing Pipelines

Surface Water (mixed runoff


and agricultural tile drain)

Existing Flow

Agricultural Wash Water

Proposed Infrastructure

Urban Stormwater

Existing Infrastructure

Proposed Pump Station

Proposed Source Water


Diversions

Salinas Industrial
Wastewater Treatment
Facility

Proposed Lake
El Estero Diversion

Proposed Project Flow Schematic - Source Water to Treatment


Pure Water Monterey GWR Project
Draft EIR

April 2015
2-117

Figure

2-19

Existing Municipal
Wastewater plus
new source waters to
Headworks

Membrane Filtration Backwash to Headworks

trucked brine

Regional
Treatment Plant (primary and
secondary processes)

To Ocean
Brine Mixing Facility

Proposed
Advanced Water
Treatment
Facility

Salinas Valley
Reclamation
Project

Recycled Water

Proposed Product Water Pipeline

Modifications

To Castroville Seawater Intrusion


Project Area

MRWPCA Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant

Key:
Treated Effluent for Discharge via
Ocean Outfall

Existing Flow

Treated Effluent for Recycling

Proposed Increase in Flows in


Existing Pipelines

Tertiary Treatment/
Recycled Water for Irrigation

Proposed Infrastructure

Purified Recycled Product Water

Existing Infrastructure
Proposed Pump Station

To Seaside Groundwater
Basin for Injection

Proposed Project Flow Schematic - Regional Treatment Plant


Pure Water Monterey GWR Project
Draft EIR

April 2015
2-118

Figure

2-20

Source: E2 Consulting Engineers, Inc., 2014

Figure

Proposed Salinas Pump Station Site Plan


Pure Water Monterey GWR Project
Draft EIR

April 2015
2-119

2-21

This page is intentionally blank.

2-120

Source: E2 Consulting Engineers, Inc. 2014

Figure

Industrial Wastewater Treatment Plant Conceptual Site Plan


Pure Water Monterey GWR Project
Draft EIR

April 2015
2-121

2-22

This page is intentionally blank.

2-122

Figure

Proposed Reclamation Ditch Diversion Conceptual Plan


Pure Water Monterey GWR Project
Draft EIR

April 2015
2-123

2-23

LEGEND
Project Area of Interest

Diversion Components

!
H

IntakeScreen
Pump/Lift Structure

CASTROVILLE
P.S

NEW 16" F.M.

Pipe

EXIST.
HEADWORKS

FLOW METER
(PUMP CONTROL)
PUMP VALVE BOX
LOW LIFT
(DIVERSION)
(2 PUMPS w/ VFDs)
PUMP STA.

NEW 24" INTAKE LINE

INTAKE
SCREEN

!
H
0

TEMB
L

ADER

O SLO

15

Pure Water Monterey GWR Project


Draft EIR
2-124

30

60 Feet

U GH

Proposed Tembladero Slough Diversion Conceptual Site Plan


April 2015

Figure

2-24

DF
r
Fo
ce
ai
M

t.

is
36
"S
al
a
in
s

r
te
In
ce

Exist. SRDF Pump Stat

ion

o
pt
r
Exist. 30" dia SRDF

Force Main
18" dia Blanco Drain

FM

SALINAS RIVER

FM
18" dia Blanco Drain

New Blanco Drain


Pump Station

Flow Meter
River Crossing

18" Blanco Drain FM


Exist. Pump Station

LEGEND
Exist 30" dia Salinas River Diversion Facility (SRDF) Forced Main
Exist. 36" Salinas Interceptor
18" dia. Blanco Drain FM (Alternative 1)
Proposed System Component/Structure

150

300

600 Feet

Figure

Blanco Drain Diversion Conceptual Site Plan - Eastern Portion


Pure Water Monterey GWR Project
Draft EIR

April 2015
2-125

2-25a

Ma
in
ce
Fo
r
DF
SR
dia
0"
t. 3
Ex
is
Connection to Ex
ist.
RTP Headworks

36" Salinas Inte

rceptor

nF
M

18" dia. Blanco


Drain FM
(Alternative 2)

st

"d
ia

i
Ex

Bla

nc

oD

rai

18" dia. Blanco


Drain FM
(Alternative 1)

Sa

a
di

6"

"

18

.3

18

lin
as

an
Bl

ai

FM

o
pt

ce

Dr

r
te
In

co

Exist.
ilter
SRDF F

" dia SR

DF Forc

e Main

Exist. 36" Sa
18" dia

Blanco

tor
linas Intercep

M
Drain F

LEGEND
Exist 30" dia Salinas River Diversion Facility (SRDF) Forced Main
Exist. 36" Salinas Interceptor
18" dia. Blanco Drain FM (Alternative 2)
18" dia. Blanco Drain FM (Alternative 1)

0
Exist. 3

150

300

600 Feet

Figure

Blanco Drain Diversion Conceptual Site Plan - Western Portion


Pure Water Monterey GWR Project
Draft EIR

April 2015
2-126

2-25b

Source: Schaaf & Wheeler, February 2014

Lake El Estero Diversion Conceptual Site Plan and Cross-Section


Pure Water Monterey GWR Project
Draft EIR

April 2015
2-127

Figure

2-26

Figure

Advanced Water Treatment Facility Conceptual Site Plan


Pure Water Monterey GWR Project
Draft EIR

April 2015
2-128

2-27

Screening

BioFlocculation

Upflow Biologically Membrane


Active Filtration
Filtration
(BAF) 
(MF)

Brine
Mixing Station

RO
Brine

Reverse
Osmosis
(RO)

Advanced
Oxidation
(AOP)

2-129

Proposed Advanced Water Treatment Flow Diagram

Excess secondary effluent blended with brine


(when available)

Filter backwash returned to primary

Ozonation

April 2015

Secondary
Clarification

Secondary Treatment

Primary
Biological
Sedimentation Trickling Filters

Primary Treatment

Existing Regional Treatment Plant (RTP) Process

To ocean
outfall

To injection
wells

To existing
tertiary
treatment

Pure Water Monterey GWR Project


Draft EIR

Product
Water
Stabilization

Proposed Advanced Water Treatment (AWT Facility) Process

MRWPCA Wastewater

New source waters


Salinas Agricultural Wash Water,
Reclamation Ditch, Tembladero Slough,
Blanco Drain, and Urban Runoff

2-28

Figure

New source waters to be diverted


Salinas Agricultural Wash Water,
Reclamation Ditch, Tembladero Slough,
Blanco Drain, and Urban Runoff

Existing Regional Treatment Plant (RTP) Process


Primary Treatment
Screening

To ocean
outfall

Secondary Treatment

Primary
Biological
Sedimentation Trickling Filters

Bioflocculation

Secondary
Clarification

MRWPCA Wastewater
Collection System
Existing Salinas Valley Water Project (SVRP) Tertiary Treatment Process
Flocculation

Tertiary
Filtration

Chlorine
Contact Tanks
(Disinfection)

Product Water Storage


(80 AF Pond)
To Castroville
Seawater
Intrusion
Project
distribution

Filter backwash returned to primary

New source waters to be diverted


Salinas Agricultural Wash Water,
Reclamation Ditch, Tembladero Slough,
Blanco Drain, and Urban Runoff

Existing Regional Treatment Plant (RTP) Process


Primary Treatment
Screening

To ocean
outfall

Secondary Treatment

Primary
Biological
Sedimentation Trickling Filters

Bioflocculation

Secondary
Clarification

MRWPCA Wastewater
Collection System
Modified Salinas Valley Water Project (SVRP) Tertiary Treatment Process
Flocculation

Tertiary
Filtration

Chlorine
Contact Tank
(Disinfection)

Product Water Storage


(80 AF Pond)
To Castroville
Seawater
Intrusion
Project
distribution

Filter backwash returned to primary

Seasonal Use of
Tank for Product
Water Storage

New Pipeline
under existing
Storage Pond

Existing and Proposed Salinas Valley Reclamation Plant Process Flow Diagrams
Pure Water Monterey GWR Project
Draft EIR

April 2015
2-130

Figure

2-29

HWY HW
1

CH
AR
LES
B

EXISTING
CASTROVILLE
INTERCEPTOR

LAN

DP

EN
S

ON
RO
AD
MR
WM

ORT
I

ON

OF
EX

OCE
AN
OU
TFA
LL

DEL MONTE

IS
LAP

ISTI
NG

EXISTING
MRWPCA REGIONAL
TREATMENT PLANT

A
CO

STA

P
LO

TIO

EXISTING
MARINA
INTERCEPTOR

MONTEREY
COUNTY
EXISTING
SALINAS
INTERCEPTOR

CO
SK

M
IC
HA
EL

SE
LL

IO N
OPT

SE
AN
MI
CH
EL
LE

AP
RUW

CITY OF
MARINA

DE
FO
RE
ST

YO
UN
G

PA
RK

NA D
SIRE
O
LM
TAL

SH
UL
ER

AR
EL M

Project Area Boundary

Source: Gerald Cole, November 2013

Blanco Drain Diversion


Existing Ocean Outfall

BU
S

BY

DE
FO
RE
ST

VIK
IN
G

W
HI

TE

OA
GE
OR
K
GE

QU
EB
RA
DA
CO
DE
ST
LM
AD
EL
AR
M
AR
CR
ES
CE
NT

ME
LA
NI
MA
E
RT
IN

VILLA

BEACH
SUSAN

RE
SER
VA
TIO

Existing Wastewater Pipelines


Proposed Product Water Pipeline Options

0.5

1 Miles

IM
JIN

Proposed Product Water Conveyance Options Near Regional Treatment Plant


Pure Water Monterey GWR Project
Draft EIR

April 2015
2-131

Figure

2-30


CSUMB CAMPUS

COASTAL BOOSTER PUMP STATION OPTION

RUWAP BOOSTER PUMP STATION OPTION

115

230

Proposed Booster Pump Station Options Conceptual Site Plans


Pure Water Monterey GWR Project
Draft EIR

April 2015
2-132

460 FEET

Figure

2-31

)LQDO(,5
6HSWHPEHU

7KLVJXUHKDVEHHQUHYLVHGLQUHVSRQVHWRFRPPHQW/

IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CITY OF SEASIDE.

Injection Well Site Plan

7KHORFDWLRQRIWKLVDOOLJQPHQW
LVDSSUR[LPDWHDQGPD\EH
DGMXVWHGEDVHGRQ&LW\RI6HDVLGH
FRQVXOWDWLRQ$Q\QHZORFDWLRQZRXOG
KDYHWKHVDPHRUVLPLOLDUOHQJWKDQG
ZRXOGEHZLWKLQWKH$UHDRI3RWHQWLDO
(IIHFWERXQGDU\VKRZQRQWKLVPDS

Figure

2-133

2-32 rev

This page is intentionally blank.

2-134

Figure

Injection Well Cross Section


Pure Water Monterey GWR Project
Draft EIR

April 2015
2-135

2-33

Existing Cal-Am/
Seaside Wells

Proposed Proposed
GWR
GWR
Vadose
Injection
Zone
Well
Well

Existing
MPWMD
ASR
(Carmel River
Water)

Rainfall

Figure

Conceptual Injection Schematic


Pure Water Monterey GWR Project
Draft EIR

April 2015
2-136

2-34

Conceptual Site Plan and Schematic of Typical Well Cluster


Pure Water Monterey GWR Project
Draft EIR

April 2015
2-137

Figure

2-35

34-inch diameter borehole


30-inch diameter conductor casing
(0-50)
Surface seal

100

28-inch diameter borehole

Depth below Ground Surface (feet)

200

300

18-inch diameter stainless


steel casing (0-650)

Cement sand slurry

Transducer
tube

3-inch gravel tube


Static Water Level
(approximate)

400

500

600

Filter pack

700
18-inch diameter stainless steel
screen (650-880)

800

20-foot tailpipe

900

Source: Todd Engineers, October 2014

Deep Injection Well Preliminary Design


Pure Water Monterey GWR Project
Draft EIR

April 2015
2-138

Figure

2-36

50

Bentonite or cement grout seal

18-inch blank PVC casing


(0 - 100)

3-inch vent
line
(perforated
30-50)

Filter pack

48-inch diameter borehole


(0 - 150)

100

Depth below Ground Surface (feet)

4-inch PVC eductor line with orifice


plate (0 - 195)
18-inch PVC perforated casing
(100 - 200)

150
30-inch diameter borehole
(150 - 200)

4-inch PVC
vent/transducer
tube

12-inch PVC cap (200)

200

250

300

350

400
Static Water Level 430 (approximate)

450

Note: Modified design from City of Scottsdale and HydroSystems, 2008.

Source: Todd Engineers, May 2013

Vadose Zone Well Preliminary Design


Pure Water Monterey GWR Project
Draft EIR

April 2015
2-139

Figure

2-37

CalAm Distribution Ststem -Transfer Pipeline


CalAm Distribution System - Monterey Pipeline

l Ji

mM

te
on
M
l

Gen

e ra

De

oor
e

Yosemite

La Salle

City of
Seaside
Hilby

City of
Monterey

0.75

1.5

3 Miles

City of

Figure

CalAm Distribution System Pipeline: Eastern Terminus


Pure Water Monterey GWR Project
Draft EIR

April 2015
2-140

2-38

City of
Pacific Grove

CalAm Distribution Ststem -Transfer Pipeline


CalAm Distribution System - Monterey Pipeline

ey
rdl
Ea

e
Sp
e
nc

Still
w

el l

r
lin

City of
Monterey

0.75

Del Monte

Figuero
a

Fran
k

1.5

3 Miles

Figure

CalAm Distribution System Pipeline: Western Terminus


Pure Water Monterey GWR Project
Draft EIR

April 2015
2-141

2-39

Project Component

General Construction Activities

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep Oct

Nov Dec

Jan

Feb

Mar Apr

May Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov Dec

Jan

Feb Mar

Salinas Pump Station Site


including pipes, wet wells/diversion structures, valves,
SCADA

Site preparation and Demolition


Underground vaults and pipes
Valves, controls and site finishing

Salinas Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facility


Return Facilities - Sliplining of new Force Main inside
existing 33-inch IWW pipeline, on-site piping from
Aeration Basin at IWTP to new Reture PS at IWTP and
Return PS with Valve and Meter Vaults.
Storage and Recovery Additions: New Pump station at
Pond 3, Pipeline at IWTP to Return PS, and SCADA.

Site preparation and Demolition


On-site Underground vaults and pipes
Valves, pumps, controls and site finishing
Install FM in to Existing 33-inch IWW pipeline to Salinas PS
Site preparation and Demolition
Underground vaults and pipes
Valves, pumps, controls and site finishing

Reclamation Ditch at Davis Road


including pipes, pumps, wet wells/diversion structures,
valves, and SCADA

Site Preparation
Underground work, vauts and pipelines
Valves, controls and site finishing

Tembladero Slough at Castroville Site


including pipes, pumps, wet wells/diversion structures,
valves, and SCADA

Site Preparation
Underground work, vauts and pipelines
Valves, controls and site finishing

Blanco Drain Pump Station & Pipeline Site


including pipes, wet wells/diversion structures, valves,
SCADA

Force main pipeline to RTP


Pump station site prep
Pump Station underground work, vauts and pipelines
Valves, controls and site finishing

Lake El Estero Diversion Site


including new pumps in existing dry well structure,
pipeline, valves, SCADA

Site preparation and Demolition


Underground work, vauts and pipelines
Valves, controls and site finishing

RTP site (all new / modified facilities)


AWT Facility (incl. pipelines, diversion structures
pretreatment, MF/RO/UV AOP, Brine Mixing Station,
Product Water Pump Station)

SVRP Modifications (incl. new pipelines, sluice gates,


contact basin mods and controls)
Product Water Conveyance (southern border of
RTP to Injection Well Facilities Site)
Product Water Conveyance Pipeline
Booster Pump Station (Coastal or RUWAP)

Site Preparation
Underground pipelines, vaults, utilities
Building construction
Equipment installation, elevtrical and controls
Final Facility Testing
Underground pipelines and structures
Gates, valves and controls

Pipeline Installation
Building Site Preparation
Underground site piping and vaults
Building Construction
Equipment installation, elevtrical and controls
Final Facility Testing

Injection Well Facilities


Access Road and Preliminary Grading
Monitoring well (GWR-MW-1 thru GWR-MW-4)
Deep injection well (GWR-DIW-1 thru GWR-DIW-4)
Vadose zone well (GWR-VZ-1 thru GWR-VZ-4)
Motor/Electrical Control Buildings (1 thru 4)
Backwash Pumps
Backwash Basin
Pipelines and Conduits
System test

Soil stabilization for rig access


Drill, install, develop, sample
Drill, install, develop,aquifer/injection testing
Drill, install, test
Underground piping, building, equipment install
Install pumps/motors/pipes at wells
Grading, compaction, piping, concrete and paving
Trenching, pipe installation, backfilling and road surfacing
Final Testing and Clean-Up

CalAm Transfer and Monterey Pipelines


Transfer Pipeline
Monterey Pipeline

Pipeline Installation (150 - 250 feet/day)


Pipeline Installation (150 - 250 feet/day)

DRAFT PRODUCT
NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

working draft GWR construction 20141104

Proposed Project Construction Schedule


Pure Water Monterey GWR Project
Draft EIR

April 2015
2-142

Figure

2-40

APPENDIX I1

Open-Water and Subsurface Intakes

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

I1-1

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix I1
Open-Water and Subsurface Intakes

Open-Water Intakes
Open-water intakes can be installed in a variety of locations and built in a range of sizes. In the
United States, open-water intakes are often used by coastal power plants that require large
quantities of ocean water for cooling. Sometimes, power plant intakes provide opportunities for
the conversion of existing infrastructure to, or co-location with, desalination plant intakes.
The chief environmental concern associated with open-water intakes is entrainment and
impingement of marine organisms. 1 Where subsurface intakes are infeasible, proposals for openwater intakes must include entrainment and impingement studies to determine impacts to marine
resources. To be considered adequate, an entrainment and impingement study must be prepared in
accordance with default protocols under Clean Water Act Section 316(b) (CCC, 2004). 2 Apart
from the impacts of the intake process itself, the impacts to marine resources associated with the
offshore portion of the intake pipeline must also be evaluated, particularly if the pipeline would
be supported on the ocean floor or in the water column.
Consistent with the findings of an expert review panel convened by the SWRCB, Desalination
Plant Entrainment Impacts and Mitigation (finalized October 9, 2013), and SWRCBs 2014
proposed Desalination Amendment to the California Ocean Plan (SWRCB, 2014b), this EIR
assumes that all open-water intake options would be equipped with a passive, cylindrical wedgewire screen at the western terminus of the intake pipeline with slot openings sized to meet
regulatory and/or permitting requirements 3 and would have a design velocity of 0.5 feet per
second unless otherwise noted.

Construction of Open-Water Intakes


There are several possible construction methods for installing open-water intakes beneath the
ocean floor. All of the new open water intakes described below would be constructed using either
horizontal directional drilling (i.e., drilling a boring between two pits and either using a barge to
pull the pipe through the boring or deploying the pipe on the ocean floor and pulling it through
the boring from the onshore pit) or microtunneling (i.e., pushing the pipe behind a microtunnel
boring machine). Both of these methods require the use of drilling fluids. Under both methods,
the intake pipe would be fused in advance of drilling/tunneling and laid out in a linear manner
near the entry pit. The boring for the intake pipeline would tunnel under the beach/onshore
portion and ocean floor to the point it daylights (emerges) on the ocean floor, where the
screened intake structure (attached to the end of the intake pipe) would be mounted on a riser
1
2
3

In this context, entrainment refers to marine organisms entering the desalination plant intake, being drawn into the
intake system, and passing through to the treatment facilities. Impingement would occur if organisms were sufficiently
large to avoid going through the intake screens but were trapped against them by the force of the flowing water.
In some cases, different study parameters may be proposed, and in some cases, a recently completed 316(b) study
for a nearby site may be used if applicable to the proposed desalination intake site (CCC, 2004).
The SWRCB is considering an amendment to the 2012 Ocean Plan to address issues associated with desalination
facilities. According to the 2014 proposed Desalination Amendment to the California Ocean Plan (Section
L(2)(d)(1)(c)(ii)), the SWCRB intends to select a single slot size but is soliciting comments on whether 0.5 millimeter
(0.02 inch), 0.75 millimeter (0.03 inch), 1.0 millimeter (0.04 inch), or some other slot size is most appropriate to
minimize intake and mortality of marine life.

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

I1-2

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix I1
Open-Water and Subsurface Intakes

approximately 3 feet off the ocean floor. This analysis assumes approximately 0.25 acre of land
disturbance on the ocean floor for construction of the screened riser. The permanent footprint of a
screened riser on the ocean floor is approximately 20 square feet. Unless otherwise specified, it is
assumed that the construction methodology for all new open-water intakes would be generally
consistent with these techniques.

Operations and Maintenance Considerations for Open-Water


Intakes
As noted, the primary environmental impact associated with open-water intakes is entrainment
and impingement. The SWRCB, California Coastal Commission, and Monterey Bay National
Marine Sanctuary require proponents of open-water intakes to include entrainment and
impingement studies in the corresponding permit applications, and to implement (or fund through
fee-based mitigation) compensatory mitigation for operation of the intakes. The mitigation fees
would be used for habitat creation, restoration projects that replace the lost production, or other
projects viewed equivalent by the SWRCB (SWRCB, 2014b). Additionally, the funding could be
used to create marine-protected areas or to clean up or abate environmental contaminants. The fee
would be based on a broad range of organisms impacted at the intakes.
Maintenance of open-water intake screens would occur every 3 to 5 years. Maintenance activities
include mechanical cleaning, air blasting and hand-scraping the intake screens to remove organic
matter and debris.

Subsurface Intakes
Subsurface intakes -- which include vertical wells, infiltration galleries, horizontal wells, slant
wells, and Ranney collectors -- can avoid or minimize some of the environmental effects
associated with open-water intakes. Specifically, subsurface intakes can avoid or minimize direct
impacts to the ocean floor and benthic 4 organisms during construction, and impingement and
entrainment during operations. Subsurface intakes can avoid impingement because they collect
source water through the ocean bottom and coastal aquifer sediments. Subsurface intakes are
generally considered a low-impact technology with respect to impingement and entrainment.
However, the magnitude of potential entrainment of marine species into the bottom sediments
caused by continuous subsurface intake operations has not been systematically and scientifically
studied to date (WateReuse, 2011).
Subsurface intakes generally have the following advantages compared to open water intakes:
(1) the potential to reduce or eliminate the impingement or entrainment of marine organisms;
(2) natural water filtration and pretreatment provided by ocean floor sediments, which in some
cases can reduce the need for some treatment chemicals during the desalination process; and
(3) minimal growth of marine organisms that occurs inside the intake pipeline (Kennedy/Jenks,
2011). In general, source water derived from subsurface intakes requires significantly less
4

Relating to the bottom of an ocean, sea or lake, or to the organisms that live there.

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

I1-3

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix I1
Open-Water and Subsurface Intakes

filtration when compared to raw seawater (SGD, 1992). However, if not appropriately sited,
subsurface intakes can adversely affect coastal aquifers and increase the risk of saltwater
intrusion in freshwater aquifers (CCC, 2004).
Key factors that determine whether a subsurface intake is technically feasible and practical
include: the transmissivity/productivity of the geologic formation/aquifer; the thickness of the
production aquifer deposits; and the existence of nearby freshwater source aquifers.
The following subsections describe each subsurface intake type, including typical suitable
locations, examples of existing technology, general construction methodology, operation and
maintenance, and capabilities and limitations of each technology.

Vertical Wells
Vertical wells are shallow intake wells that make use of beach sand or other geologic mediums to
filter water. A vertical beach well consists of a casing, well screen, and vertical turbine pump.
The suitability of a site for vertical wells is determined by drilling test wells and conducting a
detailed hydrogeologic investigation to ascertain the formation transmissivity and substrate
characteristics. Source water yield from a vertical well can range between 0.1 and 1.5 mgd (Hunt,
2008). It is preferable to locate beach wells as close to the coastline as possible to minimize
impacts on inland aquifers. Four vertical beach wells (two active, two standby) are used to draw
brackish source water for the 300-afy Sand City Coastal Desalination Plant (Water Technology,
2012). Vertical wells are typically constructed with a track-mounted drill rig and require an area
of approximately 100 feet by 100 feet at each well location (SGD, 1992). Like subsurface slant
wells, vertical wells require dewatering during well development, and the effluent produced
during well development is discharged either directly to the ocean or to temporary onsite settling
basins (SGD, 1992; Feeney, 2002). This analysis assumes that the wellhead and associated
electrical box for a vertical well would be buried below grade, and that submersible pumps would
be used. Each wellhead would result in approximately 400 square feet of permanent disturbance
and a permanent easement would be required for maintenance access (SGD, 1992). Vertical wells
are typically spaced approximately 300 feet apart from each other to reduce well interference
(SGD, 1992). Maintenance of vertical wells is limited to replacing the submersible pumps;
however, the small-diameter pumps used in vertical wells have a shorter service life and must be
replaced more frequently than other types of well pumps. Since the wells would be buried, pump
replacement would require excavation around the wellhead to allow service access.
To provide the 24 mgd of source water needed for the 9.6-mgd desalination plant proposed under
the proposed project, a large number of vertical wells spaced over a wide area of beach would be
required. Although the total number of vertical wells needed would depend on the underlying
hydrogeologic characteristics of the intake site, based on a best-case scenario in which each well
has 1.0 mgd of capacity, at least 24 vertical wells would be needed over a linear distance of at
least one mile. This analysis assumes that other alternative subsurface intake technologies would
have a smaller construction footprint and permanent footprint because other subsurface intakes
would require fewer wells to generate the same volume of source water. The sheer number of
vertical wells that would be needed to provide a reliable source water flow to the desalination

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

I1-4

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix I1
Open-Water and Subsurface Intakes

plant is considered infeasible, both from a construction and operational perspective and in terms
of economic, legal (permitting) and environmental factors. Therefore, vertical wells are not
considered further.

Infiltration Galleries
Infiltration galleries consist of a series of submerged slow sand media filtration beds located
beneath the ocean floor. Multiple collector screens and intake pipes within the filtration beds
draw seawater to a single intake well located onshore. Water is pumped through onshore intake
pumps. Infiltration galleries are most appropriately implemented in locations where geologic
conditions are relatively impermeable or of insufficient thickness and depth to support
groundwater extraction (Pankratz, 2008).
Infiltration galleries require construction on the beach as well as on the ocean floor. The design
surface loading rate of the sand filter media is typically between 0.05 to 0.10 gallons per minute
(gpm) per square foot. Using a 42 percent recovery rate, an infiltration gallery for a 9.6-mgd
desalination plant would need to draw at least 24 mgd (16,650 gpm) of source water. Based on a
loading rate of 0.075 gpm per square foot, approximately 222,000 square feet (or 5 acres) of the
seabed in Monterey Bay would need to be excavated at a depth of 6 to 8 feet to install an active
infiltration bed for the MPWSP Desalination Plant. Once constructed, periodic removal or
replacement of the surface layer of the filtration beds is needed to maintain intake capacity
(WateReuse, 2011). Based on the extent of temporary and permanent disturbance that an
infiltration gallery would have on the sand dunes and sensitive marine habitat in the Monterey
Bay National Marine Sanctuary, this technology is considered infeasible based upon
environmental, social and legal factors and is not discussed further.

Horizontal Wells
Horizontal wells, which are installed using HDD technology, draw seawater from shallow
offshore aquifers. Horizontal wells would be constructed in clusters of three or four wells, each
well equipped with a well pump and extending horizontally approximately 2,400 feet and at a
depth of roughly 180 feet below sea level. Approximately 10 to 12 horizontal wells would be
needed to provide sufficient source water for the 9.6-mgd MPWSP Desalination Plant. The
source water collected by each horizontal well cluster would be pumped from each well to a
common caisson and then from the caisson to the MPWSP Desalination Plant.
Horizontal wells are not evaluated further for the following reasons: (1) the amount of pipeline
that would be pushed under the sea floor (upwards of 2,500 feet) would be challenging in terms
of construction time, physical limitations and the disposal of drilling sludge (and consequently
much more expensive than other options); (2) installing artificial filter packs to stabilize
unconsolidated formations like those found in the project area has yet to be demonstrated
successfully and on a consistent basis, and; (3) HDD would not avoid or minimize any of the
impacts associated with the proposed action.

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

I1-5

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix I1
Open-Water and Subsurface Intakes

Ranney Wells
A Ranney well is a radial well comprised of a vertical caisson (a large diameter shaft where the
water is collected from each well and then pumped) extending below the water table from which
horizontally placed perforated screens are extended (SGD, 1992). The use of multiple horizontal
laterals means that production of each radial well is greater than a single vertical well (Feeney,
2002). A single Ranney well can yield between 0.1 to 25 mgd, which is five to ten times the yield
of a vertical well (Hunt, 2008). Examples of Ranney wells in marine environments include three
Ranney wells at the Salina Cruz Power Plant in Mexico that draw between 9 and 14 mgd of
seawater, and one at the Steinhart Aquarium at the California Academy of Sciences in San
Francisco (Hunt, 2008; Feeney, 2013).
Construction of Ranney wells involves excavating a large shaft for the central caisson, then
installing the horizontal laterals outward from the vertical shaft. The central caisson may range
from 8 to 20 feet in diameter (SGD, 1992). The laterals are advanced by either jacking outward
(seaward) from the vertical shaft under hydraulic pressure, or by jetting them into place
(Geoscience, 2008). This analysis assumes that the central caisson would be approximately
16 feet in diameter, be buried at a depth of approximately between 90 to 260 feet, and have a
permanent aboveground electrical control building to house pumps and other associated
headworks (SGD, 1992).
Ranney wells must be spaced approximately 350 to 500 feet apart to reduce interference between
adjacent Ranney wells. Although the final footprint for a Ranney well intake system can be
relatively small compared to other types of wells (e.g., vertical), the construction area can be
larger (Geoscience, 2008). Construction of a large caisson on the beach, even though the caisson
would ultimately be buried, would require a large footprint for construction activities and
dewatering operations. This analysis assumes each Ranney well would result in 1 acre of
temporary construction disturbance. Conventional construction equipment, including a 60-ton
crane, concrete trucks, and assorted support vehicles, would be used for excavation, forming,
pouring and setting of the vertical concrete caisson, dewatering of the caisson, advancement of
the laterals, development, and test pumping. During dewatering, lateral advancement
development, and test pumping, water would need to be discharged to a portable holding tank to
settle out suspended solids and the decanted effluent subsequently percolated into the ground in
the beach area (SGD, 1992; Feeney, 2002). With the exception of electrical controls, this analysis
assumes Ranney wells would be buried below grade. Each Ranney well would be constructed
over approximately 6 to 9 months and could involve 24-hour construction (Geoscience, 2008).
Ranney well maintenance includes periodic cleaning of the screened laterals to prevent clogging,
and repairs and/or replacement of the submersible pumps. Assuming Ranney wells would be
buried in the beach, the sand around the pumps would need to be excavated to allow maintenance
staff to access the caisson and screened laterals. Ranney well laterals are mechanically cleaned
using a high-pressure rotating water jet blaster; a mechanical packer/surge-block device that
surges water or air in isolated sections of the laterals; and/or a bore blast where a small quantity
of nitrogen is used to create a pressure pulse down the length of the laterals. This analysis
assumes that Ranney well laterals would require cleaning every 5 to 10 years; however, ongoing

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

I1-6

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix I1
Open-Water and Subsurface Intakes

monitoring of Ranney well performance would be conducted to determine the frequency of


cleaning and maintenance.
The submersible pumps for Ranney wells would be housed in the central caisson, which means
that large pumps, even turbines, could be used. Larger infrastructure has larger electrical
windings and typically requires less maintenance. The submersible pumps would be repaired or
replaced approximately every 10 years (SGD, 1992; Feeney, 2002).
The restricted lateral lengths of Ranney wells, as well as issues related to construction in a beach
environment, could place limitations on the use of this technology to provide desalination plant feed
water supply. The length of the laterals is currently limited to approximately 127 to 240 feet for the
traditional Ranney-type collector well, and 350 to 375 feet for collector wells using the Sonoma
method 5 of construction (Geoscience, 2008). When used for water supply, the maximum length of
the horizontal laterals is typically limited to 150 feet. There may also be limitations on the depth of
installation (for example, the maximum depth of the caisson is dependent on the geologic substrate),
in which case the laterals would need to be installed and operated within the shallow Dune Sands
Aquifer. Ranney wells would occupy roughly the same physical area as slant wells (approximately
10 acres), and Ranney wells are further evaluated as an intake option in this EIR.

Slant Wells
Slant wells are installed at an angle below the sea floor using vertical well drilling technology.
The yield from a slant well depends on the underlying geology. When compared to vertical wells
and Ranney wells, slant wells can be screened at greater distances offshore and can result in
fewer impacts on coastal groundwater aquifers. Slant wells can be drilled from behind sand dunes
or from the active beach area (i.e., between the toe of the dunes and the open ocean). The
wellheads can be buried beneath the sand or installed flush with the ground surface. Multiple
slants wells can be grouped into clusters to extend from a single pod. Consistent with the slant
wells proposed as part of the MPWSP, it is assumed that construction of each slant well pod
(consisting of up to 4 wells) would result in 1 acre of temporary disturbance.
Slant wells would require maintenance every 5 years. During maintenance, the wellheads are
excavated and exposed, and mechanical brushes are lowered into the wells to mechanically clean
the screens. Ground disturbance associated with periodic maintenance is assumed to be similar in
extent to construction disturbance (i.e., approximately 1 acre of disturbance for each well pod).
Slant well construction and maintenance requirements are described in greater detail in Chapter 3,
Project Description. Any intake options that include slant well technology are assumed to be
consistent with the slant wells proposed as part of the MPWSP, although the location and number
of wells could vary.

The Sonoma method is a different configuration of a Ranney well that has been implemented on the Russian River
in Sonoma County, California.

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

I1-7

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

APPENDIX I2

Component Screening Results


Component Options Not Carried Forward

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

I2-1

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix I2
Component Screening Results Component Options NOT Carried Forward

Intake Option #1 Subsurface Slant Wells at North


CEMEX
This intake option was described in CalAms Application for a Certificate for Public
Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) for the MPWSP, as amended in CalAms Supplemental
Testimony dated January 2013. 1 This intake option would locate up to ten subsurface slant wells
in the northern portion of the 376-acre CEMEX property, approximately 0.5 mile north of the
CEMEX active mining area, and between 1.25 and 1.75 miles south of the Salinas River (see
Figure 7-1). This site is referred to as the north CEMEX site.
The slant wells would be designed as gravity wells that would passively receive seawater. A
0.2- to 0.3-mile-long pipeline would collect the combined source water from the slant wells and
convey it to a 0.5-mile-long intake tunnel. The intake tunnel would convey the source water
beneath the dunes to an intake pump station located on the inland side of the dunes. The pump
inlet lines would be below sea level. The elevation difference between the ocean surface and the
pump inlet lines would create the differential pressure (i.e., hydraulic head) needed to convey
seawater via gravity through the collector pipeline and intake tunnel to the pump station. The
intake pump station would then pump seawater through a source water pipeline to the 9.6-mgd
MPWSP Desalination Plant. Because the slant wells would rely on differential pressure to collect
seawater (i.e., they would be gravity-fed), the wellheads would not be equipped with pumps.
Construction activities associated with the slant wells would occur within the swash zone (the
zone of wave run-up between normal and high tides). A temporary precast-concrete barrier
system and sheet piling would be installed to protect equipment and personnel from wave action
during construction. For each well cluster, approximately 120 linear feet of temporary barrier
would be placed parallel to the shoreline at 1 to 3 feet below mean sea level (msl). A temporary
enclosure made of sheet piling would be constructed on the inland side of the barrier.
To install the slant wells, construction personnel would excavate a hole and place the wellhead vault
structures (precast) into the ground; drill and develop the slant wells; spread drill cuttings or haul
them offsite; and remove the precast-concrete barrier system and sheet piles. The slant wells would
be constructed using large drilling machinery modified for angle (slant) wells. The collector
pipeline and intake tunnel would likely be constructed using jack-and-bore and/or drill-and-burst
methods. It is assumed that the following construction equipment would be used to install the slant
wells: a dual-wall, reverse-circulation Barbertype drilling rig; sheet-pile drivers; pipe trailers;
portable drilling fluid tanks; portable holding tanks; haul trucks; flatbed trucks; pumps; and air
compressors. Construction activities would temporarily disturb approximately 10 acres of critical
habitat for sensitive biological resources (California western snowy plover and Smiths blue
butterfly, coast buckwheat, Yadons wallflower, Monterey spineflower, and sand gilia) 2 in the
active beach area and 0.25 acre of prime farmland on the inland side of the dunes. In addition, the

1
2

In June 2013, in response to input from resource agencies, the location of the proposed MPWSP seawater intake
system was moved approximately 0.5 mile south to the CEMEX active mining area.
See Section 4.6, Terrestrial Biological Resources, for information regarding these species.

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

I2-2

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix I2
Component Screening Results Component Options NOT Carried Forward

footprint of the intake pump station would permanently disturb approximately 3,000 square feet of
prime farmland.
Access to this intake site is limited due to the presence of critical habitat as well as property
ownership of the adjacent parcels to the east (on the inland side of the dunes). To minimize
disturbance in the active beach area, construction vehicles would access the coastal dune area via
Del Monte Boulevard and existing access roads in the CEMEX active mining area. From the
western terminus of the CEMEX access road, construction trucks would travel north along the
beach area below the mean high tide elevation to access the slant well construction areas. In an
effort to further reduce disturbance in sensitive areas/areas of critical habitat, some construction
equipment and most construction materials would be delivered directly to the slant well site via
barge.
Slant well construction (as well as construction of the collector pipeline and intake tunnel) at the
north CEMEX site would occur between October and February over 2 years (10 months total) to
avoid the nesting season for western snowy plover. Multiple slant wells would be constructed
simultaneously. Construction activities would occur 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Each well
would be pumped continuously for 6-week periods during slant well completion and initial well
testing, and the extracted water would be returned to the ocean via a temporary pipeline.
The north CEMEX slant well site is currently undeveloped and sufficient space is available to
accommodate slant wells in this location. In the active beach area (between the toe of the dunes
and the open ocean), CEMEX owns the coastal land above mean high tide; the California State
Lands Commission owns the land below mean high tide. The City of Marina has jurisdiction over
this land, which is subject to the City of Marina General Plan and Local Coastal Land Use Plan.
This land is designated for Habitat Preserve and Other Open Space land uses and zoned Coastal
Conservation and Development (City of Marina, 2000; City of Marina, 1982). Construction of the
slant wells within the swash zone would also be subject to California State Lands Commission
jurisdiction. The north CEMEX intake pump station site is located in unincorporated Monterey
County and therefore subject to provisions of the North County Land Use Plan of the Monterey
County General Plan. The site is designated as prime farmland.
Access to the north Cemex location could impact environmentally sensitive and/or critical habitat
along the beach. Construction activities on the beach would require the installation of sheet pile
enclosures to work in the dry. Extreme wave runup at the temporary coffer dam could have a
mean total water level (TWL) of 14.6 feet NAVD (11.6 MSL), but a maximum or 100-year TWL
of approximately 32 feet NAVD (29 MSL), suggesting the sheet piles as sized in the swash zone
would likely be overtopped by wave action, and the overtopping during an extreme winter storm
would be substantial. Scour at the sheetpile enclosure could also be substantial, and could require
the sheetpile enclosure to be inserted deeper into the sand than anticipated. Based on ongoing
discussions and coordination with regulatory agencies regarding site conditions and construction
techniques, this option was determined to be fatally flawed and was eliminated from future
analysis due to permitting issues regarding impacts on biological resources.
Screening Results: Eliminated from further consideration.

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

I2-3

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix I2
Component Screening Results Component Options NOT Carried Forward

Intake Option #5 Ranney Wells at Moss Landing


Harbor (Modify Existing Intake System at National
Refractories site)
This intake option was proposed for the Peoples Moss Landing Water Desal Project by the Moss
Landing Business Park, LLC 3 and would involve the conversion of an existing intake system into
a Ranney well subsurface intake system. The existing open-water intake system of the former
National Refractories and Minerals Corporation (National Refractories) site is located in Moss
Landing Harbor in the area where the Moro Cojo Slough and the Old Salinas River converge,
immediately west of the National Refractories site and Dolan Road (see Figure 7-2) (MLBP
LLC, 2013; Mickley, 2012). The existing intake system was constructed in the 1940s to provide
seawater for industrial processes at the Kaiser Refractories Moss Landing Magnesia Plant 4 and,
subsequently, for the National Refractories plant and the Moss Landing Cement Company. The
existing intake system consists of a screened open water intake and 60-mgd intake pump station
in Moss Landing Harbor, and two 36-inch-diameter pipelines extending from the intake pump
station under Highway 1 (through two 72-inch-diameter corrugated-steel conduits) to the
National Refractories site. One of the intake pipelines is steel over its entire length; the other is
steel where its buried (west of Highway 1) and redwood staved piping east of Highway 1. The
intake pump station is currently equipped with five vertical turbine pumps with individual
capacities of 15 mgd (MLBP LLC, 2013). The existing intake system is not currently used.
Welded repairs have reportedly been made at several locations along the existing intake pipelines.
A 2012 structural evaluation indicates both pipelines are structurally adequate to serve as intake
pipelines (Miller, 2012).
This intake option would involve replacing the existing open water intake system with a
subsurface system consisting of one or more Ranney wells at the Moss Landing Harbor location.
Each Ranney well caisson would be 50 to 100 feet deep, and would be equipped with screened
laterals projecting below the harbor bottom at various depths. The total number of Ranney wells
would depend on the characteristics of subsurface deposits. Existing structures would be modified
as needed to connect the new subsurface intake with the existing steel intake pipeline; only the
full-length steel pipeline would be used to convey source water to the desalination plant (MLBP
LLC, 2013). In addition, the existing intake pumps would be replaced. The intake pump system
design, including the number of pumps, would be defined as part of the intake site studies (MLBP
LLC, 2013a).
This intake option would require construction in the Moss Landing Harbor and could require
access via barge for both construction and maintenance. A general description of Ranney well
construction and maintenance is provided in Section 7.6.1.2. The Monterey County General Plan
designates the National Refractories site as a Heavy Industrial Coast Dependent use. Construction
of the Ranney wells and associated intake system modifications within Moss Landing Harbor
3

The sponsor of the Peoples Moss Landing Water Desal Project and current owner of the former National
Refractories site is alternatively identified in some documents as the Moss Landing Commercial Park, LLC, and
some documents use both names.
The seawater was used for calcium and magnesium removal during magnesia production.

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

I2-4

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix I2
Component Screening Results Component Options NOT Carried Forward

would also be subject to California State Lands Commission jurisdiction. This intake option
would require coordination with the site owner, Moss Landing Business Park, LLC, to avoid
conflicts with existing and future operations.
Between September 2013 and January 2014, approximately six boreholes were drilled in the
Moss Landing area for the purposes of collecting hydrogeologic information to support
groundwater modeling efforts and evaluating the feasibility of various conceptual intake options
for the MPWSP. The borehole data indicate that the individual sand and sand and gravel lenses in
the Moss Landing area are not vertically or laterally extensive and that the permeable deposits
were not thick enough for a subsurface intake system in this area to be capable of providing a
reliable source of seawater for the MPWSP Desalination Plant (Geoscience, 2014). As a result,
this intake option is considered fatally flawed and was eliminated from further consideration. 5
Screening Results: Eliminated from further consideration.

Intake Option #7 Disengaging Basin at Moss Landing


Power Plant (Water from Spent Cooling System)
This intake option is presented as Intake Contingency Option #5 in the MPWSP Contingency
Plan. This option would divert spent cooling water from the disengaging basin at the Moss
Landing Power Plant (MLPP) for use as source water at the MPWSP Desalination Plant. The
disengaging basin receives spent cooling water from MLPPs power generating Units 1 and 2; the
water used to cool Units 1 and 2 is drawn from Moss Landing Harbor via the power plants
northern intake 6 and circulated through Units 1 and 2 before entering the disengaging basin. From
the disengaging basin the spent cooling water currently is directed to the existing MLPP outfall
and discharged to Monterey Bay. This option would modify the disengaging basin to divert the
spent cooling water, with the use of new vacuum-actuated siphons, to the desalination plant.
Physical space is available at the power plant for this modification. Access to the new facilities
would be via Dolan Road through the MLPP complex (with appropriate easement).
The MLPP is owned by Dynegy Moss Landing, LLC, and located in the unincorporated
community of Moss Landing. The Moss Landing Community Plan (MCRMA, 2012), a chapter of
the Monterey County General Plan North County Land Use Plan, designates land use in this area
as Coastal Heavy Industrial.
The California Energy Commission permitted an upgrade of the power plants existing northern
intake in October 2000, when new Units 1 and 2 were also approved (replacing five older units).
Impingement and entrainment controls at the existing northern intake include inclined vertical
traveling screens, initial bar racks, a relocated intake structure, and operation practices to
minimize the operation time of the intake pumps (Dynegy, 2011). The northern intake has a
5
6

Later in 2014 the Peoples Moss Landing Water Desal Project indicated it was considering an open water intake in
Monterey Bay.
The power plants southern intake, also located in Moss Landing Harbor, serves the plants other two power
generating units, Units 6 and 7.

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

I2-5

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix I2
Component Screening Results Component Options NOT Carried Forward

maximum intake flow capacity of 360 mgd; together the plants two intakes have a maximum
intake capacity of 1.2 billion gallons per day. Assuming that the power plant would circulate at
least 23 mgd or more of seawater each day to the disengaging basin, even if Units 1 and 2 were
not generating power, this alternative would not increase the amount of cooling water currently
drawn into the northern intake by the Moss Landing Power Plant.
This intake option relies on the continuation of MLPPs once-through-cooling (OTC) system,
about which there is current uncertainty due to federal and state requirements for cooling water
structures at power plants. 7 The federal Clean Water Act Section 316(b) requires the location,
design, construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures to reflect the best technology
available for minimizing adverse environmental impact. In 2010 the SWRCB adopted a statewide
Policy on the Use of Coastal and Estuarine Waters for Power Plant Cooling (SWRCB policy)
(SWRCB, 2010) establishing technology-based standards to implement Clean Water Act Section
316(b) and reduce the harmful effects associated with cooling water intake structures on marine
and estuarine life. The SWRCB policy, which applies to 19 existing power plants that use OTC
systems, including MLPP, requires that power plant owners or operators bring their facilities into
compliance by either (1) reducing intake flow rates by at least 93 percent (Track 1) or (2)
reducing impingement mortality and entrainment of marine life for the facility to a comparable
level that would be achieved under Track 1, using operational or structural controls or both
(Track 2). (Track 1 must be infeasible for the Track 2 option to be taken.) The SWRCB policy,
which establishes a compliance schedule for each power plant, requires that the plant owner or
operator prepare an implementation plan indicting the specific measures that will be undertaken
to achieve compliance. To prevent disruption of the states electrical power supply, the SWRCB
convened a Statewide Advisory Committee on Cooling Water Intake Structures (SACCWIS), to
review implementation plans and schedules and provide recommendations to the SWRCB at least
annually. The SWRCB policy calls for the MLPP to comply by December 31, 2017.
In its April 2011 implementation plan for MLPP, Dynegy proposed a compliance date of 2032 for
Units 1 and 2 and to implement Track 2 retrofit measures for Units 6 and 7. In a November 2013
letter to SWRCB about the implementation plan, however, Dynegy stated its intention to
implement Track 2 retrofit measures for Units 1 and 2 as well as Units 6 and 7 (SACCWIS,
2014). The 2014 SACCWIS report to SWRCB stated that the California Independent System
Operator (ISO) 8 intended to model Units 1 and 2 as offline after 2017 and would provide the
results of those studies to SACCWIS. At the time of its 2014 report SACCWIS did not
recommend changing the compliance dates for the units at MLPP (SACCWIS, 2014).
Through a settlement agreement executed on October 9, 2014 between the SWRCB and Dynegy,
the MLPP must reduce its intake of cooling water to meet an 83.7 percent or greater reduction in
mortality from entrainment and impingement impacts beginning with reductions on December
31, 2016 and achieving full compliance by December 31, 2020 to meet the 83.7 percent reduction
in mortality. Dynegy has indicated its intention to retrofit the power plants four generating units
7
8

The federal requirements also apply to other industrial facilities that use large amounts of cooling water.
The California ISO is responsible for maintaining the reliability of the states power grid, and is also represented on
SACCWIS.

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

I2-6

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix I2
Component Screening Results Component Options NOT Carried Forward

to reduce entrainment and impingement impacts in compliance with the OTC policy. Compliance
with the OTC policy would dramatically reduce the amount of cooling water discharged through
the MLPP outfall, and the cooling water that was discharged is expected to have much higher
concentrations of minerals (because the minerals in the original seawater would be concentrated
due to evaporation during the retrofitted cooling process), compared to current discharges from
the power plant.
To reduce intake volume, it is assumed that the power plants cooling system would be retrofitted to
allow recirculation of the cooling water thorough cooling towers (or similar equipment) and the
power units multiple times before the water is discharged to the disengaging basin. After multiple
passes, not only would the volume of water discharged to the disengaging basin be substantially
reduced compared to the amount drawn from the harbor but, also due to evaporation, the minerals
that were in the source water (such as calcium, magnesium, and chloride) would be concentrated in
the spent cooling water (U.S. Department of Energy, 2014). This would make the spent cooling
water from a retrofitted cooling system less suitable (or unsuitable) for use as desalination source
water. Therefore, once the power plant is in compliance with the OTC policy, the plants cooling
water system would provide less volume and lower quality source water for use by the MPWSP
for desalination.
The Track 2 approach Dynegy proposes to pursue to comply with the SWRCB policy is not
expected to result in an actual 93 percent reduction in intake flow (which is the Track 1
requirement). However, absent information about Dynegys retrofit plans and the amount or quality
of cooling water that would be available at the disengaging basin after such a retrofit, and given the
uncertainty associated with Dynegys actions to meet the settlement agreement, intake flows could
be substantially reduced or interrupted for long periods of time needed for necessary operations and
critical system construction and maintenance required to meet the reduced pumping rates.
Therefore, due to uncertainties regarding the reliability, quality, and quantity of this potential
source water supply, this alternative is eliminated from further consideration.
Screening Results: Eliminated from further consideration.

Intake Option #10 Open Deepwater Intake in PG&E


Fuel Oil Pipeline at Moss Landing
Intake Option 10 would use the existing carbon-steel pipeline previously used by PG&E for
offloading fuel oil for the Moss Landing Power Plant. The pipeline consists of a 24-inch segment
that extends under Moss Landing Harbor to Moss Landing Beach and an 18-inch submarine
section that extends from the beach approximately 3,000 feet into Monterey Bay. While most of
the 24-inch segment is underground, a section of it is exposed at Moss Landing Beach.
Information provided by Dynegy in conjunction with an inspection of the exposed portion of
pipeline (Longitude 123 Inc., 2011) suggests that the pipeline may not have been pigged or
flushed out before being capped when the offshore terminal to which it connected was
decommissioned, and therefore may contain large quantities of fuel (light oil or diesel fuel)
(Longitude 123 Inc., 2011).

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

I2-7

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix I2
Component Screening Results Component Options NOT Carried Forward

This intake option is fatally flawed for several reasons: (1) the existing fuel line likely contains a
substantial amount of fuel residue, which could present a public health issue; (2) the 18-inchdiameter of the offshore section of the pipeline would be too small to support a 9.6-mgd facility,
especially if it were sliplined with a smaller pipeline to address the public health issued noted in
(1) above; and (3) no impingement and entrainment studies have yet to be performed for this
option. (Use of this pipeline is also being considered for an outfall, discussed in Section 7.6.3.7.)
Screening Results: Eliminated from further consideration.

Intake Option #11 Ranney Wells in Seaside/Sand City


Intake Option 11 emerged from earlier investigations conducted by the MPWMD and would
involve the installation of three Ranney wells at two sites in the former Fort Ord coastal area in
Seaside and Sand City. This intake option is also included in response to public comments
received during the MPWSP EIR scoping process requesting that the CPUC consider subsurface
intakes located outside of the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin; a constraints analysis was
attached to the comment. The earlier investigations provided by the commenter, and conducted
by the MPWMD are summarized below, followed by the preliminary screening results.
The Monterey Peninsula Water Management District 95-10 Project Constraints Analysis
(referred to herein as the 2008 Constraints Analysis) (ICF et al., 2008) investigated the feasibility
of utilizing the shallow Dune Sand Aquifer as a source of feedwater for a 8,400-afy desalination
plant for the Monterey Peninsula. The 2008 Constraints Analysis identified 25 individual well
locations for using HDD (e.g., slant wells), radial wells (e.g., Ranney collector wells), or
conventional wells. Each well location and type was ranked considering drilling and siting
complexity, policy and regulatory restrictions, and feedwater system costs. The 2008 Constraints
Analysis then proposed combinations of wells, locations, and technologies that would result in a
production capacity of 8.7 mgd (or 6,042 gallons per minute [gpm]) of desalinated product water,
the volume considered necessary at that time. The 2008 Constraints Analysis identified
alternatives at three sites that could be paired up to provide the desired production capacity:

Fort Ord Bunker Site (Seaside Groundwater Basin) Two radial or eight vertical wells in
the Dune Sands/Aromas Aquifer with a 6,000- or 4,000-gpm production capacity,
respectively.

Former Fort Ord Waste Water Treatment Site (Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin)
Two conventional vertical wells in the 180-Foot Aquifer with a 4,000-gpm production
capacity.

Former Stillwell Hall Site (Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin) One 3,000-gpm radial
well in the Dune Sands/Aromas Aquifer or four conventional wells with a production
capacity of 2,000 gpm in the Dune Sands/Aromas Aquifer or two conventional wells in the
180-Foot Aquifer with a 4,000-gpm combined production capacity.

The preferred wells identified in the 2008 Constraints Analysis are located within the Salinas
Valley Groundwater Basin, since they are north of the northernmost extent of the divide between

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

I2-8

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix I2
Component Screening Results Component Options NOT Carried Forward

the Seaside and Salinas Valley Groundwater Basins. Additionally, it is estimated that these wells
could only supply feedwater for up to 8.7 mgd (6,042 gpm) of product water, not the 9.6 mgd (or
6,667 gpm) of product water identified for the proposed project.
As such, for this analysis, the options presented in the 2008 Constraints Analysis have been
reevaluated to identify a potential combination of well options that could better meet the project
objectives as well as the intent of the comments received during public scoping. The 2008
Constraints Analysis identified two combinations of well alternatives that could meet the project
objectives:

Alternatives 5 and 14 One Ranney well on private property in Sand City and two radial
wells at the SNG Development Corporation site, each pumping at 3,000 gpm for a
combined capacity of 9,000 gpm. All of the wells would be located in the Seaside
Groundwater Basin and would draw from the shallow Dune Sands/Aromas Aquifer, thus
avoiding any pumping from the policy-restricted 180-Foot Aquifer. The pipeline required
to connect the three wells together would be about 3,000 feet long. However, this option is
not considered further because it would require the purchase of private property.

Alternatives 17 and 19 Two Ranney wells at the former Fort Ord bunker site and one
radial well at the former Fort Ord MW-1 site, each pumping at 3,000 gpm for a combined
capacity of 9,000 gpm. All of the wells would be located in the Seaside Groundwater Basin
and would draw from the Dune Sands/Aromas Aquifer, thus avoiding any pumping from
the policy-restricted 180-Foot Aquifer. The pipeline required to connect the three wells
together would be about 4,000 feet long.
The wells would be spaced a minimum of 100 feet apart (ICF et al., 2008). The footprint of
each well would be approximately 1 acre; wellheads would be buried below grade.

The Fort Ord Bunker Site, formerly used to store ammunition supplies, is located immediately
west of Gigling Road at the approximate northern extent of Seaside Groundwater Basin. The Fort
Ord MW-1 site is located west of Highway 1, and south of the bunker site. There are existing dirt
access roads to each of the sites. In a 2004 study, Camp Dresser & McKee developed geologic
boring data for the MW-1 site (ICF et al., 2008).
Under this option, wells would be located within unincorporated Monterey County on former
Fort Ord lands, now part of Fort Ord Dunes State Park. California State Parks manages all former
Fort Ord lands west of Highway 1. The lands are still under U.S. Army ownership, but are set to
be transferred in the future (ICF et al., 2008). Currently, any proposed third-party actions within
the park would require Army review and approval.
Drawing water from these wells (Alternatives 17 and 19) could provide the required production
capacity and would conform with the export policy that groundwater should not be pumped from
the 180-Foot Aquifer in the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin. However, the two wells are about
5.5 miles south of the proposed MPWSP desalination plant and would therefore require the
additional expense of constructing a source-water pipeline.

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

I2-9

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix I2
Component Screening Results Component Options NOT Carried Forward

Implementation of wells in this location could also require a Permit for Injection and Extraction
from the Seaside Groundwater Basin Watermaster, and the potential drawdown relative to the
amount allowed under the current adjudication would need to be reviewed. The Dune Sands
Aquifer is in direct hydraulic connection with the ocean and is only saturated along the coastal
margin; consequently, there is unlikely to be a defined flow boundary between the Salinas Valley
and Seaside Groundwater Basins. However, because this extraction would occur within the
legally recognized Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin, approval from the Monterey County Water
Resources Agency to export groundwater from the Dune Sands Aquifer could be required.
Additional work would be necessary to define boundary between the Salinas Valley and Seaside
Groundwater Basins for the Dune Sands Aquifer.
It should be noted that the extraction of brackish water from this unit could assist in mitigating
saltwater intrusion into the aquifer through the development of a groundwater depression;
however, technical, legal, and political challenges to using this water source necessitated early
collaboration with the Monterey County Water Resources Agency. Discussions with Monterey
County Water Resources Agency representatives (ICF et al., 2008) indicated that extracting
groundwater from the 180-Foot Aquifer in the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin for export
outside of the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin for municipal use would be precedent-setting
and would therefore have significant institutional and policy ramifications for Salinas Valley
Groundwater Basin users. Although extraction from the 180-Foot Aquifer would be more
politically sensitive, extraction from the Dune Sands Aquifer could also be controversial, and
CalAm would need to demonstrate that the proposed project would extract seawater only and
would not affect brackish groundwater.
California State Parks raised a policy concern regarding the installation of permanent
infrastructure within parkland, specifically third-party infrastructure that could be abandoned in
the future. California State Parks also discourages the placement of facilities outside of defined
development zones; however, the proposed well locations are in conformance with approved
development zones (ICF et al., 2008).
The construction methodology for this option is generally discussed in Section 7.6.1.2. The
Ranney well construction would include installation of a caisson to a depth of approximately
50 feet below sea level, and horizontal drilling or jacking wells in a radial formation.
Specific information on facility maintenance (type, frequency, access) has not been developed;
however, maintenance is expected to be similar to that described in Section 7.6.1.2.
The operation of a subsurface seawater intake system that produces groundwater from the
shallow dune sand aquifer would, by intent and design, induce seawater intrusion into the shallow
aquifer system. Thus, the presence of low-permeability materials between the shallow aquifer
system and the underlying aquifers would protect the underlying aquifers from infiltration of
seawater from the shallow aquifer system.
Because both the former Fort Ord Wastewater Treatment Plant site and former Stillwell Hall site
are in the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin, the Phase II hydrogeologic investigation focused on

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

I2-10

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix I2
Component Screening Results Component Options NOT Carried Forward

the Bunker site, which is located in the Seaside Groundwater Basin and believed to be less
politically challenging than the other two sites. Subsurface investigation of the Bunker site
revealed the presence of clay layers in some of the borings and not in others. Low-permeability
strata encountered were really discontinuous and occurred at differing elevations. The Phase II
investigation concluded that even if there were evidence of an extensive low-permeability layer
between the shallow aquifer system and the underlying aquifers, the siting constraints of both the
CCC and the CA State Parks, combined with the relatively low-permeability sands at this site
limit the potential amount of feedwater that could be developed from a subsurface intake at the
Bunker site to about 2,000 afy (Feeney, 2009).
Screening Results: Eliminated from further consideration.

Intake Option #12 Subsurface Slant Wells at


Reservation Road
This intake option would locate at least nine subsurface slant wells at the western terminus of
Reservation Road on the inland side of the Marina State Beach parking lot. Slant well
construction activities and periodic maintenance would involve earthwork and other ground
disturbance in the paved beach parking lot, but there would be no disturbance in the active beach
or dune areas. All other aspects of construction, operation, and maintenance are assumed to be
consistent with those of the proposed project, as described in Chapter 3.
The parking lot is part of Marina State Beach, which is owned and operated by California State
Parks. This land lies within the City of Marina and is subject to the City of Marina General Plan
and Local Coastal Land Use Plan. This area is designated for Parks and Recreation uses and is
zoned Coastal Open Space (City of Marina, 2000; City of Marina, 1982). Physical space is
available to accommodate the subsurface slant wells. Site access is available via Reservation
Road and the paved state beach parking lot. Well construction would require full closure of the
parking lot for the duration of the construction period. Adequate physical space is available;
however, easements with California State Parks would be required.
General construction methods and considerations, as well as operation and maintenance
assumptions, are assumed to be consistent with the proposed MPWSP methodology for slant well
implementation.
A potential constraint to the implementation of slant wells at this location is Marina Coast Water
Districts existing 300 acre-foot/year desalination (currently non-operational) and associated
intake well, as well as MCWDs plans for developing a future 1.5-mgd (or larger) desalination
facility that would include development of a subsurface seawater intake system on
nearby/adjacent property. Implementation of subsurface slant wells for the MPWSP at this same
location could result in well interference. In addition, the geometry of the beach profile is not
favorable for slant well installation since the target aquifer is shallow, and the limit on a slant well
angle would not allow the well screen to be completed in the Dune Sands aquifer.

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

I2-11

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix I2
Component Screening Results Component Options NOT Carried Forward

Screening Results: Eliminated from further consideration.

Desalination Plant Site Option 1 North Marina


Armstrong Ranch Property
Under this site option, the MPWSP Desalination Plant would be located on approximately 10
acres of the 320-acre Armstrong Ranch parcel, which is situated south of and adjacent to the
MRWPCA Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant and the Monterey Regional Environmental
Park. The Marina Coast Water District currently owns this site, which was evaluated in the
Coastal Water Project EIR as the location for the desalination plant for the North Marina and
Regional Project alternatives.
This undeveloped site is used for grazing land. It lies within the City of Marina Sphere of
Influence (which is governed by the City of Marina General Plan) and in unincorporated
Monterey County (which is subject to the Greater Monterey Peninsula Area Plan). The land is
designated for public facility uses and permanent grazing under the respective land use plans. The
site is accessible via existing unpaved access roads in the Monterey Regional Environmental
Park. Dirt access roads at the proposed site would require improvement from existing access
points for the construction and operation of a desalination plant.
Given that Marina Coast Water District currently owns the property, and that CalAm already
owns the 46-acre Charles Benson Road site which is located approximately 0.75 mile to the
north, and since Site Option 1 does not provide any advantage over the Charles Benson Road site,
it was not carried forward.
Screening Results: Eliminated from further consideration.
_________________________

References
City of Marina, 1982. The City of Marina Local Coastal Land Use Plan. Prepared by Ironside
and Associates. Certified by California Coastal Commission on April 30, 1982.
City of Marina, 2000. City of Marina General Plan, amended December 31, 2006.
Dynegy Moss Landing, LLC (Dynegy), 2011. State Water Resources Control Board OnceThrough Cooling Water Policy Implementation for the Moss Landing Power Plant, April 1,
2011. Available online at: http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/ocean/cwa316/
powerplants/moss_landing/docs/ml_ip2011.pdf. Accessed May 27, 2014.
Feeney, Martin, 2009. Monterey Peninsula Water Management District 95-10 Desalination
Project Hydrostratigraphic Investigation. Prepared by Martin B. Feeney PG, CHg with
assistance from Pueblo Water Resources, Inc. on behalf of the MPWMD. November 2009.

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

I2-12

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix I2
Component Screening Results Component Options NOT Carried Forward

Geoscience Support Services, Inc. (Geoscience), 2014. Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project
Hydrogeologic Investigation, Technical Memorandum (TM 1) - Summary of Results Exploratory Boreholes, July 8, 2014.
ICF Jones and Stokes and Camp, Dresser &McKee, Inc. Monterey Peninsula Water Management
District 95-10 Project Constraints Analysis. P, prepared for Monterey Peninsula Water
Management District, August 2008.
Longitude 123 Inc., 2011. Pipeline Span Non-Destructive Inspection Report: Dynegy Moss
Landing Power Plant, Revision A, Prepared for Padre Associates, Inc. July 19, 2011.
Mickley, Mike, P.E., Ph.D., 2012. Independent Consultant Review: The Peoples Moss Landing
Water Desal Project Proposal, March 8, 2012.
Miller, John A., S.E., JAMSE Engineering Inc., 2012. Structural Evaluation Intake and Outfall
Pipelines, Intake Pump Station and Water Storage Reservoirs, The Peoples Moss Landing
Water Desalination Project, Moss Landing Green Business Park, Moss Landing, CA,
August 14, 2012;
Monterey County Resource Management Agency (MCRMA), Draft Moss Landing Community
Plan, October 2012.
Moss Landing Business Park, LLC (MLBP LLC), 2013. Project Details: The Peoples Moss
Landing Water Desal, Lead Agency: City of Pacific Grove, Contact Person: Paul Hart,
Attorney at Law, Johnson and Moncrief, Project Sponsor: Moss Landing Business Park
LLC, Response to CalAm request for information, April 25, 2013
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), 2010. Statewide Water Quality Control Policy
on the Use of Coastal and Estuarine Waters for Power Plant Cooling, May 2010.
United States Department of Energy (U.S. Department of Energy), Office of Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy, Best Management Practice #10: Cooling Tower Management,
available: http://energy.gov/eere/femp/best-management-practice-10-cooling-towermanagement; accessed November 12, 2014.

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

I2-13

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

APPENDIX J1

Coastal Water Project EIR Analysis:


MPWMD 2006 Estimate of Long-Term Water
Needs Compared with Growth Anticipated in
Jurisdictions General Plans
[This appendix reproduces Section 8.2.4.1 (pages 8-11 to 8-40) of the CalAm Coastal Water
Project Final Environmental Impact Report, as certified December 17, 2009. The section presents
an analysis of consistency between the level of growth anticipated in the general plans of service
area jurisdictions and water for growth proposed to be provided by the Coastal Water Project.]

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

J1-1

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix J1
Coastal Water Project EIR Analysis: MPWMD 2006 Estimate of Long-Term
Water Needs Compared with Growth Anticipated in Jurisdictions General Plans

This page intentionally left blank

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

J1-2

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

8. Growth-Inducement Potential and Secondary Effects of Growth

8.2.4 Demand Projections and Consistency with General


Plans in the Areas Served
8.2.4.1 CalAm Service Area
Future Demand Projections
The CalAm service area component of the Phase 2 Project would provide approximately 4,500 afy
to meet projected future demands. MPWMD prepared estimates of future demand for the
jurisdictions and unincorporated county land within MPWMD boundaries based on information
provided by the jurisdictions. In addition to water needed for anticipated growth, the future demand
estimates include water to meet anticipated demand for residential remodeling projects that have
been deferred due to restrictions imposed in response to Order 95-10 (such as restrictions on
bathroom additions) and a 20 percent contingency factor to address unanticipated water needs or the
expected relaxation of current conservation practices and water use restrictions (required to comply
with Order 95-10 until a replacement supply is provided) when additional water supply becomes
available (MPWMD, 2006b). MPWMDs Technical Advisory Committee, which includes
representatives of the affected jurisdictions, recommended, and the MPWMD Board of Directors
approved, using build-out of the adopted general plans of the jurisdictions within the MPWMD
boundary as the basis for estimating future water needs. To collect the general plan information,
MPWMD asked each jurisdiction to provide the following information (MPWMD, 2004):

A breakdown of potential new single-family and multi-family dwelling units; new nonresidential square footage; an estimate of new irrigated park acreage; an estimate of the
number of fixture units anticipated for use in remodels, and the amount (in percent) of
contingency requested.

An explanation of the rationale used for calculating the figures submitted in response to the
above request.

General plan information, including the year of the last general plan update and duration
and the year the general plan housing element was updated, its duration, and the number of
housing units it projects to be built.

The information submitted by the jurisdictions varied considerably, perhaps due to the variability of
the general plans and the information presented in them. Most jurisdictions included information on
expected number of new single family units, multifamily units, secondary units, and residential
remodels for their residential demand and information on the area available for non-residential
development. Information on non-residential development sometimes included a breakdown of
demand for commercial, industrial, public, and other land uses. Based on the development
information provided by the jurisdictions, MPWMD prepared water demand projections using
water use factors for the various types of anticipated water uses. The use factors were developed
and agreed upon by the MPWMDs Water Demand Committee based on current usage data.
Table 8-5 summarizes MPWMDs estimates of additional long-term water needs by jurisdiction.
Table 8-6 presents current consumption information for each jurisdiction as well as estimates of
total current production with which to compare the jurisdictions projected additional demands. The

CalAm Coastal Water Project


Final Environmental Impact Report

8-11

October 2009
as certified on December 17, 2009

8. Growth-Inducement Potential and Secondary Effects of Growth

TABLE 8-5
ESTIMATED LONG-TERM WATER DEMANDS BY JURISDICTION (afya)

Future
Second Units
Demand
a
(afy )

Subtotal:
Future
New
Residential
Demand
a
(afy )

Future
Residential
Remodels
a
(afy )

Future
NonResidential
Demand
a
(afy )

Other Future
b
Demand
a
(afy )

Total
Additional
Future
Demand
a
(afy )

56

25

100

120

20

48

288

30

48

City of Monterey

46

426

472

123

110

705

City of Pacific Grove

73

376

298

747

43

260

214

1,264

Future Single
Family
Residential
Demand
a
(afy )

Future MultiFamily
Residential
Demand
a
(afy )

City of Carmel

19

City of Del Rey Oaks

Jurisdiction

City of Sand City

48

68

116

210

60

386

City of Seaside

133

21

44

298

283

97

582

Monterey County (Unincorporated)

892

892

37

10

196

1,135

Monterey Peninsula Airport District

115

23

138

2,530

209

1,051

755

4,545

Total

a afy = acre-feet per year.


b Other demand consists of a 20 percent contingency applied to each jurisdiction and residential retrofit credit repayments for several jurisdictions.

SOURCE: MPWMD, 2006b.

CalAm Coastal Water Project


Final Environmental Impact Report

8-12

October 2009
as certified on December 17, 2009

8. Growth-Inducement Potential and Secondary Effects of Growth

TABLE 8-6
ESTIMATED CURRENT AND FUTURE WATER DEMANDS BY JURISDICTION (afya)
A

New Demand
as Percent of
Current
Production)
(%)

Jurisdiction
New Demand
as Percent
of Total New
Demand
(D/4,545)
(%)

Current
b
Consumption
(afya)

Current
Unaccounted
-For-Waterc
(afy)

Current
d
Production
a
(afy )

Total New
Future
Demande
(afya)

City of Carmel

760

95

854

288

34%

6%

City of Del Rey Oaks

158

20

178

48

27%

1%

City of Monterey

3,922

488

4,411

705

16%

16%

City of Pacific Grove

1,564

195

1,758

1,264

72%

28%

107

13

121

386

319%

8%

City of Seaside

1,866

232

2,098

582

28%

13%

Monterey County
(Unincorporated)

4,218

525

4,743

1,135

24%

25%

See note f

See note f

See note f

138

See note f

3%

12,595

1,568

14,163

4,545

32%

100%

Jurisdiction

City of Sand City

Monterey Peninsula
Airport District
Total

a afy = acre-feet per year.


b Existing consumption for CalAm jurisdictions is the annual average based on consumption data for water years 2003 through 2007

provided by CalAm to MPWMD. Consumption refers to the total water delivered to CalAms customers; it does not include unaccountedfor water.
c Unaccounted-for water is typically defined as the difference between total water produced and total water billed (or consumed), and
includes water delivery system leaks, water not billed or tracked in the system, such as water used for fire fighting and system flushing,
and any unauthorized use. The estimated unaccounted-for water shown in this table is based on the average percent unaccounted-for
water for the CalAm main Monterey water system as a whole for water years 2003 through 2007 (11.1 percent) applied to each
jurisdiction.
d Jurisdiction production was calculated based on the jurisdiction-specific consumption estimates shown here and an assumed uncounted
for-water factor of 11.1 percent of total production.
e From Table 8-5.
f Background documentation used for this analysis do not show separate consumption information for the Monterey Peninsula Airport
District; the airport districts existing demand is included with Monterey County (Unincorporated).
SOURCE: CalAm, 2006; CalAm, 2007, MPWMD, 2006b. MPWD,2007.

current consumption estimates are the average of the past five years of consumption data (the most
recent for which data are available, for water years 2003 through 2007) 1. Unaccounted-for- water 2
shown in Table 8-6 is based on the average percent unaccounted-for water for the CalAm main
Monterey water system as a whole for water years 2003 through 2007 (11.1 percent) applied to each
jurisdiction. The portion of new demand that would be used by each jurisdiction is also shown.

1
2

Based on consumption data provided by CalAm to MPWMD.


Unaccounted-for water is the difference between total water produced and total water billed to customers (water
consumed) and typically includes fire fighting use, maintenance requirements, system flushing, leaks, and any
unauthorized use.

CalAm Coastal Water Project


Final Environmental Impact Report

8-13

October 2009
as certified on December 17, 2009

8. Growth-Inducement Potential and Secondary Effects of Growth

Jurisdiction Projections
This section presents a summary of each jurisdictions projected demand and compares the
information on development potential submitted to the MPWMD for development of water
demand projections with information contained in the jurisdictions general plan or related
planning documents.
Table 8-7 summarizes the estimates of existing and projected population and housing units
presented in the jurisdictions planning documents. As shown, few included projections of future
population; the documents (especially the Housing Elements) provided more specific information
on existing and planned housing within the jurisdictions. Since the plans vary in age and not all
provide estimates of existing population and housing, that data from the 2000 census is also
provided, for informational purposes.
TABLE 8-7
GENERAL PLAN EXISTING AND PROJECTED POPULATION AND HOUSING ESTIMATES
AND 2000 CENSUS INFORMATION

Jurisdiction

U.S. Census
2000

General Plan
Existing

General Plan
Buildout

Percent Change
from Existing:
General Plan
Estimates

4,081

N/A

See note e

N/A

See note e

POPULATION
City of Carmel

4,081

City of Del Rey Oaks

1,650

1,692

City of Monterey

29,674

30,350

34,658

14%

City of Pacific Grove

15,522

N/A

N/A

See note e

City of Sand City

261

261

1,295

396%

City of Seaside

31,696

31,696

N/A

See note e

Monterey County (Unincorporated)

101,414

N/A

See note e

21,813

HOUSING UNITS
City of Carmel

3,334

3,433

N/A

See note e

727

N/A

N/A

See note e

City of Monterey

13,383

13,420

15,555

16%

City of Pacific Grove

8,032

7,702

13,133

71%

87

90

587

552%

11,005

11,005

City of Del Rey Oaks

City of Sand City


City of Seaside
Monterey County (Unincorporated)

10,706

37,139

15,483

41

25,439

138%

N/A = Not available: not specified in general plan or general plan CEQA document.
a Del Rey Oaks population in 1996 according to the 1997 General Plan.
b 1980 population for the unincorporated portion of the Monterey Peninsula subarea of the 1982 General Plan (the currently adopted

general plan for the County). According to the 1982 plan, the 1980 population for the entire unincorporated area of the county was
84,497; the population for the Monterey Peninsula subarea (unincorporated land only) was 21,813, and the population of the North
County subarea (unincorporated) was 29,163. (The General Plan also provides population estimates for six other subareas that are
outside the project vicinity.)
c Number of housing units in Seaside at buildout is based on the 2000 census estimate of 11,005 units plus buildout for the total city of
4,478 (maximum potential for North Seaside and Seaside Proper shown in Housing Element Technical Appendix Table 33); potential
additional buildout in Seaside Proper, the part of the City served by CalAm, is 415. Information on existing units for Seaside Proper only
is not provided.
d General Plan existing and projected housing units are not comparable to the 2000 census estimate, which is for the entire
unincorporated area of the County; the General Plan existing and projected housing units shown here are for the unincorporated area of
the Monterey Peninsula, from the 1984 Greater Monterey Peninsula Area Plan (a component of the General Plan).
e Cannot be calculated from information in the General Plan.
SOURCES: City of Carmel, 2003a; City of Del Rey Oaks,1997; City of Monterey, 2004; City of Pacific Grove, 1994; City of Sand City,
2002; City of Seaside, 2003; Monterey County, 1982; U.S. Census Bureau, 2000; California Department of Finance, 2008.

CalAm Coastal Water Project


Final Environmental Impact Report

8-14

October 2009
as certified on December 17, 2009

8. Growth-Inducement Potential and Secondary Effects of Growth

Each jurisdiction summary provides the following:

The date of the general plan and general plan housing element and their respective buildout or planning horizon years

A summary of the information on development potential based on general plan buildout


submitted by the jurisdiction to MPWMD (the basis for the projected water demands)

Revisions, if any, to the submitted information reflected in MPWMDs final demand


estimates. The discussion is based on a comparison of the buildout estimates submitted by
the jurisdiction, MPWMDs June 2005 draft estimate of long-term water needs (which
includes MPWMDs assumptions about residential and non-residential development; water
use factors; and other components of demand) (MPWMD, 2005) and MPWMDs final
demand estimate (Exhibit 1-C at the May18, 2006 MPWMD Board workshop and
presented in Table 8-5, above) (MPWMD, 2006b), which shows only the water demand
estimate for each demand component. The purpose of this discussion is to disclose any
changes in assumptions regarding expected future development that may be reflected in
MPWMDs water demand estimates compared to the development assumptions submitted
by the jurisdiction. Any revisions made subsequent to the jurisdictions submittal resulted
from communications between the jurisdictions and MPWMD (Pintar, 2009),

The estimated total new (future) demand and the subtotal of future demand for new
residential and new non-residential development

A discussion of the consistency of the submitted information with information presented in


the jurisdictions general plan, housing elements, and other related general plan documents
and CEQA analyses.

Recognizing the critical role of water in development considerations on the Monterey


Peninsula in recent years, a summary of the existing constraints on planned development
posed by existing water supplies as described in the general plan is also included.

City of Carmel

General Plan and Housing Element dates and planning periods

Carmels General Plan was adopted June 3, 2003 and has a planning period of 20 years. 3

The Housing Element was last updated July 2003 and covers the planning period of July
2002 through June 2007.

Buildout information submitted by City (City of Carmel, 2004)

Potential new single-family dwellings: 69 units

Potential new multi-family dwellings: 257 units, including:

165 units in the citys multifamily residential district (35 units) and three commercial
districts (130 units)

92 units potentially constructed on city-owned property

Second units: None indicated


Specifically, the General Plan states (p. I-10) Twenty years is a reasonable time horizon for the General Plan but it
should be reevaluated in detail after ten years. This General Plan has been developed as a working Plan and its
evaluation should be a continuing process. The Citys submittal to MPWMD indicates a planning period of 20 years.

CalAm Coastal Water Project


Final Environmental Impact Report

8-15

October 2009
as certified on December 17, 2009

8. Growth-Inducement Potential and Secondary Effects of Growth

Non-Residential square footage: 292,351 square feet (sf); including:


-

268,946 sf (total) in Central Commercial and Service Commercial Districts


23,405 sf in Residential and Limited Commercial District

Remodels: 13,277.5 fixture units (1 bathroom per dwelling, 2,825 dwellings, 4.7 fixture
units per bathroom)

Carmel suggested a 10 percent contingency factor; ultimately 20 percent was used for all
jurisdictions.

Revisions reflected in the MPWMD demand estimate (MPWMD, 2005; 2006b)

The demand estimate includes 25 afy for approximately 282 second units, which were not
shown in Carmels submittal.

Assumes 2,543 existing dwelling units for purposes of calculating remodel demand;
Carmels submittal indicated that there were 2,825 dwelling units in the R-1 District and
assumed one new bathroom for each.

Demand summary

The estimated future (additional) demand for Carmel is 288 afy, including 100 afy for new
residential development, 120 afy for remodels, and 20 afy for new non-residential
development.

Consistency of Growth Assumptions with General Plan

Residential development potential. The estimate of 69 single family units is consistent with
the General Plan Housing Element, which indicates the potential development of
69 additional single family residences (City of Carmel, 2003b). The estimate of 165
multifamily units in the multi family and commercial districts is consistent with the
General Plan Housing Element, City of Carmel, 2003b) which shows development
potential of 165 units within the elements 2002-2007.Although the Housing Regarding
multi-family units within the housing element timeframe (2002-2007), the Housing
Element shows development potential of 165 units of multi-family housing, which is 92
fewer units than the 257 units indicated in the Citys submittal to MPWMD. This
difference is due, however, to the elements short time horizon. The element indicates that
existing zoning allows for the theoretical development of 2,002 additional multi-family
units, but that several practical considerations necessitate the reduction of this estimate,
resulting in the figure of 165 considered feasible within the housing element timeframe.
The largest reduction was by 589 units to account for sites that were unlikely to be
redeveloped or have significant additions within the [Housing Elements] five-year
planning horizon. Among these sites are ones that are currently occupied by essential
public services and sites occupied by relatively new structures that are unlikely to be
redeveloped at higher densities in the near term. The Citys submittal to MPWMD states
that staff has identified the potential for 92 additional housing units that could be located
on City-owned properties (Sunset Center, Public Works, etc.) consistent with the housing
element characterization of some of the parcels identified as having redevelopment
potential. The housing element also includes a policy (Policy P3-35) and program
(Program 7) to consider use of surplus public land for opportunities to develop low-cost
senior housing, although the potential development of such sites is not quantified.
Therefore, the Citys submittal appears to be consistent with relatively long term
development potential anticipated in the General Plan. It should be noted, however, that the
Housing Element acknowledges that previous Housing Element also included policies
calling for development of housing on surplus public land, but that such development did

CalAm Coastal Water Project


Final Environmental Impact Report

8-16

October 2009
as certified on December 17, 2009

8. Growth-Inducement Potential and Secondary Effects of Growth

not occur in the timeframe of the previous housing element. Nevertheless it is reasonable to
assume 92 of 589 units (16 percent of the units considered to have longer term
development potential) could in fact be developed or redeveloped within the timeframe of
general plan buildout.

Second units: Although Carmels submittal to MPWMD did not indicate development
potential for second units, MPWMD includes 25 afy for second units in Carmel. The City
has an ordinance that allows second units on larger parcels (City of Carmel, 2003b) and the
Housing Element discusses the potential for development of subordinate housing, which
includes second units and guest housing on parcels with an existing dwelling. However, the
Housing Element estimates far less potential for developing second units -- a total of 45
(25 subordinate units and 20 guest units) compared with MPWMDs estimate. Based on
MPWMDs water use factor for second units (0.087), the Districts estimate of 25 afy
would allow for development of up to 287 units 4.

Remodels. The Citys submittal estimates that each of the 2,825 dwelling units in the Citys
R-1 (single-family residential) district will add a new bathroom. MPWMDs estimate
revises the estimated number of dwellings to 2,543 (MPWMD, 2005). Both estimates are
generally consistent with information in the Housing Element and AMBAGs estimate of
the number housing units in Carmel. According to the Housing Element, 83 percent of
Carmels households are in the R-1 district, AMBAG estimates that Carmel had a total of
3,349 housing units in 2005. Eight-three percent of 3,349 is 2,780 units that would be in the
R-1 district, based on the foregoing information, which is fairly close to both estimates,
though somewhat closer to that submitted by the city than to MPWMDs (approximately
2 percent lower than the Citys and 9 percent higher than MPWMDs).

Non-residential future development: Information on commercial development potential in


the General Plan is much less specific than the information on residential development
contained in the Housing Element discussed above. The Citys submittal to the MPWMD,
which states that there are approximately 40 acres in the Citys three commercial districts is
consistent with the Land Use and Community Character Element which indicates that the
Citys commercial area occupies 39 acres. The General Plan discusses the types of
development included in the commercial districts, the importance of limiting the extent of
the total commercial district to its 1982 boundaries, and the importance of the districts
surrounding the core commercial (CC) district in providing a buffer and transition between
the commercial core and the residential neighborhoods. The plan also recommends review
of the current uses in these buffer districts (designated residential/commercial [RC] and
R-4 districts), and states that future development in these areas should be used to achieve a
smooth transition to the R-1 districts in both design and land use. However, the discussion
does not indicate how much land in the commercial districts may be underdeveloped or
otherwise available for future development. The Citys submittal indicates that the
development areas identified (approximately 0.54 acres in the RC district and 6.5 acres of
floor area in the CC and Service Commercial [SC] Districts) are limited to the existing
commercial districts and do not assume the expansion or change of the commercial district
boundaries, consistent with general plan policy. The submittal indicates that the estimate is
based on detailed staff assessment of the commercial districts, likely utilizing background
information that would not be expected in a general plan. However, because the general
plan does not specifically indicate the potential for new development in these districts, the
submittals estimate of nonresidential development could potentially be inconsistent with
general plan buildout.

MPWMDs May 2005 draft estimate indicates 282 second units; the May 2006 final estimate does not indicate
number of units.

CalAm Coastal Water Project


Final Environmental Impact Report

8-17

October 2009
as certified on December 17, 2009

8. Growth-Inducement Potential and Secondary Effects of Growth

Water
The General Plan clearly acknowledges that the existing water shortage is a constraint on
planned development. The Housing Element states that [t]he City is primarily built out
and is severely constrained by the lack of water to accommodate new development, and
that [t]he primary environmental constraint to the development of housing in Carmel is the
lack of water. In the August 2002 surveys of property owners in the commercial and
residential districts, the lack of water was identified as the greatest impediment to the
development of housing. This lack of an available water supply has limited growth in
Carmel and throughout the Monterey Peninsula region over the last ten years.
The plans Open Space and Conservation Element state the following under the topic,
Water Resources:
A major concern in Carmel is the availability of water for current land use and
growth as defined in this Plan. The conservation, development and utilization of
water resources is essential to Carmel and its environs.
The element outlines City policies to protect and conserve its water resources. The per
capita consumption data presented, which includes information on other cities on the
peninsula, is for 1980 and 1981, and therefore may not reflect current consumptions rates
which would likely be more efficient today due to state plumbing code requirements and
regional and/or local conservation programs.
City of Del Rey Oaks

General Plan and Housing Element dates and planning periods

Del Rey Oaks General Plan is dated January 1997 and has a planning period of
approximately 20 years (City of Del Rey Oaks, 1997).

A draft update of the Housing Element was prepared in August 2006; however, as of
October 2008 it has not been adopted; therefore the applicable planning document for the
City is the 1997 General Plan.

Buildout information submitted by City (City of Del Rey Oaks, 2005)


The City submitted the following buildout information:

Potential new single-family dwellings: 17 lots of record for residential housing

Potential new multi-family dwellings: None specifically indicated (see single family
information above)

Non-Residential: 300 room hotel and mixed use development on City-owned 17 acre parcel
and revitalization of City-owned 10-acre golf driving range

Remodels: 100 residential remodels - bathroom units

Other: None indicated

Del Rey Oaks suggested a 10 percent contingency factor; ultimately 20 percent was used
for all jurisdictions.

The submittal expressly excludes development on lands located within the former Fort Ord army
base, which has another water supply source (MCWD).

CalAm Coastal Water Project


Final Environmental Impact Report

8-18

October 2009
as certified on December 17, 2009

8. Growth-Inducement Potential and Secondary Effects of Growth

Revisions reflected in the MPWMD demand estimate (MPWMD, 2005; 2006b

None (although specific assumptions for commercial demand are not shown).

Demand summary

The estimated future (additional) demand for Del Rey Oaks is 48 afy, including 5 afy for
new residential development and 30 afy for new non-residential development.

Consistency of Growth Assumptions with General Plan

Residential development potential. The submittal estimate of 17 lots of record for residential
housing is inconsistent with the 1997 General Plan, which indicates the potential for
developing 5 additional single family residential units (City of Del Rey Oaks, 1997). It is
noted that the estimate is more consistent with the Final Review Draft of the Del Rey Oaks
Housing Element, dated August 10, 2006, which indicates the potential for 23 additional
residential units to be developed within Del Rey Oaks (Del Rey Oaks, 2006). However, the
draft Housing Element has not been adopted and therefore is not a valid, adopted plan; the
1997 General Plan is the currently adopted land use planning document for the City.

Remodels. The Citys estimate of 100 residential remodels (bathroom units) would
represent about 14 percent of the total of 727 housing units in Del Rey Oaks, according to
the 2000 census.

Non-residential future development. Information regarding the 300-room hotel and mixed
use development on a 17-acre City-owned parcel is generally consistent with the General
Plan. The section of land between Highway 218 and North South Road designated general
commercial -visitor-serving is approximately 17 acres 5 and is assumed to be the parcel
referenced in the submittal. The general commercial visitor serving districts accommodate
motels, hotels and restaurants among other commercial land uses. Table 1 of the General
Plan lists two potential hotels, one of which (with 316 rooms) would be on Fort Ord Reuse
Authority (FORA) land the City is planning to annex; since FORA lands have another
water supply source it would not be included in the submittal to MPWMD. (As noted, the
submittal explicitly states that development on FORA parcels is not included.) The other
hotel development listed in General Plan Table 1, for a parcel within the existing City
boundary (i.e., not part of FORA lands), is part of an office park/hotel development which
indicates a 205-room hotel. While the submittals hotel and mixed use land uses are
generally consistent with the office park/hotel designation, the general plan indicates a
205-room hotel rather than a 300-room hotel. Thus, while the mixed use development
indicated in the submittal is assumed to be equivalent to the office park development
indicated in General Plan Table 1, the Citys submittal to MPWMD reflects a more
intensive hotel development (111 more rooms with the estimated 316-room hotel,
compared with the 205-room hotel indicated in the 1997 general plan).
The submittal does not elaborate on what is meant by revitalization of the 10-acre driving
range on City-owned parcel but MPWMD appears not to have allocated water for it; the
commercial demand of 30 afy presumably reflects 300 hotel rooms (consistent with the
Citys submittal) times the MPWMDs water use factor for hotel rooms of 0.10 af per
room.

Estimate of size is based on the Final Review Draft Housing Element, which includes a figure showing the size of
parcels; the parcel between Highway 218 and North-South Road is shown as 16.09 acres.

CalAm Coastal Water Project


Final Environmental Impact Report

8-19

October 2009
as certified on December 17, 2009

8. Growth-Inducement Potential and Secondary Effects of Growth

Water
The 1997 General Plan addresses the need for water to support future growth, stating that
[w]ater is a paramount concern for all jurisdictions on the Monterey Peninsula. The recent
drought led to water conservation measures throughout the Monterey Peninsula. Although
1994/1995 and 1005/1996 were relatively wet years, other events [voter rejection of a
ballot measure to construct a desalination plant and issuance of SWRCB Order 95-10] have
magnified concern regarding the availability of water to support additional growth.
City of Monterey

General Plan and Housing Element dates and planning periods

Montereys General Plan was adopted in January 2005 and has a long-range planning
period of 10 to 20 years. 6

The Housing Element is included as part of the General Plan (adopted January 2005) and,
based on the implementation schedule of its goals and programs, its planning period
extends through 2007.

Buildout information submitted by City (City of Monterey, 2005a)

Potential new single-family dwellings: 163 units

Potential new multi-family dwellings: 500 units in areas designated for multi-family
dwellings and 1,302 units in areas designated for mixed use

Potential new military quarters at the Defense Language Institute and Naval Postgraduate
School: 170

Non-Residential square footage: 398,574 sf, combined total for the Downtown/East
Downtown, North Fremont, Lighthouse/Wave, and Cannery Row districts; assumes
-

60 percent in each district would be low water use (MPWMD Group I category of
non-residential use)

40 percent would be high water use (MPWMD Group II category of non-residential


use)

Remodels: None indicated

Other: None indicated

Monterey suggested a 20 percent contingency factor, which was ultimately adopted for all
jurisdictions.

Buildout information submitted by Department of the Army for the Presidio of Monterey
(U.S. Department of the Army, 2005)

6
7

The Presidio submitted a separate estimate of future growth at the facility, as follows
(summary of detailed listing):
-

New non-residential: 23.03 afy

Net demand for new barracks (new demand minus demand for barracks planned for
demolition) 7: 25.19 afy

The General Plan states (p. 4) that it includes both intermediate (5 to 10 years) and long range (10 to 20 years).
Demand for barracks included in the Presidios submittal is included in MPWMDs estimate of nonresidential
demand for the City.

CalAm Coastal Water Project


Final Environmental Impact Report

8-20

October 2009
as certified on December 17, 2009

8. Growth-Inducement Potential and Secondary Effects of Growth

Total new demand: 48.22 afy

Revisions reflected in the MPWMD demand estimate (MPWMD, 2005; 2006b)


None pertaining to residential development potential; new military quarters for Defense
Language Institute and Naval Postgraduate School included in the Citys submittal are
combined with Monterey multifamily dwellings for a total of 1,972 units. (Monterey had
included different water use factors for residential uses that were lower than the standard
factors used by MPWMD to calculate demand. 8)
The City estimated that additional nonresidential demand would be 49 afy, whereas
MPWMD estimate is 75 afy 9. This may but does not necessarily reflect a change in
nonresidential development assumptions from those in the Citys submittal. The Citys
estimate that 49 afy would be needed for future non-residential development was based on
the assumption of a 60 percent - 40 percent split between low- and high-water-use
commercial land uses on 398,574 square feet available for future commercial development,
and use of MPWMDs standard water use factors (0.00007 af/sf for low-use 10 and
0.0002 af/sf for high use 11). As noted, the final MPWMD demand estimate indicates
non-residential use of 75 afy for the City. Assuming the same total area of new commercial
development estimated by the City (398,574sf), MPWMDs estimate implies an average
water use factor of 0.0002 -- MPWMDs use factor for Group II - high-water-use land uses.
MPWMDs list of Group II land uses consists of the following: bakery, pizza, dry cleaner,
deli, coffee house, supermarket and convenience shop, and sandwich shop. While it is
reasonable to assume that some of these types of land uses would be developed, no
rationale is provided to explain why other lower water-use development would not also be
expected to occur in part of the remaining area (as the Citys submittal suggests).
Demand summary

The estimated future (additional) demand for Monterey is 705 afy, including 472 afy for
new residential development and 123 afy for new non-residential development.

Consistency of City of Monterey Growth Assumptions with General Plan

Residential Development Potential. The estimate of 163 single family units is consistent
with the estimate shown for single family use in the General Plan (City of Monterey,
2005b) and General Plan Final EIR (City of Monterey, 2004). The estimate of 500 units in
designated multi-family areas and 1,302 multi-family units in designated mixed-use areas is
consistent with the estimates shown in the General Plan and General Plan Final EIR. The
estimate of 170 units for the Defense Language Institute and Naval Postgraduate School is
consistent with estimate shown in the General Plan and General Plan Final EIR.

Non-residential future development. There is no quantitative information on non-residential


area or development potential in the General Plan or General Plan EIR by which to verify
that the City assumes its commercial districts are 90 percent developed (or, conversely, that

The MPWMDs Technical Advisory and Water Demand committees worked to develop the approach to estimate
future demands (which was then approved by the Board of Directors), which included use of standard water use
factors for all jurisdictions for different types of water use. Therefore, jurisdictions were not asked to submit water
use factors with their build-out estimates, although some (including Monterey) did.
9 Based on background materials (MPWMDs May 20, 2005 draft demand estimates) this analysis assumes that
MPWMDs final estimate of 123 afy for non-residential use for Monterey includes 48 afy for the Presidio of
Monterey and 75 afy for the City.
10 This is MPWMDs standard water use factor for low-to-moderate (Group I) non-residential water uses
(Regulation II, Rule 24, Table 2).
11 This is MPWMDs standard water use factor for high (Group II) non-residential water uses (Regulation II, Rule 24,
Table 2).

CalAm Coastal Water Project


Final Environmental Impact Report

8-21

October 2009
as certified on December 17, 2009

8. Growth-Inducement Potential and Secondary Effects of Growth

about 10 percent of the total commercial development potential remains and would be
developed in either the General Plan or CWP planning horizons) as implied by the
calculations submitted by the city (described below). Qualitative discussion of development
potential in both the General Plan and General Plan EIR focuses on residential
development potential. The General Plan EIR states that [c]ommercial development will
continue to occur in the Citys existing areas, indicating that some additional
commercial development is expected (City of Monterey, 2004).
The Citys estimate of new development in its commercial areas was estimated based on
(1) the total area of each of four commercial districts (Downtown/East Downtown, North
Fremont, Lighthouse/Wave, and Cannery Row); (2) the lot coverage standard for the
districts (50 percent for three districts and 100 percent for one); and (3) the assumption that
new (future) development represents 10 percent of total allowable development within the
four districts. The Citys estimate includes anticipated development, which refers to total
development area (calculated from the total area times the allowable lot coverage), and
anticipated new development which is 10 percent of the total anticipated development.
By this approach, total new development for the four districts combined was estimated to
be 398,574 square feet, the basis for the Citys estimate of water demand. The City
estimated that 60 percent of the new development would be low-water uses (use factor of
0.00007) and 40 percent would be high water uses (use factor of 0.0002), resulting in total
new non-residential demand of 48 afy. As discussed above, MPWMDs final estimate,
75 afy, suggests that the higher water use factor was applied to the entire area.
The Citys estimate of the total size of its districts is assumed to be factual. However, the
Citys basis for assuming that 10 percent of its commercial districts are yet to be developed
is not indicated in the submittal and is neither supported nor contradicted by information in
the General Plan, since there is little specific information on development or development
potential in the commercial districts. Given that some additional non-residential
development is expected, although the City is largely built out, an estimate of 10 percent is
reasonably conservative for purposes of estimating future water demands. As noted above,
MPWMD revised the estimate of future nonresidential demand from that included in the
Citys submittal. Although the basis for this revision is not indicated in memoranda and
background materials (provided in Board of Directors and Committee meeting packets and
presentations) on the future demand estimates, the revised estimate is consistent with an
assumption of the same area of new nonresidential development estimated by the City but
with Group II (water use rate) land uses. While it may be reasonable to expect that at least
some of the new nonresidential development would include low water-use (Group I) land
uses (as the Citys submittal indicated), the difference between the two estimates (26 afy)
relative to Montereys size and overall water demand is minor (less than 1 percent of the
Citys current consumption) and would not constitute excess capacity that could
substantially fuel growth that is unforeseen in the Citys estimate.
Consistency of Presidio of Monterey Growth Assumptions with Presidio Master Plan
The last adopted master plan for the Presidio was adopted in 1982. The development and
future water needs estimate provided to MPWMD was based on a water supply assessment
that had been prepared prior to the submittal. Planning at the facility is not currently
operating under an approved or adopted land use plan, and projects have been required to
receive approval by headquarters on an exception basis based on draft development
plans (which can evolve fairly rapidly) (Elliott, 2008a). Presidio staff are currently
working on a new Master Plan, which cannot be approved prior to completion of an

CalAm Coastal Water Project


Final Environmental Impact Report

8-22

October 2009
as certified on December 17, 2009

8. Growth-Inducement Potential and Secondary Effects of Growth

environmental impact statement (EIS) on the draft plan. The EIS is expected to be
completed within 19 to 24 months (Elliott, 2008a).
In addition, the Presidios recent planning efforts have resulted in a revised estimate of
development at the Presidio and future water needs from that included in the submittal to
MPWMD. The Presidios current working estimate is 67 afy [compared to the 48.22 afy
estimate submitted to MPWMD in 2005] which includes a 25 percent reserve for
unforeseen projects (Elliott, 2008a). The Army has existing water rights at the former Fort
Ord Army Base and is considering what potential there may be, if any, to tap some portion
of those rights to meet new demands at the Presidio (Elliott, 2008b).
Water
According to the General Plan Conservation Element (City of Monterey, 2005b), [l]ack of
available water is a primary obstacle to meeting General Plan goals; therefore, it must be
the goal of the City of Monterey and this Plan to obtain a long-term, sustainable water
supply, including evaluation of water supply options outside the present Monterey
Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD) framework. Monterey has reached the
limits of its allocation and has very little water available to meet housing, economic, and
public facility goals. The MPWMD has not provided a stable, long-term source of water,
and many of the alternatives proposed by the District would provide only enough water for
short-term needs. This Plan requires actions to provide adequate water supplies.
City of Pacific Grove

General Plan and Housing Element dates and planning periods

Pacific Groves General Plan was adopted in 1994 and has a planning horizon of 2010
(City of Pacific Grove, 1994).

The Housing Element was adopted in December 2003; based on timeline information for
its goals and programs it appears to cover the period 2003 through 2007. AMBAGs
housing needs estimate included in the element are for the period 2000 to 2007 (City of
Pacific Grove, 2003).

Buildout information submitted by City (City of Pacific Grove, 2005)

Potential new single-family dwellings: 262 units, including:


-

133 units on building sites on multiple lot parcels


61 units in new subdivisions
68 units on vacant sites

Second units: 3,426 units

Potential new multi-family dwellings: 1,743 units, including


-

1,128 units in commercial districts


566 units on under-utilized multi-family sites
12 units on building sites derived from multi-family sites in R-2 districts
37 units on vacant sites

Non-Residential square footage: 1,270,000 sf of commercial use and 318 rooms for visitor
accommodation, including
-

635,000 sf in low to moderate water use commercial uses


635,000 sf in high water use commercial uses

CalAm Coastal Water Project


Final Environmental Impact Report

8-23

October 2009
as certified on December 17, 2009

8. Growth-Inducement Potential and Secondary Effects of Growth

visitor accommodation includes 270 rooms for one downtown block occupied by the
Holman Building and a net gain of 48 motel rooms on four site in the R-3-M zone

Remodels: 924 including


-

362 residences adding one full bath


362 residences adding two full baths
200 demolition/rebuild projects between 2005 and 2025

Other: 25 acre feet for public water requirements

Pacific Grove suggested a 20 percent contingency factor, which was ultimately adopted for
all jurisdictions.
In its submittal, the City emphasized that its estimates were based on the General Plan and
subject to change, and that the City assumed the requested information was for purpose of
estimating long term need and not as a basis for future allocations (City of Pacific Grove,
2005).

Revisions reflected in the MPWMD demand estimate (MPWMD, 2005; 2006b)


None pertaining to residential development. With respect to non-residential land uses,
MPWMD does not show a separate listing for Pacific Groves stated public water
requirements of 25 afy, which is assumed to be included in the estimate for future nonresidential demand of 260 afy. This is slightly lower than the Citys combined estimate for
non-residential and public water use totaling 263. The City used MPWMD Group I and
Group II use factors for its estimates of demand for low-to-moderate and high water use
demand. The assumptions underlying MPWMDs estimate of 260 afy are not shown, but
are minor and assumed roughly the same level of nonresidential development indicated in
the Citys submittal.
Demand summary

The estimated future (additional) demand for Pacific Grove is 1,264 afy, including 747 afy
for new residential development and 260 afy for new non-residential development.

Consistency of Growth Assumptions with General Plan

Residential Development Potential. The estimate of 262 new single family units -including the breakdown shown above -- is consistent with information on residential
development potential (maximum potential additional units) presented in Figure 2-4 of the
General Plan (City of Pacific Grove, 1994). The estimate of 3,426 second units also is
consistent with the information presented in Figure 2-4. With respect to construction of
second units, the General Plan states that second units are being added at a slower pace
than the total permitted potential suggests, as follows:
Of the 5,431 new units possible in the theoretical build-out projection for Pacific
Grove, 3,426 are new secondary units on sites with existing single-family dwellings.
However, over the past 10 years during which zoning has allowed secondary units,
only 42 have been built. Leaving aside the lack of water, this experience suggests that
there will be a steady trickle of new secondary units, but not a flood of thousands. All
other sources of new unitsintensification of use on current sites, subdivision of
lots, development of buildable lots, and vacant lotswould produce at most
2,000 units, and again, past trends lead to the conclusion that new development will
occur at a measured pace (City of Pacific Grove, 1994).

CalAm Coastal Water Project


Final Environmental Impact Report

8-24

October 2009
as certified on December 17, 2009

8. Growth-Inducement Potential and Secondary Effects of Growth

The estimate of 1,743 multi-family units -- including the breakdown shown above -- is
consistent with information on development potential presented in Figure 2-4 of the
General Plan.

Non-residential future development. The estimate of 1,270,000 square feet of additional


commercial development is consistent with information presented in the General Plan.
(City of Pacific Grove, 1994). The estimate of 48 new motel rooms in the R-3-M zone is
consistent with the General Plan, which states that replacing existing motels with motels
developed to the maximum density allowed in the R-3-M district would result in a net gain
of 48 units on four sites (City of Pacific Grove, 1994). Development of the Holman
Building for hotel use is consistent with the General Plan information, which indicates that
City voters passed a ballot measure in 1994 to allow condominium and hotel use in the
Holmans block of Downtown (City of Pacific Grove, 1994) and with General Plan Policy
18, which states: Support hotel development in the former Holmans block of the
Downtown, as allowed by adoption of an initiative measure by citys voters in June 1994
(City of Pacific Grove, 1994).

Additional considerations. Although the Citys estimates of future residential and non
residential development submitted to the MPWMD are in fact consistent with information
presented in the adopted general plan, several points should be noted:
First, the new development estimates presented in General Plan Figure 2-4 -- which are the
same as those included in the Citys submittal -- are estimates of maximum potential
additional development. As the text on residential development excerpted from the general
plan above indicates, rather than development at the maximum potential allowed under
planning and zoning, development rates in the City suggest that the maximum development
potential may not be reached, suggesting in turn that the new development estimates in the
submittal are higher than would reasonably be expected.
Second, although the Citys General Plan was adopted in 1994, the 2005 submittal to
MPWMD does not make any adjustments to account for the development foreseen in 1994
that subsequently occurred over the ensuing 10 years. That is, all the future development
anticipated in 1994 is still assumed to be future additional development in the Citys 2005
submittal. Ordinarily it would be reasonable to assume that some of the development
foreseen 10 or 11 years earlier would have already occurred, in which case such
development would already be served by existing water supplies and should be excluded
from current estimates. However, the General Plan states that additional water would be
needed to support much of the growth anticipated in the plan (see discussion under Water,
below). Given the constraints on supply and the effect this has had in limiting development
potential, the 1994 plan would remain a reasonable source for future demand projections.

Remodels. According to the Citys submittal, the estimate of the number of residential
remodels is based on the average annual rate for the preceding four years, applied to the
next 20 years (2005 to 2025), a reasonable approach to take for this estimate. (MPWMD
applied the standard remodel water use factor to the estimated number of remodels, which
revised the suggested use factors included in the Citys submittal. As noted previously, use
factors were not requested by MPWMD, and common use factors were used for all
jurisdictions.)

Water
The General Plan summarizes the constraints placed by the existing water supply limitations
on the level of development envisioned in the plan as follows: The theoretical build-out

CalAm Coastal Water Project


Final Environmental Impact Report

8-25

October 2009
as certified on December 17, 2009

8. Growth-Inducement Potential and Secondary Effects of Growth

projections, while necessary to define the maximum development potential of this General
Plan, point to much greater development than can be supported by recent trends. The
Monterey Peninsula Water Management Districts moratorium on new construction in
response to the prolonged drought of 1987 through 1992 curtailed new construction in the
city. Because there are few sources of new water for development on the Monterey Peninsula,
the limited water supply will continue to shape land use in this area in the future.
Realistically, the potential for new development in Pacific Grove will not be realized unless
additional new sources of water become available (City of Pacific Grove, 1994).
City of Sand City

General Plan and Housing Element dates and planning periods

The Sand City General Plan 2002-2017 was adopted in 2002 and covers the planning
period shown in the title 12.

The Housing Element was adopted April 1, 2003 and covers the period from 2002 to 2007.

Buildout information submitted by City (City of Sand City, 2005):

Potential new residential dwellings: a total of 587 dwellings would eventually exist in Sand
City, all small, at small-lot residential/multi-family densities; the City does not differentiate
between single-family and multi-family dwellings

Non-Residential square footage: commercial buildout of 3 million sf

Remodels: None indicated

Other: None

Sand City suggested a 20 percent contingency factor, which was ultimately adopted for all
jurisdictions.
The Citys submittal to MPWMD includes a memo (to the Citys mayor and city council
from the director of the community development department) outlining four potential
buildout scenarios that had been prepared by City staff for consideration. The buildout
estimates summarized above reflect a combination of two scenarios that was selected by
the City Council to submit to MPWMD. The memo outlining the buildout scenarios notes
that Sand Citys planned desalination plant will have a design capacity of 300-acre feet per
year (City of Sand City, 2005).

Revisions reflected in the MPWMD demand estimate (MPWMD, 2005; 2006b)


Although MPWMDs estimate of water demand does not indicate the specific growth
assumptions that underlie it, based on the standard water use factors that were used to
calculate future demand, the estimate is consistent with the stated assumptions in the Citys
submittal that a total of 587 dwellings would eventually exist in Sand City. The
MPWMD demand estimate includes 48 afy for new single family residential land uses;
68 afy for new multi-family residential uses; and 210 afy for new nonresidential land uses.
Based on MPWMDs single family and multi-family water use factors (0.28 and 0.216
respectively), the resulting final demand figures for these categories indicate that 171 new
single family and 315 new multi-family units, or a total of 486 new housing units, are

12 The circulation element covers the planning horizon years 2015 to 2020 (City of Sand City, 2002).

CalAm Coastal Water Project


Final Environmental Impact Report

8-26

October 2009
as certified on December 17, 2009

8. Growth-Inducement Potential and Secondary Effects of Growth

assumed at buildout. Given that there are approximately 100 existing housing units 13 in
Sand City, the MPWMD estimate of 486 new units is consistent with the expectation of a
total of 587 housing units in the City at buildout.
It is noted that the attachment included with the Citys submittal (the memo cited above to
the mayor and city council outlining four buildout scenarios) suggests that 587 new units
are expected -- i.e., in addition to existing units-- in which case the MPWMD demand
estimate would differ from the Citys estimate by the approximately 100 existing housing
units. It must also be noted, however, that this memo contains several anomalies (e.g., the
number of housing units and water factor shown are inconsistent with the estimated water
demand shown). Further, because the Citys letter to MPWMD (quoted above)
unambiguously states that 587 refers to the total number of housing units in the City, and
this, in turn, is consistent with the Citys General Plan, this analysis assumes that the City
considers 587 the total number of existing and projected additional units, consistent with
MPWMDs demand estimate.
Regarding future non-residential land uses, MPWMDs estimated demand for nonresidential use is 210 afy. Assuming a use factor of 0.00007 acre-feet per square foot
(af/sf), MPWMDs standard (Group I) use factor for low-to-moderate water-use nonresidential land uses, MPWMDs estimate is consistent with the Citys submittal: 210 afy
would serve 3,000,000 commercial square feet, which is the Citys estimate. (The City
included an estimate of future nonresidential demand that is higher than MPWMDs
because the City assumed a higher use factor than the .00007 cited here, the apparent basis
for MPWMDs estimate.) Given that the use factors used by MPWMD were agreed upon
by all the participating jurisdictions, it is reasonable to rely on MPWMDs estimate.
Consistency of Growth Assumptions with General Plan

Residential development potential. The submittal estimate of a total of 587 housing units
at buildout is consistent with the information presented in the General Plan, which also
indicates residential buildout totaling 587 units (City of Sand City, 2002, p. 2-9).

Non-residential future development. The buildout estimate of 3 million additional square


feet is the high-end estimate of the range of nonresidential buildout potential (1 to 3 million
square feet) estimated by City staff that the City Council selected as the estimate to submit to
MPWMD. According to the submittal, approximately one third of this buildout is expected to
result from intensification of existing uses or new nonresidential uses. The additional buildout
potential is expected to result from an evolution of nonresidential land uses, with some older
industrial uses leaving the area over the planning period and being replaced by higher density
commercial uses consistent with current land use designations (Pooler, 2008). The General
Plan includes a table showing the holding capacity allowed by the general plan for various
land use designations; 14 this table indicates that more than 9.2 million square feet (which
excludes space needed for parking) would be allowed for commercial and nonresidential land
uses. The General Plan does not quantify information on existing levels of non residential
development against which to evaluate the Citys submittal.

13 Sand City had a total of 87 housing units in 2000 according to the U.S. Census, and approximately 106 units in

2006, the year MPWMD finalized its demand estimates, according to the California Department of Finance (DOF,
2008 http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/estimates/e-5_2001-06/documents/E-5_2008%20
Internet%20Version.xls]
14 The table is presented on pp. 2-29 and 2-30 of the General Plan; p. 2-26 refers to it as Table 2-4, General Plan
Holding Capacity.

CalAm Coastal Water Project


Final Environmental Impact Report

8-27

October 2009
as certified on December 17, 2009

8. Growth-Inducement Potential and Secondary Effects of Growth

Water
Regarding the existing constraints on water supply, the General Plan Circulation and Public
Facilities Element states the following:
Due to the shortage of water on the Monterey Peninsula, the availability of water for
new development is limited. This condition will continue until a long-term source of
water is developed for the region or desalination plants are constructed. As of 2001,
Sand City had essentially allocated all of its presently available water supply to
specific development parcels.
The discussion of the water supply shortage states that Sand City has initiated a program to
investigate ways to augment its limited water supply and that the primary option under
investigation is construction of a reverse osmosis desalination plant within the City limits.
The plant could initially produce 300 acre-feet of potable water per year and would be
expandable to 450 acre-feet of annual capacity.(City of Sand City, 2002, p. 3-27). Sand
City has continued to pursue construction of the desalination plant, which is taken into
account in estimates of supplies to meet water demands in the CalAm service area.
City of Seaside

General Plan and Housing Element dates and planning periods


The Seaside General Plan was adopted August 5, 2004, and covers a planning period of
approximately 20 years, 15 except for the Housing Element, which covers the period 2002-2007.
Buildout information submitted by City (City of Seaside, 2005)

Potential new single-family dwellings: 475 net new

Potential new multi-family dwellings 16: 565 net new

Non-Residential square footage: 2,760,000 sf, including:


-

Community Commercial: -104,000 sf


Regional Commercial: 971,000 sf
Heavy Commercial: 853,000 sf [this includes net of -236,000 for heavy commercial
presented on a row separate from group I or II with no other identifier]
Recreational Commercial: -36,000 sf
Vacant/Underutilized Mixed Use Commercial: 1,076,000 sf

Seaside also provided itemized information for MPWMD Group III commercial uses
totaling 10 mgd 17.

Remodels: 3.67 af. The submittal indicates that this estimate for remodels is based on
Exhibit E-10 of MPWMD Board of Directors packet for the September 20, 2004 Board
meeting. The relevant table in that exhibit, however, shows the seven-year average of all
MPWMD jurisdictions for residential remodels is 3.67 percent of total average demand.
The average water usage for remodels for all jurisdictions over this seven-year period was

15 The estimated General Plan planning period is based on information in the Land Use Element (City of Seaside,

2004, pp. LU-21 and LL-39).

16 The Citys submittal does not use the term multi-family to describe its housing categories. Based on water use

factors used in the Citys submittal, as well as MPWMDs estimates, this analysis assumes that the housing
categories other than low density single family and medium density single family are multi-family housing.
17 Water demand for Group III uses are calculated based on per unit water use factors for such units as restaurant
seats, laundry washers, and gas station pumps rather than on a square footage basis. The City used MPWMD
Group III use factors.

CalAm Coastal Water Project


Final Environmental Impact Report

8-28

October 2009
as certified on December 17, 2009

8. Growth-Inducement Potential and Secondary Effects of Growth

5.91 af. Based on information presented in this table, Seasides seven-year average for
remodels was 2.72 af.

Other:
-

Public Institutional: -148,000


Parks Open Space: 5,000

Seaside suggested contingency included 26.417 af reflecting the difference between the
current water usage factor for various land uses and water usage without conservation
totaling 216.68 af; anticipated system losses and water for fire fighting totaling 26.417 af;
and a contingency factor of 10 percent of its projected residential and non-residential
development. Ultimately, 20 percent was used as the contingency factor for all
jurisdictions.

Revisions reflected in the MPWMD demand estimate (MPWMD, 2005; 2006b)


The MPWMD retains the number of single family and multi-family dwelling units assumed
in the Citys submittal and also uses the same estimates of water demand for nonresidential
land uses and remodels that were submitted by the City. Because the MPWMDs
residential water use factors are slightly different from those included in the Citys
submittal, however, MPWMDs estimate of residential demand is slightly lower (9.5 af)
than the Citys. 18 MPWMD excludes both the Citys contingency estimates of 216.68 af
relating to the potential loss of savings from conservation measures and 26.417 af for
system losses, and uses a 20 percent contingency factor, rather than the 10 percent
suggested in the Citys submittal.
Demand summary

The estimated future (additional) demand for Seaside is 582 afy, including 154 afy for new
residential development and 283 afy for new non-residential development.

Consistency of Growth Assumptions with General Plan


For the most part, the estimate of buildout in the Citys submittal to MPWMD is not
directly comparable to development estimates in its General Plan (City of Seaside, 2004a)
because the submittal estimates do not include North Seaside, the part of the city that was
formerly part of the former Fort Ord army base and is not served by CalAm 19 (City of
Seaside, 2004a). Consequently, the development levels submitted are equal to or less than
the levels anticipated in the General Plan. The estimates of existing development for the
city as a whole presented in the January 2004 General Plan FEIR, and for the part of the
city served by CalAm presented in the MPWMD submittal (i.e., excluding North Seaside)
are shown in Table 8-8.
The technical appendix for the General Plan housing element provides, for the component
to development expected to occur on vacant/underutilized lands, a breakdown for North
Seaside and Seaside Proper (City of Seaside, 2003), which allows a direct comparison
18 MPWMD used the factor 0.28 to calculate single-family residential demand, compared to 0.30 used by the City,

resulting in a demand estimate that is 9.5 af lower than the Citys. MPWMD used the factor 0.216 to calculate all
categories of multi-family demand, compared to 0.22 and 0.20 used by the City for different categories, resulting in
a demand estimate that is 4.3 af higher than the Citys. Overall, MPWMDs estimate of 154 af for new residential
demand is about 5.2 af lower than the Citys estimate.
19 The Del Monte Heights area of the central core of the city is served by the Seaside Municipal System from three
existing wells. The buildout estimates in the citys submittal are limited to the area served by CalAm.

CalAm Coastal Water Project


Final Environmental Impact Report

8-29

October 2009
as certified on December 17, 2009

8. Growth-Inducement Potential and Secondary Effects of Growth

TABLE 8-8
EXISTING SEASIDE DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATES: ENTIRE CITY AND AREA SERVED BY CalAm

Land Use

General Plan Final EIR


Existing Land Uses

Open Space and Recreation


Parks and Open Space
Recreational Commercial

Residential Designations

Submittal to MPWMD
Existing Land Uses
(Excludes North
Seaside)

Difference

(sf)

(sf)

(sf)

19,000

19,000

1,450,000

53,000

-1,397,000

(dwelling units)

(dwelling units)

(dwelling units)
-2,337

Low Density Single Family

5,992

3,655

Medium Density Single Family

1,023

1,023

187

187

0
-1,228

Medium Density Multi-Family


High Density Multi-Family

3,120

1,892

Mixed Use Residential

-3

Total Residential Units

10,325

6,757

-3,568

Commercial Designations

(sf)

(sf)

(sf)

Community Commercial

1,951,000

772,000

-1,179,000

Regional Commercial

3,107,000

2,907,000

-200,000

313,000

312,000

-1,000

Heavy Commercial

Public/ Institutional Designations


Public/Institutional

(sf)

(sf)

(sf)

6,178,000

992,000

-5,186,000

(sf)

(sf)

(sf)

Special Designations
Mixed Use Commercial

16,000

-16,000

a The Housing Element Technical Appendix cites the 2000 U.S. Census determination there were 11,005 housing units in City in 2000.

Information from the FEIR is used here, however, because the breakdown of housing types in the FEIR analysis is comparable to the
breakdown submitted by the City to MPWMD.

b The Citys submittal indicates area within the mixed use commercial designation as existing use; however it is under the category of

vacant/underutilized land. Therefore it is assumed to be expected future development and is included.


SOURCE: City of Seaside 2004b; City of Seaside, 2005.

with the Citys submittal to MPWMD for that component, and indicates the two projections
are consistent. Specifically, estimated buildout of vacant/underdeveloped presented in the
Citys submittal includes a total of 415 new residential units, which is shown for Seaside
Proper in the technical appendix (Table 33), and a total of 1,076,000 sf of new commercial
development in mixed-use district (861,000 sf in the Group I water-use category and
215,000 sf in the Group II water-use category), which can be derived from information
presented for Seaside Proper in the technical appendix (Table 33) and the Citys assumed
80 percent-20 percent split of Group I and Group II water users. New non-residential
development in the vacant/underdeveloped areas accounts for 103 afy of Seasides total
estimate of 283 afy for future non-residential demand, and new residential development in
vacant/underdeveloped areas accounts for approximately 96 afy of the Citys total estimate
of 160 afy for new residential development. No other projected development information
that includes a breakdown for Seaside Proper and North Seaside is provided in the General
Plan or the General Plan EIR.

CalAm Coastal Water Project


Final Environmental Impact Report

8-30

October 2009
as certified on December 17, 2009

8. Growth-Inducement Potential and Secondary Effects of Growth

The differences between overall buildout projected in the Seaside General Plan and the
buildout projections submitted by the City to MPWMD are shown in Table 8-9.
TABLE 8-9
FUTURE SEASIDE DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATES:
SEASIDE GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT AND MPWMD SUBMITTAL
A
General
Plan:
Projected
NonResidential
Area
a
(sf )

Land Use

B
Submittal
to
MPWMD:
Total
Buildout
a
(sf )

Difference
(B-A)
(sf a)

General
Plan:
Projected
Dwelling
Units
(dwelling
units)

Submittal
to
MPWMD:
Total
Buildout
(dwelling
units)

Difference
(E-D)

Open Space and Recreation


Parks and Open Space
Recreational Commercial

59,000

24,000

-35,000

1,913,000

17,000

-1,806,000

Residential Designations
Low Density Single Family

4,648

2,468

-2,180

Medium Density Single Family

3,381

2,685

-696

Medium Density Multi-Family

1,246

630

-616

High Density Multi-Family

2,825

983

-1,842

937

897

Commercial Designations
Community Commercial
Regional Commercial
Heavy Commercial
Subtotal: Commercial
Designations

838,000

668,000

-170,000

6,298,000

3,878,000

-2,420,000

90,000

1,165,000

1,075,000

7,226,000

5,711,000

-1,515,000

5,985,000

844,000

-5,141,000

4,332,000

1,076,000

-3,256,000

Public/ Institutional Designations


Public/Institutional

Special Designations
Mixed Use

40

a sf = square feet

SOURCE: City of Seaside 2004a; City of Seaside, 2005.

The differences between the general plan and MPWMD submittal are assumed to result
primarily from the differences in the area served by CalAm and the area as a whole,
although some differences will inevitably result from the concentration of different kinds of
land use development in different areas. Substantially more heavy commercial
development, for example, is expected within the area served by CalAm compared to the
City as a whole, as Table 8-8 indicates. The buildout estimates in the Citys submittal to
MPWMD reflect extensive field work by City staff to assess the types and intensity of
current development within the area served by CalAm and the assessment of future
development in the area based on the anticipated evolution of land use types and increase in
development intensity consistent with general plan designations (Ingersoll, 2008).

CalAm Coastal Water Project


Final Environmental Impact Report

8-31

October 2009
as certified on December 17, 2009

8. Growth-Inducement Potential and Secondary Effects of Growth

Water
Regarding water supply, the Seaside General Plan states that [h]istorical use of the areas
groundwater resources has exceeded safe yield and resulted in lowering of water levels and
in saltwater intrusion. Constrained water supply will continue to be a significant factor in
the growth locally and regionally (City of Seaside, 2004a), and includes the following Land
Use Goal: Goal LU-5: Collaborate with local and regional water suppliers to continue to
provide water supply and treatment capacity to meet community needs.
Monterey County

General Plan and Housing Element dates and planning periods

Monterey Countys currently adopted General Plan was adopted in 1982 and has a planning
horizon of 20 years (Monterey County, 1982). The County is currently updating the plan, a
process that has been underway since 1999 and produced four draft plan updates between
2002 and 2006; the current draft update (GPU5) was released for public review in
November 2007 and the draft environmental impact report for it was issued in September
2008.

The Greater Monterey Peninsula Area Plan (Monterey County, 1984a), a part of the
General Plan, was adopted in 1984.

The Carmel Valley Master Plan (Monterey County, 1986), a part of the General Plan, was
adopted in 1986 and has a 20 year planning horizon.

The Del Monte Forest Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan (Monterey County, 1984b), a
component of the General Plan, was adopted by the County Board of Supervisors in 1984.

The Housing Element was adopted in October 2003 and covers the planning period 2002 to
2008 (Monterey County, 2003).

Buildout information submitted by County (Monterey County, 2004)

Potential new single-family dwellings: 2,115 units, including:


-

1,231 undeveloped residential parcels


884 major pending residential projects, including

75 parcels - approved tentative maps, final maps not recorded

562 parcels - subdivision applications in various stages of the planning process

247 affordable housing units, including


229 units/parcels with applications in various stages of the planning
process and
18 rental units not yet constructed

Second units: none indicated

Potential new multi-family dwellings: 9 existing undeveloped multifamily residential


parcels

Existing Undeveloped Commercial Parcels: 300 (size of parcels not indicated), including
-

120 parcels with various commercial designated land uses including general
commercial, mixed use, medical office, visitor-serving, service station/car wash,
public utilities, religious institution, schools, convalescent home and mining or
quarries

180 publicly owned parcels that are assumed to continue in passive recreational use

CalAm Coastal Water Project


Final Environmental Impact Report

8-32

October 2009
as certified on December 17, 2009

8. Growth-Inducement Potential and Secondary Effects of Growth

Non-Residential square footage: 211,600 sf classified as major pending commercial (or


similar projects) including:
-

projects totaling 90,000 sf are described as exempt from MPWMD water allocation

projects totaling 51,600 sf are described as having no net increase in water use

one project totaling 70,000 sf, for a self-storage facility, which does not indicate an
exemption or no net increase in water

Non-residential acreage: 239.95 acres for golf-related uses including


-

213.95-acre golf course

17-acre driving range

Remodels: 250 fixture units per year resulting in water use of 2.5 afy (information provided
by MCWRA)

Monterey County suggested a 15 percent contingency factor; ultimately 20 percent was


used for all jurisdictions.

Revisions reflected in the MPWMD demand estimate (MPWMD, 2005; 2006b)

MPWMD shows a total of 2,124 single family units and no multi-family units (i.e., the 9
multi-family units indicated in the Countys submittal are combined with the 2,115 single
family units).

MPWMD shows a total of 145,000 sf of commercial land use with a water use factor of
0.00007. (This is slightly more than twice the area of the only nonresidential component in
the Countys submittal (70,000 sf) that the County characterizes as constituting new water
demand for CWP/MPWMD planning purposes.)

MPWMD shows 795 remodels, with the use factor (used for all jurisdictions) of 0.047 for a
total of 37 af.

Demand summary

The estimated future (additional) demand for unincorporated Monterey County within the
CalAm service area is 1,135 afy, including 892 afy for new residential development and
10 afy for new non-residential development.

Consistency of Growth Assumptions with General Plan


The Countys submittal to MPWMD does not indicate the location of the parcels and
projects listed, except to state that they are located in the part of the county within the
MPWMD boundary. Three area plans of the Monterey County General Plan address land
use planning for unincorporated areas lying partly or entirely within the MPWMD
boundary: the Greater Monterey Peninsula Area Plan (Monterey County, 1984a), the
Carmel Valley Master Plan, (Monterey County, 1986) and the Del Monte Forest Local
Coastal Program Land Use Plan (Monterey County, 1984b). This analysis therefore focuses
on the information in these components of the general plan. Because the Monterey County
General Plan itself (Monterey County 1982) covers a much larger area of the county than
the MPWMD boundary, its growth assumptions would not be comparable to the Countys
submittal except insofar as the plan addresses applicable subareas of the County.
Greater Monterey Peninsula Area Plan. The Greater Monterey Peninsula Area Plan
encompasses the Monterey Peninsula (which separates Monterey and Carmel Bays),
Carmel Valley, and a portion of the Salinas Valley in the northernmost corner of the

CalAm Coastal Water Project


Final Environmental Impact Report

8-33

October 2009
as certified on December 17, 2009

8. Growth-Inducement Potential and Secondary Effects of Growth

planning area (Monterey County, 1984a). The planning area overlaps the area served by
MPWMD and CalAm, extending somewhat south of the MPWMD boundary in Carmel
Valley and slightly north of MPWMD boundary along the coast north of Marina. The
planning area encompasses the incorporated cities of Monterey, Carmel, Seaside, Pacific
Grove, Marina, Sand City, and Del Rey Oaks and the former Fort Ord military
reservation 20. The Greater Peninsula Area Plan provides information on population trends
at the time the plan was prepared; information on land uses within the unincorporated part
of the planning area; and an estimate of the combined existing development and potential
development allowable under the Monterey County General Plan. The plan defines the
combined existing and potential development as the plan areas holding capacity.
According to the Area Plan, the incorporated cities within the planning area grew
dramatically in the 1940s (61 percent) and 1950s (40 percent) and slowed somewhat in the
1960s to about 5 percent by the 1970s. For the planning area as a whole, the population
growth rate was about 19 percent in the 1960s declining to -0.03 percent between 1970 and
1980. The plan cites an AMBAG projection of 183,293 people within the planning area by
the year 2000. This would represent an average annual growth rate of 1.84 percent per year,
a forecast that the plan indicates was not necessarily accepted by a citizens advisory group.
Based on recent growth trends, the plan suggested that growth was likely to be slower.
Land uses within the planning area include public and quasi-public land uses;
vacant/unimproved land; agricultural, grazing, and range land; residential uses; roadways
and railroads; and commercial uses. About 5,029 acres of the areas residential
development is located in the unincorporated area. The unincorporated area had about
10,706 existing housing units and a holding capacity of 25,439 total units, a difference of
14,733 units. Based on 1980 census data on population per household, the population in the
unincorporated area at General Plan buildout was estimated to be about 66,000. The plan
acknowledges that this estimate represents a maximum holding capacity that could be
reduced as a result of environmental constraints and General Plan policies (such as a slope
density policy).
The Area Plan indicates that the unincorporated area includes 511 acres designated for
commercial development, and that, although the cities had much more existing commercial
development than the unincorporated area, the unincorporated area had about twice the
citiess potential for future commercial development in terms of land planned and available
for commercial uses (Monterey County, 2004a).
Carmel Valley Master Plan. The 1986 Carmel Valley Master Plan (amended through 1996)
covers a 28,000-acre planning area and has a 20 year planning horizon. Land uses consist
primarily of rural residential development and small-scale agriculture, with several more
concentrated residential areas that include condominiums or visitor accommodation
facilities. About 6,900 acres, or one-fourth of the valley, has been developed. The
population for the area covered by the master plan in 1986 was estimated to be 10,600, and
there were approximately 5,300 dwelling units. The Carmel Valley Master Plan establishes
residential development potential of 1,310 existing and newly created vacant lots for the
20-year life of the plan. Of the 1,310 lots, 572 buildable vacant lots of record could be built
at any time, and for the remaining 738 lots an annual allocation of 37 lots per year (738
divided by 20) was established for the purpose of regulating residential building activity.
20 At the time the plan was prepared Fort Ord was an active military base.

CalAm Coastal Water Project


Final Environmental Impact Report

8-34

October 2009
as certified on December 17, 2009

8. Growth-Inducement Potential and Secondary Effects of Growth

Thus, the plan provides for the development of all identified new and potential lots within
the expected 20-year life of the plan.
According to the master plan, which cites 1970 and 1980 Census data, the population for
Carmel Valley grew at a rate of about 4 percent per year while the housing inventory grew
at the rate of about 8 percent per year, indicating decreasing family size. The master plan
also notes that Monterey County Transportation Studies and background studies for the
Carmel Sanitary District Areawide Facilities Plan found that projections indicated declining
rates of growth for both housing and population, with trends of housing starts and
population at about 3 percent per year in the sanitary district study and just under 4 percent
in the transportation study. The master plan notes that that state and regional growth trends
are likely to bring increased demand for housing in the valley. The 1990 and 2000 Census
data for Carmel Valley Village (which is located within the Carmel Valley planning area)
indicates a more recent annual population growth rate of 0.6 percent and a household
growth rate of 1.7 percent.
According to the draft environmental impact report prepared for the update of the General
Plan currently underway, creation of new lots in the Carmel Valley area is capped at 266
new lots (Monterey County, 2008). This information is presented for informational
purposes only since the current update is not an adopted plan.
Regarding commercial development, master plan policy favors expansion of existing
hotels, motels, and lodges over development of new projects, and specifies that new visitor
accommodations not exceed 175 units in the area west of Via Mallorca and not exceed 250
new units in the area east of Via Mallorca.
Del Monte Forest Area Land Use Plan Monterey County Local Coastal Program. The
Del Monte Forest Area Land Use Plan, a Monterey County Local Coastal Program,
includes policies that are intended to provide for orderly development balanced with
resource conservation. Land use planning proposals for the Del Monte Forest are guided by
goals of the California Coastal Act to protect, maintain, and, where feasible, enhance and
restore the overall quality of the Coastal Zone environment; assure orderly, balanced
utilization and conservation of Coastal Zone resources; maximize public access to and
along the coast and maximize public recreation consistent with sound resource
conservation principles and constitutionally protected rights of private property owners;
and assure priority for coastal-dependent and coastal- related development over other
development on the coast. The basic categories of land use designated in the Del Monte
Forest are residential, commercial and open space.
The plan establishes densities for residential land uses in the eight planning areas within the
Forest and specifies that units in excess of the density allocated by the plan for each
planning area shall not be approved.
The plan includes three commercial use designations: visitor-service commercial, general
commercial, and institutional. The open space category encompasses all areas considered
critical to maintenance of the natural systems of the Forest, including environmentally
sensitive habitat areas, the sites of endangered species, riparian areas, wetland areas, and
sensitive coastal strand areas.
According to the LUP, the long-term historic rate of residential development in the Del
Monte Forest Area is about 60 dwelling units per year; the LUP attributes this modest

CalAm Coastal Water Project


Final Environmental Impact Report

8-35

October 2009
as certified on December 17, 2009

8. Growth-Inducement Potential and Secondary Effects of Growth

growth rate (as characterized in the LUP) in part to the attitude of the Pebble Beach
Company toward land management and in part to market demand. The plan considers an
overall growth rate control or phasing program necessary to meet Coastal Act criteria with
respect to residential uses within the Del Monte Forest Area. The plan provides for the
continuation of residential development in a manner compatible with the normal
availability and extension of utility and public service facilities, and as housing market
demand requires, within the constraints of available water allocations, sewerage capacity
and the County growth management policy. According to the plan the capacity of the
Carmel Sanitary District's (CSD) treatment plant was, at the time the plan was prepared, a
greater constraint to development in the Del Monte Forest than was water availability
through the CalAm Water Service Company. Therefore, sewerage capacity is recognized as
the primary constraint on the amount of new development in this area.
The remaining uncommitted water allocation (1,228.83 af at the time the land use plan was
prepared) of the total 6,501 AF allotted by MPWMD to the County, provided the basis for
six levels of priority for use of the uncommitted water adopted by the Board of Supervisors.
The Del Monte Forest Area LCP/LUP adopted priorities for water use within the Forest
consistent with and included in the Boards area-wide priority levels. The LUP provides a
breakdown of residential units in the different planning areas for priority levels 1 through 5.
The breakdown does not distinguish between private residential single family and multifamily dwelling units and visitor accommodation (e.g., hotel and motel) units; the term
units is assumed here to refer to these three types of units. The first priority for the water
use is for existing legal lots of record, of which there were 341 in forest area at the time of
the allocation. The second priority is for visitor serving facilities including recreation,
namely the NCGA golf course and the Spanish Bay Complex; the second priority level
includes 542 units. The third and fourth priorities are for commercial and residential
development; these levels include 307 and 157 units, respectively. Priorities one through
four allocate all of the water allotted by the MPWMD. The fifth and sixth priorities are for
additional residential development in Del Monte Forest, for which no water was available
in the foreseeable future. The fifth priority level includes 482 units; no specific breakdown
of units is provided for the sixth priority level. Given that the fifth priority level
development was not covered by existing allocation, it is reasonable to assume that this
level of future development (i.e, 482 units) would be served by additional supply provided
by the CWP-Plus-Future alternative, and that the other units, for which water was assumed
to be available, have been developed in the 24 years since the LUP was adopted.
The LUP provides very little quantified information on commercial development,
indicating only that current commercial development projects that would be permitted if
water were the only infrastructure constraint include a combined total of 163 units in
developments in three of the forests planning areas.
Conclusion based on the three Area Plans. Only the Greater Monterey Peninsula Area
Plan covers generally the same unincorporated area encompassed by the CalAm service
area and the MPWMD. The Carmel Valley Master Plan and Del Monte Forest Land Use
Plan cover much smaller areas. Because the Greater Monterey Peninsula Area Plan was
prepared in 1984, it does not provide a current estimate of the housing units within the
planning area, to which the number of units in the Countys submittal to MPWMD might
be added to compare with the plans estimated holding capacity. However, existing
residential development in the plan area (and by extension the MPWMD and CalAm
service area) can be estimated based on the number of units in the plan area in 1980

CalAm Coastal Water Project


Final Environmental Impact Report

8-36

October 2009
as certified on December 17, 2009

8. Growth-Inducement Potential and Secondary Effects of Growth

presented in the 1984 plan and an estimated average annual growth rate. Census
information for unincorporated Monterey County for the years 1980, 1990, and 2000
indicates an average annual growth rate between 1980 and 2000 of 1 percent. Assuming
10,706 units in 1980 (as stated in the Area Plan) and a continued 1 percent annual growth
rate, in 2008 the plan area would have 14,146 existing residential units. Based on a total
holding capacity of 25,439, this level of development would easily accommodate the 2,115
new single-family units and 9 multi-family units included in the Countys submittal. Even
if some of the theoretically potential units assumed under maximum buildout could not be
developed due to environmental or policy constraints, it appears that the Countys
residential submittal is consistent with (or less than) the level of growth anticipated in the
Greater Monterey Peninsula Area Plan.
Combined Carmel Valley and Del Monte Forest Area planned future development.
Based on development planned in the adopted Carmel Valley Master Plan, if development
proceeded at the annual rate that was assumed in the plan, there would currently be no
remaining residential development potential. If, on the other hand, only existing lots of
record have been developed, 738 additional residential parcels would remain to be
developed. Based on the priority levels established in the Del Monte Forest Area LUP, it is
likely that 482 units foreseen in that plan remain undeveloped. Together, assuming none of
the potential parcels identified in the Carmel Valley Master Plan and none of the parcels
identified in fifth priority level in the Del Monte Forest Area have been developed these
plans allow for development of 1,220 additional units. This does not, of course, include
potential development on other unincorporated lands within the MPWMD boundary.
Monterey Peninsula Airport District

Master Plan and planning periods

The Monterey Peninsula Airport Master Plan Update Final Report (Master Plan) (MPAD,
1992) is the applicable land use planning document covering the airport development
activities (Stuth, 2008). The goals of the Master Plan are to address airport requirements
over a 20 year planning period; 2010 is cited as the horizon year for specific aspects of the
plan including projected airport activity and facility requirements.

Buildout information submitted by Airport District (MPAD, 2004)

Non-residential building square-footage only:


-

North Side Business Park (Group I water-use category): 1,108,602 sf (approximately


25 acres)

Aviation Hanger Storage (Group III water-use category): 1,780,664 sf


(approximately 41 acres)

Non-Aviation Self Storage (Group III water-use category): 75,000 sf (approximately


2 acres)

Revisions reflected in the MPWMD demand estimate (MPWMD, 2005; 2006b)


The MPWMD estimate for the Airport District -- 115 afy in the nonresidential category and
23 afy based on the 20 percent contingency factor, for a total demand of 138 afy
(MPWMD, 2005; 2006b) -- does not indicate the underlying assumptions regarding square
footage, types of non-residential uses, or water use factors that might indicate any
divergence from the development assumptions submitted by the Airport District. As
indicated in the demand buildout summary above, the Airport Districts submittal indicates

CalAm Coastal Water Project


Final Environmental Impact Report

8-37

October 2009
as certified on December 17, 2009

8. Growth-Inducement Potential and Secondary Effects of Growth

that the business park would have Group I water usage (which has a use factor of
0.00007 af per square foot) and that the other two components are in the Group III water
use group. Based on the Group I water use factor, water demand for the 1,108,602 squarefoot North Side Business Park area would amount to 77.6 afy. The MPWMDs Group III
covers miscellaneous uses and provides specific use factors for the listed land uses.
However, the list of Group III uses (available via the Rules and Regulations link at
MPWMDs website) does not include airport hangars or hangar storage, and only provides
a use factor per-storage unit (rather than per square foot) for self-storage facilities. Based
on MPWMDs estimate of 115 afy for the entire Airport District and the estimate of
77.6 afy needed for the business park, 37.4 afy would be needed for the aviation hangar
storage and non-aviation self-storage components of the anticipated development,
indicating an (implied) average water use factor of 0.00002 for these land uses. Therefore,
the Airport Districts assumptions about future growth appear to have been retained in the
MPWMD estimate.
Demand summary

The estimated future (additional) demand for the Airport District is 138 afy, consisting of
115 afy for non-residential land uses and 23 afy for the 20 percent contingency.

Consistency of Growth Assumptions with Master Plan


The North Side Business Park and hangar storage components of the Airport Districts
submittal are consistent with planned development included in the Monterey Peninsula
Airport Master Plan Update (Master Plan Update) (MPAD, 1992). The Master Plan
identifies aviation facility requirements, considers three concepts or alternatives (A, B, and
C) for the terminal area, the west end of the airport, and the northside of the airport, and
recommends adoption of Concept C for each of these three components.
The submittal estimate of 1,780,664 square feet (roughly 40 acres) for aviation hangar
storage is reasonably consistent with the estimates contained in the Master Plan as
additional area needed for general aviation, which includes conventional hangars, executive
hangars, and related general aviation facilities (including ramp/tie downs, fixed base
operator facilities, and other aviation tenants) totaling 38.7 acres (MPAD, 1992, Table 6-1).
Each of the three Northside concepts included in the Master Plan designate part of the
Northside area as office/research and development (office/R&D) space; Concept A calls for
45 acres to be devoted to office/R&D, Concept B calls for 64.5 acres to be devoted to this
type of land use, and Concept C development similar to that outlined in Concept B (with
some elements reconfigured). The Airport Districts submittal indicating development of an
approximately 25-acre business park in the Northside is within the parameters of each of
the concepts considered in the Master Plan. The third component included in the Airport
Districts submittal, approximately 1.7 acres for non-aviation self storage is not specified in
the Master Plan.
Overall, therefore, the submittal is consistent with provisions of the Master Plan. Although
non-aviation self-storage is not specified in the plan, this is a very minor part (2.5 percent
by area) of the development assumed in the Airport Districts submittal, and a small area
for non-aviation self storage is not inconsistent with the land uses specifically anticipated in
the plan.

CalAm Coastal Water Project


Final Environmental Impact Report

8-38

October 2009
as certified on December 17, 2009

8. Growth-Inducement Potential and Secondary Effects of Growth

Conclusion: CalAm Service Area Jurisdictions Growth Projections


The decision by MPWMD and its constituent jurisdictions to use the jurisdictions adopted
general plans as the basis for future growth by which the water supply projections were estimated
is consistent with state law summarized in Section 8.1, above, requiring coordination between
land use and water supply planning agencies.
As the forgoing jurisdiction summaries indicate, there is considerable variation in the submittals
and the degree to which the applicable general plans contain comparable specific information.
With a few exceptions the estimates of residential growth are consistent with that contained in the
general plans or general plan housing elements. By contrast, in most cases the nonresidential
build-out information needed to project water demand (provided by the jurisdictions to
MPWMD) is more specific than that presented in the general plans. In many cases the
jurisdictions assessments of future growth potential entailed considerable field work and/or
record research to assess existing levels of development, potential for infill and densification of
existing land uses, and the potential for the evolution of nonresidential land use types, as well as
densities, to occur consistent with adopted land use plans.
In considering the indirect impacts of potential growth related to the Phase 2 Project, it is important
to consider that the jurisdictions approved planning documents have already been subjected to
environmental review under CEQA. In adopting the applicable general plans and general plan
elements, the local decision-making bodies have adopted measures to mitigate adverse impacts
associated with the growth that will occur under the plans and have adopted statements of
overriding considerations associated with impacts that cannot be reduced to an insignificant level.

CalAm Coastal Water Project


Final Environmental Impact Report

8-39

October 2009
as certified on December 17, 2009

8. Growth-Inducement Potential and Secondary Effects of Growth

Chapter 8 Reference Section


_________________________

8.3 References
Alameda, Ryan, P.E., Project Engineer, RMC Water and Environment, telephone communication,
November 20, 2008
Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG), 2004 AMBAG Population, Housing
Unit, and Employment Forecasts, Adopted April 14, 2004.
Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG), website description,
http://www.ambag.org/planning/planning.htm; site accessed October 2008a.
Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG), Monterey Bay Area 2008 Regional
Forecast, adopted by the AMBAG Board of Directors June 11, 2008b.
California American Water, Monterey District Urban Water Management and Water Shortage
Contingency Plan 2006-2010, February 2006 Revision.
California American Water, 2007. Consumption data for water years 2003-2007 provided June
2008 to ESA by MPWMD.
California Department of Finance (DOF), E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities,
Counties and the State, 2001-2008, with 2000 Benchmark. Sacramento, California, May
2008, http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/estimates/e-5_2001-06/.
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan, Adopted June 3, 2003a.
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, 2002-2007 Housing Element 2002-2007, July 2003b.
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Initial Study and Negative Declaration, Housing Element 2002-2007,
January, 2003c.
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Letter from Sean Conroy, Associate Planner, to MPWMD c/o David
Berger, Subject: Future Water Needs, December 6, 2004.
City of Del Rey Oaks, Del Rey Oaks General Plan Update Project Final Environmental Impact
Report, May 16, 1997.
City of Del Rey Oaks, Letter from Ron Langford, Acting City Manager, to David A. Berger,
MPWMD, Re: Future Water Needs Estimate, January 27, 2005.
City of Del Rey Oaks, Final Review Draft Housing Element City of Del Rey Oaks, August 10,
2006.
City of Monterey, City of Monterey General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report
(July 14, 2004) and Final Environmental Impact Report, October 2004.

CalAm Coastal Water Project


Final Environmental Impact Report

8-44

October 2009
as certified on December 17, 2009

8. Growth-Inducement Potential and Secondary Effects of Growth

City of Monterey, Letter from Fred Meurer, City Manger, to David Berger, MPWMD, Subject:
Future Water Needs Estimate, January 19, 2005a.
City of Monterey, City of Monterey General Plan, January 2005b.
City of Pacific Grove, The Pacific Grove General Plan, 1994.
City of Pacific Grove, Letter from John M. Biggs, Pacific Grove Community Development
Director, to David Berger, MPWMD, Subject: Future Water Needs Estimates for Pacific
Grove, January 7, 2005a.
City of Pacific Grove, Chapter 3, Housing, of the Pacific Grove General Plan, 2003. (The
Housing Element, a chapter of the General Plan, is listed separately here because it has a
different adoption date from the rest of the General Plan.)
City of Sand City, Expanded Environmental Impact Study and Proposed Negative Declaration,
General Plan Update 2001-2016, October 12, 2001.
City of Sand City, Sand City General Plan 2002-2017, February 2002.
City of Sand City, Initial Study and Negative Declaration, Housing Element Update 2002-2007,
March 5, 2003
City of Sand City, Housing Element 2002-2007, April 2003.
City of Sand City, Letter from Steve Matarazzo, Community Development Director, to David
Berger, MPWMD, January 3, 2005.
City of Seaside, 2002-2007 Housing Element Technical Appendix, June 2003.
City of Seaside, General Plan, Adopted by City Council Resolution 04-59, August 5, 2004a.
City of Seaside, Final Seaside General Plan EIR, Volume 1, January 2004b.
City of Seaside, Letter from Diana Ingersoll, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer, to
David Berger, MPWMD, January 3, 2005.
Elliott, John, Chief, Master Plan Division, U.S. Army, Directorate of Public Works, Presidio of
Monterey, email communication with C. Mueller, ESA, October 27 and October 28, 2008a.
Elliott, John, Chief, Master Plan Division, U.S. Army, Directorate of Public Works, Presidio of
Monterey, telephone communication with C. Mueller, ESA, October 23, 2008b.
Ingersoll, Diana, Deputy City Manager, Resource Management Services, City of Seaside,
telephone communication, October 27, 2008.
JSA/EDAW, 1999. North Monterey County CWRMP Technical Memorandum No. 1, April 1999,
cited in MCWRA and EDAW, 2002.
Marina Coast Water District, Final Environmental Impact Report for the Marina Coast Water
District Regional Urban Water Augmentation Project EIR, September 2006.

CalAm Coastal Water Project


Final Environmental Impact Report

8-45

October 2009
as certified on December 17, 2009

8. Growth-Inducement Potential and Secondary Effects of Growth

Monterey County, Monterey County General Plan, 1982 (with subsequent amendments through
1996).
Monterey County, Del Monte Forest Area Land Use Plan, Local Coastal Program, Monterey
County, California, Adopted by the Monterey County Board of Supervisors July 5, 1984;
effective date of certification by the California Coastal Commission: September 24, 1984b.
Monterey County, Greater Monterey Peninsula Area Plan, A part of the Monterey County
General Plan, December 1984a, with subsequent amendments.
Monterey County, Carmel Valley Master Plan, adopted 1986, amended as of 1996.
Monterey County, Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration, Monterey County
Housing Element 2002-2008, August 29, 2003.
Monterey County, Letter from Ann S. Towner, Manager, Planning and Building Services, County
of Monterey, to David Berger, MPWMD, Subject: Background Data to Estimate Future
Water Needs for Development in the Unincorporated Area of Monterey County within the
Jurisdiction of the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD), December
5, 2004.
MCWRA, 1996. A GIS Analysis of the Effects of Land Use Constraints and Water Delivery on
Water Demands in North Monterey County, cited in MCWRA and EDAW 2002.
Monterey County Water Resources Agency and EDAW (MCWRA and EDAW), North Monterey
County Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan, January 2002.
Monterey County, Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Monterey County 2007 General
Plan, Monterey County, California, September 2008.
Monterey Peninsula Airport District, Monterey Peninsula Airport Master Plan Update Final
Report, September 1992.
Monterey Peninsula Airport District, Letter from Joan Kaczmarek, Capital Projects Manager,
Planning and Development Division, to David Berger, MPWMD, RE: Future Water Needs
Estimate, December 15, 2004.
Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD), letter from David A. Berger,
General Manager, to [each jurisdiction], Subject: Future Water Needs (Exhibit 2A of April
25, 2005 MPWMD Board Meeting), October 5, 2004.
Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD), Draft Estimated Long Term Water
Needs by Jurisdiction, Compiled May 2005, Technical Advisory Committee Meeting,
Exhibit 2-B, June 7, 2005. Note about this reference: Although this reference is a draft, and
ultimately superseded by the final Estimated Long-Term Water Needs by Jurisdiction
Based on General Plan Build-out in Acre-Feet (MPWMD 2006b), below, this draft estimate
includes the assumed number of units and water use factors used to calculated demand,
whereas the final estimate only shows demand figures. Therefore this draft document is a
useful source for confirming the underlying assumptions (water use factors and units used
to derive demand), especially since the final document includes few changes in demand
compared to this one.

CalAm Coastal Water Project


Final Environmental Impact Report

8-46

October 2009
as certified on December 17, 2009

8. Growth-Inducement Potential and Secondary Effects of Growth

Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD), Draft Technical Memorandum


2006-02, Existing Water Needs of Cal-Am Customers within MPWMD Boundaries and
Non Cal-Am Producers within the Seaside Groundwater Basin Adjusted for Weather
Conditions During Water Years 1996 through 2006, prepared by Darby W. Fuerst, PH 05H-1658, Senior Hydrologist, October 2006a.
Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD), Estimated Long-Term Water Needs
by Jurisdiction Based on General Plan Build-out in Acre-Feet, Special Meeting/Board
Workshop MPWMD Board of Directors Packet, May 18, 2006b.
Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD), Water Needs Analysis Existing
Setting and Demand, Consumption tab of Exhibits 1-A, 1-B, and 1-C (consumption not
specifically cited in presentation) Special Meeting/Board Workshop presentation,
March 23, 2006c.
Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD), Water Needs Analysis Existing
Setting and Demand, Exhibits 1-F, California America Water Annual Production from
Carmel River Sources Compared to Diversion Limits Set by State Water Resources Control
Board Order 95-10 for Water Years 1996 through 2005, Special Meeting/Board Workshop
presentation, March 23, 2006d.
Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD),_Metered Production, Consumption,
and Unaccounted -for-Water Uses: California American Water: Main Monterey System
Water Years 2003 through 2007.
Pintar, Stephanie, Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, telephone communication,
January 23, 2009.
Pooler, Charles, Associate Planner, City of Sand City, telephone communication, October 22,
2008.
PVWMA 1998. Crop Water Use Study, 1994-1997, prepared by Vanessa Bogenholm, March
1998, cited in MCWRA and EDAW, 2002.
RMC Water and Environment (RMC), Monterey Regional Water Supply Program EIR Project
Description, June 4, 2008.
Seaside Basin Watermaster, letter to Mr. Andrew Barnsdale [California Public Utilities
Commission], Comments on Coastal Water Project Draft Environmental Impact Report,
March 24, 2009.
Stuth, Benedict, Planning Environmental Manager, Monterey Peninsula Airport District,
telephone communication. October 23, 2008.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. American Factfinder State by Place: California - Place, GCT-PH1.
Population, Housing Units, Area, and Density: 2000. Data Set: Census 2000 Summary
Files 1 (SF1) 100-Percent Data. http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/GCTTable?_bm=y&geo_id=04000US06&-_box_head_nbr=GCT-PH1&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U&format=ST-7.
U.S. Department of the Army, Letter from Jeffrey S. Cairns, Colonel, US Army Commanding, to
David Berger, MPWMD. February 7, 2005.

CalAm Coastal Water Project


Final Environmental Impact Report

8-47

October 2009
as certified on December 17, 2009

APPENDIX J2

Secondary Effects of Growth


Summary of Secondary Effects of Growth
Table J2-1 summarizes the secondary effects of growth in the CalAm Service area. The
information presented in Table J2-1 is derived from the following environmental documents:

City of Del Rey Oaks, Final Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan Update
Project, May 16, 1997.

City of Monterey, City of Monterey General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact
Report and Final Environmental Impact Report, SCH 2003081011, October 11, 2004.

City of Sand City, Expanded Environmental Impact Study and Proposed Negative
Declaration, General Plan Update 2001-2016, October 12, 2001.

City of Seaside, Final Seaside General Plan EIR, January 2004.

Monterey County, Monterey County General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report,
SCH No. 2007121001, March 2010a, and Revised Supplemental Materials to the Final EIR
(October 15, 2010), October, 2010b.

U.S. Department of the Army, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Real Property
Master Plan, Presidio of Monterey, California, February 2013a and Record of Decicion,
signed September 20, 2013b.

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

J2-1

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix J2
Secondary Effects of Growth

TABLE J2-1
SIGNIFICANT MITIGABLE (S) AND SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE (U) IMPACTS OF GROWTH IDENTIFIED BY
GENERAL PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS IN THE PROJECT AREA

Impact / Mitigation

City of
Del Rey Oaks

City of Monterey

City of Del Rey


Oaks General
Plan Update EIR

City of Monterey
General Plan
Update EIR

City of Sand City

Sand City General


Plan Update MND

City of Seaside

Monterey County

U.S. Department
of the Army

City of Seaside
General Plan EIR

Monterey County
General Plan EIR
[To 2030 / To
2092]a

Presidio of
Monterey Real
Property Master
Plan EISb

U/U

Aesthetic and Visual Resources


Impacts
Adverse effects on scenic vistas.

Adverse effects on scenic or historic resources within a state scenic highway.

Degradation of visual character or quality of the area and surroundings.

Creation of substantial new sources of light and glare.

U/U

Cumulative impacts on aesthetics, light, and glare.

CC

Mitigation Measures
Implement General Plan Urban Design Element and Open Space Element
policies that call for protection and/or enhancement of vistas and visual
resources and preservation of greenbelts.

Implement General Plan Urban Design Element policies that establish


performance standards, design requirements and development guidelines
that protect scenic corridors.

Implement General Plan Land Use Element polices that require


development and implementation of design concepts and development
guidelines to ensure that new development blends with and enhances the
visual quality of neighborhoods.

Implement policies of Conservation/Open Space and Urban Design Elements


of the General Plan that support programs to enhance visual character.

Require project site redesign, landscaping, or reduced building heights to


avoid obstruction of private views.

Enforce ordinances that preserve public viewsheds.

Establish guidelines for quality, scale, and design.

Minimize the removal of mature healthy Monterey pines, use attractive


landscaping, plant native vegetation as a visual buffer, select compatible
natural exterior colors, and install decorative fencing. Shield outdoor utility
equipment to minimize visual and aesthetic effects.

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

J2-2

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix J2
Secondary Effects of Growth

TABLE J2-1 (Continued)


SIGNIFICANT MITIGABLE (S) AND SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE (U) IMPACTS OF GROWTH IDENTIFIED BY
GENERAL PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS IN THE PROJECT AREA

Impact / Mitigation

City of
Del Rey Oaks

City of Monterey

City of Del Rey


Oaks General
Plan Update EIR

City of Monterey
General Plan
Update EIR

City of Sand City

Sand City General


Plan Update MND

City of Seaside

Monterey County

U.S. Department
of the Army

City of Seaside
General Plan EIR

Monterey County
General Plan EIR
[To 2030 / To
2092]a

Presidio of
Monterey Real
Property Master
Plan EISb

Agricultural Resources
Impacts
Conversion of important farmland to non-agricultural use.

U/U

Involve other changes that would result in conversion of farmland to nonagricultural use.

U/U

Cumulative impact on agricultural resources.

CC

Mitigation Measures
No feasible mitigation beyond General Plan goals and policies is available.

Air Quality
Impacts
Construction-related air quality impacts.

Transportation-related air quality impacts.

S/S

Net change ozone precursor (ROG and NOx) and particulate matter
emissions.

U/U

Exposure of sensitive receptors to increased diesel exhaust.

S/S

Emission of objectionable odors.

S/S

Cumulative air quality impacts

CC

Cumulative construction-related air quality impacts.

Mitigation Measures
Implement General Plan Circulation Element policies to maximize the
efficiency of the transportation network such that level of service standards
are met.

Require review of development proposals for air quality impacts.

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

J2-3

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix J2
Secondary Effects of Growth

TABLE J2-1 (Continued)


SIGNIFICANT MITIGABLE (S) AND SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE (U) IMPACTS OF GROWTH IDENTIFIED BY
GENERAL PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS IN THE PROJECT AREA

Impact / Mitigation

City of
Del Rey Oaks

City of Monterey

City of Del Rey


Oaks General
Plan Update EIR

City of Monterey
General Plan
Update EIR

City of Sand City

Sand City General


Plan Update MND

City of Seaside

Monterey County

U.S. Department
of the Army

City of Seaside
General Plan EIR

Monterey County
General Plan EIR
[To 2030 / To
2092]a

Presidio of
Monterey Real
Property Master
Plan EISb

Air Quality (cont.)


Mitigation Measures (cont.)
Require that future development implement applicable MBUAPCD control
measures, including MBUAPCD PM10 control measures to ensure PM10
thresholds are not exceeded, and that applicants for discretionary permits
work with the MBUAPCD to incorporate feasible measures that assure that
standards for diesel particulate emissions are met. Implement MPUAPCD
measures to address off-road mobile source and heavy duty equipment
emissions as conditions of approval to ensure that construction-related NOX
emissions do not exceed the MBUAPCDs daily threshold for NOX.

Implement MBUAPCD mitigation measures for commercial, industrial, and


institutional land uses. Require that future development be designed to
maximize energy efficiency to the extent feasible and accommodate energy
infrastructure, including the potential for distributed renewable generation.

Implement MBUAPCD Mitigation Measures for Residential Land Uses,

Implement MBUAPCD Mitigation Measures for Alternative Fuels; quantify


current and projected 2020 greenhouse gas emissions, and adopt a
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan for County operations.

Require that construction contracts be given to those contractors who show


evidence of the use of soot traps, ultra-low sulfur fuels, and other diesel
engine emissions upgrades that reduce PM10 emissions to less than 50%
of the statewide PM10 emissions average for comparable equipment.

Revise General Plan open space policy to require that development of new
sensitive land uses be located at least 500 feet from a freeway carrying
more than 100,000 vehicles per day.

Revise General Plan agricultural policy to require that wineries provide for
proper storage and disposal of pomace resulting from winery operations.

Implement identified best management practices to reduce of fugitive dust


from construction vehicles and equipment and soil disturbance.

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

J2-4

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix J2
Secondary Effects of Growth

TABLE J2-1 (Continued)


SIGNIFICANT MITIGABLE (S) AND SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE (U) IMPACTS OF GROWTH IDENTIFIED BY
GENERAL PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS IN THE PROJECT AREA
City of
Del Rey Oaks

City of Monterey

City of Del Rey


Oaks General
Plan Update EIR

City of Monterey
General Plan
Update EIR

Sand City General


Plan Update MND

Effects on special status species.

Effects on riparian habitat and other sensitive natural communities.

Impact / Mitigation

City of Sand City

City of Seaside

Monterey County

U.S. Department
of the Army

City of Seaside
General Plan EIR

Monterey County
General Plan EIR
[To 2030 / To
2092]a

Presidio of
Monterey Real
Property Master
Plan EISb

S/U

Biological Resources
Impacts

Effects on federally protected wetlands.

Potential conflicts with local policies or ordinances protecting biological


resources.

Effects on a variety of biological resources.

S/U

Interference with migratory patterns or wildlife corridors.

S/S

Potential loss or disturbance of nesting migratory birds and raptors.

S/S

Effects on migratory birds and raptors.

Introduction of exotic species.

Cumulative impacts on biological resources

CC

Mitigation Measures
Implement General Plan polices contained in the Conservation/Open Space,
Conservation, Open Space, and/or Urban Design elements.

Adopt and implement a policy to assure that development of or adjacent to


wetlands provides mitigation consistent with applicable state and federal
law.

Require that development at the corner of Highways 68 and 218 maintain


the riparian habitat values of Arroyo Del Rey Creek.

Prohibit the direct discharge of stormwater or other drainage from new


impervious surfaces in the natural area expansion parcel.

Construct golf course greens and tees to collect and disperse percolating
water to vegetated buffer areas for additional filtering and absorption of
nitrate or pesticide residue; prepare and implement a Golf Course
Environmental Management Plan.

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

J2-5

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix J2
Secondary Effects of Growth

TABLE J2-1 (Continued)


SIGNIFICANT MITIGABLE (S) AND SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE (U) IMPACTS OF GROWTH IDENTIFIED BY
GENERAL PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS IN THE PROJECT AREA

Impact / Mitigation

City of
Del Rey Oaks

City of Monterey

City of Del Rey


Oaks General
Plan Update EIR

City of Monterey
General Plan
Update EIR

City of Sand City

Sand City General


Plan Update MND

City of Seaside

Monterey County

U.S. Department
of the Army

City of Seaside
General Plan EIR

Monterey County
General Plan EIR
[To 2030 / To
2092]a

Presidio of
Monterey Real
Property Master
Plan EISb

Biological Resources (cont.)


Mitigation Measures (cont.)
Implement General Plan policies created to preserve, protect and enhance
special status species habitat and wetlands.

Work with USACOE, USFWS, CDFG during project permitting and review.

Connect open spaces to preserve habitat and create wildlife corridors.

Prepare a Habitat Conservation Plan.

Require new development to be responsible for site investigations,


determinations of species presence, and mitigation.

The County shall in concert with others develop a conservation strategy for
the Salinas Valley to provide for the preservation of adequate habitat to
sustain the San Joaquin kit fox population.

By 2030, prepare an update to the General Plan to identify expansion of


existing focused growth areas and/or to identify new focused growth areas
to reduce loss of natural habitat in Monterey County.

By 2030, prepare a Comprehensive Conservation Strategy.

In order to preserve riparian habitat, conserve the value of streams and


rivers as wildlife corridors and reduce sediment and other water quality
impacts of new development, the County shall develop and adopt a Stream
Setback Ordinance.

The County shall prepare, adopt and implement a program that allows
projects to mitigate the loss of oak woodlands.

Add considerations regarding riparian habitat and stream flows to criteria for
long-term water supply and well assessment.

The County shall require discretionary projects to retain movement corridors


of adequate size and habitat quality to allow for continued wildlife use based
on the needs of the species occupying the habitat.

Remove vegetation during the nonbreeding season and avoid disturbance


of nesting migratory birds, including raptors, as appropriate (generally
September 16 to January 31).

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

J2-6

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix J2
Secondary Effects of Growth

TABLE J2-1 (Continued)


SIGNIFICANT MITIGABLE (S) AND SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE (U) IMPACTS OF GROWTH IDENTIFIED BY
GENERAL PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS IN THE PROJECT AREA

Impact / Mitigation

City of
Del Rey Oaks

City of Monterey

City of Del Rey


Oaks General
Plan Update EIR

City of Monterey
General Plan
Update EIR

City of Sand City

Sand City General


Plan Update MND

City of Seaside

Monterey County

U.S. Department
of the Army

City of Seaside
General Plan EIR

Monterey County
General Plan EIR
[To 2030 / To
2092]a

Presidio of
Monterey Real
Property Master
Plan EISb

Biological Resources (cont.)


Mitigation Measures (cont.)
Conduct focused biological surveys to identify the presence and location of
individual special status plants; in consultation with CDFG and USFWS
determine and implement appropriate course of action for any special
species encountered.

Complete consultation with USFWS regarding effects on Yadons piperia


and implement Biological Opinion recommendations, as required.

Require contractor to adhere to tree protection procedures

Flag native trees that are scheduled for removal and replace native trees at
a 2:1 ratio in accordance with the Integrated Natural Resources
Management Plan.

Take measures to avoid the introduction of exotic or invasive plant species.

To prevent effects on California tiger salamander install suitable, temporary,


exclusion fencing around project boundaries.

Limit work within habitat occupied by special status plant and wildlife
species to existing access roads and the smallest area practical.

Make all efforts to salvage, transport, and relocate special status plant and
wildlife species encountered prior to or during construction when feasible.

Train construction personnel prior to construction regarding biological


resources present at the site.

Time project construction to occur outside the breeding bird season to avoid
violations of migratory bird protections and prevent effects on migratory bird
species. If construction must occur during nesting season, conduct
biological surveys; halt construction within any active nests, notify USFWS
and CDFG, and implement appropriate procedures.

Implement the Tree Mitigation Plan, including replanting native trees at a


ratio of 2:1; focus restoration planting on site-specific native plants, and
adhere to specified landscape design standards.

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

J2-7

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix J2
Secondary Effects of Growth

TABLE J2-1 (Continued)


SIGNIFICANT MITIGABLE (S) AND SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE (U) IMPACTS OF GROWTH IDENTIFIED BY
GENERAL PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS IN THE PROJECT AREA

Impact / Mitigation

City of
Del Rey Oaks

City of Monterey

City of Seaside

Monterey County

U.S. Department
of the Army

City of Del Rey


Oaks General
Plan Update EIR

City of Monterey
General Plan
Update EIR

City of Seaside
General Plan EIR

Monterey County
General Plan EIR
[To 2030 / To
2092]a

Presidio of
Monterey Real
Property Master
Plan EISb

S/S

City of Sand City

Sand City General


Plan Update MND

Cultural Resources
Impacts
Potential effects on, disruption of, or damage to archaeological,
paleontological, or historic resources.
Mitigation Measures
Require archaeological studies by a professional archaeologist for projects
proposed in areas with a high probability of containing archaeological
resources.
Implement General Plan Conservation/Open Space Element policies.

Review development proposals and require mitigation for impacts to


sensitive historic or archaeological resources.

Revise Central Salinas Valley Area Plan policy to designate Paraiso Hot
Springs properties as a Special Treatment Area and permit uses in
accordance with a general development plan prepared for the area.

If cultural resources are inadvertently discovered, work shall be halted and


the find evaluated by a qualified professional archaeologist and the U.S.
Army Garrison- Presidio of Monterey Cultural Resource Manager; required
consultation procedures and planning requirements shall be implemented. if
human remains are inadvertently discovered, work shall cease and the
Cultural Resource Manager immediately notified; if remains appear to be
recent the Armys Criminal Investigation Command will assume control of
the crime scene. If remains appear to be of Native American descent the
Monterey County coroners office and Ohlone Costanoan Esselen Nation
will be contacted.

Geology, Soils and Seismicity


Impacts
Exposure of new development to potential seismic or geologic hazards,
such as seismic ground shaking, ground failure, liquefaction, or landslides.

Creation of or exposure of new development to hazards related to soil


erosion and /or expansive soils.

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

J2-8

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix J2
Secondary Effects of Growth

TABLE J2-1 (Continued)


SIGNIFICANT MITIGABLE (S) AND SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE (U) IMPACTS OF GROWTH IDENTIFIED BY
GENERAL PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS IN THE PROJECT AREA

Impact / Mitigation

City of
Del Rey Oaks

City of Monterey

City of Del Rey


Oaks General
Plan Update EIR

City of Monterey
General Plan
Update EIR

City of Sand City

Sand City General


Plan Update MND

City of Seaside

Monterey County

U.S. Department
of the Army

City of Seaside
General Plan EIR

Monterey County
General Plan EIR
[To 2030 / To
2092]a

Presidio of
Monterey Real
Property Master
Plan EISb

Geology, Soils and Seismicity (cont.)


Impacts (cont.)
Creation of soil erosion hazards.

S/S

Increased soil erosion during construction or due to new development.

Exposure of new development to potential hazards, such as tsunamis and


seiches.

Mitigation Measures
Adopt and implement a program in the General Plan Land Use Element that
states that the City shall update the General Plan Seismic Safety Element to
incorporate the most recent geological information provided by the State
Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology.

Implement the General Plan Safety Element policies that address geologic
and seismic hazards, including the policy that requires engineering and
geologic investigations for most new construction.

Implement the General Plan Safety Goal Flood policy that addresses
tsunami and storm wave run up hazard.

Require new structures to conform to the most recent Uniform Building Code.

Require geologic investigations by a licensed Engineering Geologist for new


development to evaluate soil erosion and expansiveness hazards.

Implement the General Plan Implementation Plan.

Enforce State and seismic structural design standards for all new
development.

Annually review the Emergency Preparedness Plan

Regulate locations of critical facilities.

Develop and adopt a Stream Setback Ordinance.

For each construction project, prepare and submit to the SWRCB Permit
Registration Document; implement best management practices in the
required Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan.

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

J2-9

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix J2
Secondary Effects of Growth

TABLE J2-1 (Continued)


SIGNIFICANT MITIGABLE (S) AND SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE (U) IMPACTS OF GROWTH IDENTIFIED BY
GENERAL PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS IN THE PROJECT AREA

Impact / Mitigation

City of
Del Rey Oaks

City of Monterey

City of Del Rey


Oaks General
Plan Update EIR

City of Monterey
General Plan
Update EIR

City of Sand City

Sand City General


Plan Update MND

City of Seaside

Monterey County

U.S. Department
of the Army

City of Seaside
General Plan EIR

Monterey County
General Plan EIR
[To 2030 / To
2092]a

Presidio of
Monterey Real
Property Master
Plan EISb

Geology, Soils and Seismicity (cont.)


Mitigation Measures (cont.)
To the extent practical apply low impact development techniques, using
small-scale stormwater management design measures that mimic natural
processes that slow, filter, infiltrate and detain runoff.

Hazards
Impacts
Potential exposure of people and development, including schools, to
hazardous materials releases.

Increase in storage of hazardous materials and the potential for leakage.

Safety hazards from development near an airport.

Increased risk of hazardous materials release resulting from spill or accident


due to increases in transportation of hazardous materials.

Release of asbestos-containing material or lead-based paint to the


environment.

Effects of using hazardous substances in construction.

Flooding hazards caused by increased runoff and effects from flooding.

Exposure of structures to increased risk of wildland fires

Cumulative wildfire hazard exposure.

CC

Mitigation Measures
Require facilities dealing with hazardous waste to incorporate actions to
minimize hazards to public health and safety.

Review proposals for new development near airports.

Implement the General Plan Safety Element.

Identify transportation routes for transport of hazardous material

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

J2-10

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix J2
Secondary Effects of Growth

TABLE J2-1 (Continued)


SIGNIFICANT MITIGABLE (S) AND SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE (U) IMPACTS OF GROWTH IDENTIFIED BY
GENERAL PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS IN THE PROJECT AREA

Impact / Mitigation

City of
Del Rey Oaks

City of Monterey

City of Del Rey


Oaks General
Plan Update EIR

City of Monterey
General Plan
Update EIR

City of Sand City

Sand City General


Plan Update MND

City of Seaside

Monterey County

U.S. Department
of the Army

City of Seaside
General Plan EIR

Monterey County
General Plan EIR
[To 2030 / To
2092]a

Presidio of
Monterey Real
Property Master
Plan EISb

Hazards (cont.)
Mitigation Measures (cont.)
Implement policies established in the Monterey County Hazardous Waste
Management Plan.

Implement a Mulithazrad Emergency Plan.

Cooperate with the Monterey County Environmental Health Division.

Require mitigation in discretionary development projects.

Use an update Emergency Preparedness Plan.

Inspect all publicly maintained flood control facilities.

Require new development to provide adequate drainage system

Participate in National Flood Insurance Program.

Maintain emergency procedures for evacuation and control of population


within floodplain areas.

Implement Storm Drainage Plan.

Maintain landscaping, buffer zones in areas of high wildland fire risk.

X
X

Collaborate with Monterey County Airport District to review projects and


mitigate impacts during development review process.

Implement most recent Uniform Fire Code

Manage asbestos-containing materials and lead-based paint removed


during building rehabilitation according to local, state, and federal and
MPUAPCD requirements; implement the Presidio of Monterey Asbestos
Management Plan; manage and dispose asbestos-containing materials in
accordance with MBUAPCD rules and policies.

Modify closure and post-closure maintenance plans for construction projects


that may affect the cap of the closed landfill, POM-05. Submit proposed land
use changes and development plans that include design and mitigation to
the local regulatory and land use agencies, the Central Coast RWQCB, and
the CIWMB for approval.

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

J2-11

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix J2
Secondary Effects of Growth

TABLE J2-1 (Continued)


SIGNIFICANT MITIGABLE (S) AND SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE (U) IMPACTS OF GROWTH IDENTIFIED BY
GENERAL PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS IN THE PROJECT AREA

Impact / Mitigation

City of
Del Rey Oaks

City of Monterey

City of Del Rey


Oaks General
Plan Update EIR

City of Monterey
General Plan
Update EIR

City of Sand City

Sand City General


Plan Update MND

City of Seaside

Monterey County

U.S. Department
of the Army

City of Seaside
General Plan EIR

Monterey County
General Plan EIR
[To 2030 / To
2092]a

Presidio of
Monterey Real
Property Master
Plan EISb

Hazards (cont.)
Mitigation Measures (cont.)
Comply with the California Stormwater Construction General Permit;
develop and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan that outlines
best management practices for handling and disposal of hazardous, toxic,
and radioactive substances in accordance with the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act.

Hydrology and Water Quality


Impacts
Impacts on hydrology and water quality, including groundwater quality.

Impacts to hydrology and surface water resources.

Increased stormwater pollution during construction and/or following project


completion.

Agricultural and resource development would increase sediment and


nutrients in downstream waterways and violate water quality standards.

S/S

Increased demand for water supplies and/or water storage, treatment, and
conveyance facilities that could have significant secondary impacts on the
environment.

U/U

Substantial depletion of groundwater supplies.

S/U

Exceed capacity of existing water supplies and necessitate acquisition of


new supplies to meet expected demands.

S/U

Increased demand on groundwater supplies in areas experiencing or


susceptible to saltwater intrusion.

Increase flood hazard from changes in drainage patterns or insufficient


storm drainage infrastructure.

Alterations of existing drainage patterns would increase erosion in overland


flow paths and in drainage swales and creeks.

S
S/S

Placement of housing or other development within a 100-year floodplain.

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

S/U

J2-12

LS / U

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix J2
Secondary Effects of Growth

TABLE J2-1 (Continued)


SIGNIFICANT MITIGABLE (S) AND SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE (U) IMPACTS OF GROWTH IDENTIFIED BY
GENERAL PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS IN THE PROJECT AREA

Impact / Mitigation

City of
Del Rey Oaks

City of Monterey

City of Del Rey


Oaks General
Plan Update EIR

City of Monterey
General Plan
Update EIR

City of Sand City

Sand City General


Plan Update MND

City of Seaside

Monterey County

U.S. Department
of the Army

City of Seaside
General Plan EIR

Monterey County
General Plan EIR
[To 2030 / To
2092]a

Presidio of
Monterey Real
Property Master
Plan EISb

Hydrology and Water Quality (cont.)


Impacts (cont.)
The placement of land uses and structures within Special Flood Hazard
Areas would impede or redirect flood flows, resulting in secondary
downstream damage, including bank failure.

LS / U

Potential failure of levees or dams would expose people and structures to


inundation and result in the loss of property, increased risk, injury, or death.

LS / U

Cumulative impacts on groundwater quality.

CC

Cumulative indirect Impacts of water supply projects.

CC

Mitigation Measures
Adopt and implement a policy that prohibits drainage from new impervious
surfaces into the natural area expansion parcel and requires appropriate
management of stormwater runoff.

Construct golf course and tees with subdrains to collect and dispers
percolating water to vegetated buffer areas.

Prepare and implement a Golf Course Environmental Management Plan


that includes an Integrated Pest Management strategy to reduce the use of
and exposure to pesticides.

Implement the policies and programs of the General Plan Urban Design,
Conservation, Public Facilities, and Safety Elements.

Review all development proposals planned for areas within a 100-year flood
hazard zone and require mitigation as needed for conformance with
National Flood Insurance Program standards.

Implement General Plan policies that require the City to monitor the capacity
of the local WWTP and identify need for expanded treatment capacity.

Implement General Plan policies that require the City to verify adequacy of
sewer collection and treatment facilities during processing of development
proposals.

Implement General Plan policies calling for the City to update and
implement the Citys Sewer and Drainage Plan as necessary.

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

J2-13

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix J2
Secondary Effects of Growth

TABLE J2-1 (Continued)


SIGNIFICANT MITIGABLE (S) AND SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE (U) IMPACTS OF GROWTH IDENTIFIED BY
GENERAL PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS IN THE PROJECT AREA

Impact / Mitigation

City of
Del Rey Oaks

City of Monterey

City of Del Rey


Oaks General
Plan Update EIR

City of Monterey
General Plan
Update EIR

City of Sand City

Sand City General


Plan Update MND

City of Seaside

Monterey County

U.S. Department
of the Army

City of Seaside
General Plan EIR

Monterey County
General Plan EIR
[To 2030 / To
2092]a

Presidio of
Monterey Real
Property Master
Plan EISb

Hydrology and Water Quality (cont.)


Mitigation Measures (cont.)
Implement General Plan policies calling for the City to consult and
coordinate with water districts regarding the potential impacts of new
development and implement measures to address impacts.

Implement General Plan policies that require new development to


implement BMPs pursuant to NPDES permits.

Implement General Plan policies that require improvement of drainage and


stormwater detention capabilities.

Implement General Plan policies that require the City to cooperate with
regional water suppliers, local water districts, and school districts encourage
conservation and public education.

Implement General Plan policies that call for the City to work with MCWRA,
ACOE, SWRCB, MPWMD to address seawater intrusion.

Implement General Plan policies that require the City to continue to require
new public and private development and redevelopment projects to install
and utilize water conservation measures.

Implement General Plan policies that requires the City to coordinate with
MPWMD and MCWD to extend recycled water infrastructure.

Develop and adopt a Stream Setback Ordinance.

Support a regional solution for the Monterey Peninsula in addition to the


Coastal Water Project. Participate in regional coalitions for the purpose of
identifying and supporting a variety of new water supply projects, water
management programs, and multiple agency agreements that will provide
additional domestic water supplies for the Monterey Peninsula and Seaside
basin, while continuing to protect the Salinas and Pajaro River groundwater
basins from saltwater intrusion. Complete the cooperative planning of these
water supply alternatives within five years of adoption of the General Plan
and implement the selected alternatives within five years after that time.

Initiate planning for additional water supplies in the Salinas Valley.

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

J2-14

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix J2
Secondary Effects of Growth

TABLE J2-1 (Continued)


SIGNIFICANT MITIGABLE (S) AND SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE (U) IMPACTS OF GROWTH IDENTIFIED BY
GENERAL PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS IN THE PROJECT AREA

Impact / Mitigation

City of
Del Rey Oaks

City of Monterey

City of Del Rey


Oaks General
Plan Update EIR

City of Monterey
General Plan
Update EIR

City of Sand City

Sand City General


Plan Update MND

City of Seaside

Monterey County

U.S. Department
of the Army

City of Seaside
General Plan EIR

Monterey County
General Plan EIR
[To 2030 / To
2092]a

Presidio of
Monterey Real
Property Master
Plan EISb

Hydrology and Water Quality (cont.)


Mitigation Measures (cont.)
Add considerations regarding riparian habitat and stream flows to criteria for
long-term water supply and well assessment to Public Services policies that
establish criteria for domestic and high-capacity wells.
General Plan and Area Plan goals and policies will apply. Future projects
will be subject to CEQA and have specific mitigation measures. Experience
shows that impacts of large-scale water supply projects cannot always be
mitigated to a less than significant level.

Implement in all new facilities the water conservation measures that were
identified in the 2004 Presidio of Monterey Water Management Plan and
have since been refined.

Install rainwater collection systems in all new buildings.

Install purple piping for recycled water in all new buildings.

Regarding long term water supply, explore the feasibility of transferring a


portion of the Ord Military Communitys water rights to the Presidio of
Monterey to reduce the Presidios projected water shortfall and the
possibility of a trading a portion of OMC water rights to the City of Seaside
for a portion of the Citys CalAm water supply allocation to the Presidio;
consider contracting for additional water from the regional water supply
projects that are being developed. Consider installing water meters,
implementing water conserving measures at the La Mesa Military Housing
Complex to claim water use credits, and employing water conservation
measures for the proposed development at the Presidio of Monterey.

Construct proposed improvements such that downstream flooding


conditions are not exacerbated and to maximize stormwater infiltration and
minimize stormwater runoff and erosion.

As part of site design, include non-structural stormwater controls that filter


and settle out pollutants and provide infiltration and /or storage.

During project design select specific post-construction best management


practices that comply with post-construction runoff requirements.

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

J2-15

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix J2
Secondary Effects of Growth

TABLE J2-1 (Continued)


SIGNIFICANT MITIGABLE (S) AND SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE (U) IMPACTS OF GROWTH IDENTIFIED BY
GENERAL PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS IN THE PROJECT AREA

Impact / Mitigation

City of
Del Rey Oaks

City of Monterey

City of Del Rey


Oaks General
Plan Update EIR

City of Monterey
General Plan
Update EIR

City of Sand City

Sand City General


Plan Update MND

City of Seaside

Monterey County

U.S. Department
of the Army

City of Seaside
General Plan EIR

Monterey County
General Plan EIR
[To 2030 / To
2092]a

Presidio of
Monterey Real
Property Master
Plan EISb

Land Use
Impacts
Inconsistency with Zoning Code.

Impacts to open space areas.

Conflicts between incompatible land uses.

Mitigation Measures
Implement the General Plan Housing Element Policies

Adopted and implement General Plan policies that encourage consideration


and preservation of irreplaceable natural resources and open space and
that require review of development projects with regard to the need for open
space buffers and require open space buffers and requires as a conditions
of project approval incorporation into the development plan of other
mitigation to avoid development of incompatible land uses.

Implement General Plan policies that require review of development for


compatibility with adjacent open space land uses

Implement a General Plan policy requiring avigation easements for future


development in the Airport Land Use Planning area,

Incorporate and implement General Plan development standards for


development in the clear zone for the airport.

Noise
Impact
Exposure of existing and new sensitive land uses to increased noise.

Exposure of new development to noise levels that exceed standards.

Increases in construction-related noise.

Increases in traffic noise.


Increases in stationary noise / airport noise.

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

U
S

J2-16

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix J2
Secondary Effects of Growth

TABLE J2-1 (Continued)


SIGNIFICANT MITIGABLE (S) AND SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE (U) IMPACTS OF GROWTH IDENTIFIED BY
GENERAL PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS IN THE PROJECT AREA

Impact / Mitigation

City of
Del Rey Oaks

City of Monterey

City of Del Rey


Oaks General
Plan Update EIR

City of Monterey
General Plan
Update EIR

City of Sand City

Sand City General


Plan Update MND

City of Seaside

Monterey County

U.S. Department
of the Army

City of Seaside
General Plan EIR

Monterey County
General Plan EIR
[To 2030 / To
2092]a

Presidio of
Monterey Real
Property Master
Plan EISb

Noise (cont.)
Mitigation Measures
Require noise studies for new development.

Implement the General Plan Noise Element.

Enforce noise limits (e.g. noise levels and hours of operation) and
construction/ operation noise regulations.

Implement appropriate sound attenuation measures to meet local


ordinances whenever possible.

Require construction contractors to ensure that construction vehicles and


equipment use the manufacturers recommended noise abatement devices
and are properly maintained.

Provide public notice of the project to local area neighborhoods and post
signage that provides a phone number to call to register complaints about
construction-related noise problems.

Parks and Recreation


Impact
Potential conflict between new development and existing and expanded
recreational/education uses.

Environmental effects of construction of new park facilities and potential


degradation of existing or future parks or recreational facilities.

Increased demand resulting in the need for new or expanded parks and
recreational facilities.

S/S

Mitigation Measures
Implement the applicable General Plan Public Services and Public Facilities
Element policies and programs.

The County shall adopt an ordinance that requires residential subdivision


projects to provide and maintain park and recreation land and facilities or
pay in-lieu fees in proportion to the need created by the development.

Conduct project-level CEQA review of new or expanded park and


recreational facilities to identify and mitigate adverse environmental effects.

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

J2-17

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix J2
Secondary Effects of Growth

TABLE J2-1 (Continued)


SIGNIFICANT MITIGABLE (S) AND SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE (U) IMPACTS OF GROWTH IDENTIFIED BY
GENERAL PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS IN THE PROJECT AREA

Impact / Mitigation

City of
Del Rey Oaks

City of Monterey

City of Del Rey


Oaks General
Plan Update EIR

City of Monterey
General Plan
Update EIR

City of Sand City

Sand City General


Plan Update MND

City of Seaside

Monterey County

U.S. Department
of the Army

City of Seaside
General Plan EIR

Monterey County
General Plan EIR
[To 2030 / To
2092]a

Presidio of
Monterey Real
Property Master
Plan EISb

Population and Housing


Impacts
Induced population growth.

U/U

Mitigation Measures
(None available that would avoid growth.)

Public Services
Impacts
Increased demand for law enforcement and/or fire protection services
requiring new or expanded public facility.

Environmental effects from construction of schools to accommodate new


development.

Effects on adjacent land uses of operation of schools constructed or


expanded to accommodate new development.

LS / U

Mitigation Measures
Implement General Plan Public Facilities policies and undertake projectlevel CEQA review to identify and mitigate adverse effects of construction of
a new public safety facility or fire station when needed in the future.

Implement general plan policies and mitigation measures identified in other


sections of the EIR.

(Specific mitigation of school operational impacts is not feasible because


specific future school characteristics are unknown.)

Traffic and Transportation


Impact
Congestion impacts on local and regional roadways and intersections

Unacceptable LOS on roadways.

Decreased parking capacity.

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

J2-18

U/U

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix J2
Secondary Effects of Growth

TABLE J2-1 (Continued)


SIGNIFICANT MITIGABLE (S) AND SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE (U) IMPACTS OF GROWTH IDENTIFIED BY
GENERAL PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS IN THE PROJECT AREA

Impact / Mitigation

City of
Del Rey Oaks

City of Monterey

City of Del Rey


Oaks General
Plan Update EIR

City of Monterey
General Plan
Update EIR

City of Sand City

Sand City General


Plan Update MND

City of Seaside

Monterey County

U.S. Department
of the Army

City of Seaside
General Plan EIR

Monterey County
General Plan EIR
[To 2030 / To
2092]a

Presidio of
Monterey Real
Property Master
Plan EISb

Traffic and Transportation (cont.)


Impact (cont.)
Increased demand for transportation alternatives.

Inadequate emergency access.

U/U

Impacts of development on County roads within the Agricultural and Winery


Corridor.

S/S

Impacts of traffic from cumulative development on LOS standards.

CC

Inadequate emergency access resulting from cumulative development.

CC

Increased traffic volumes and deterioration of existing deficient performance


conditions on Monterey County roadways from cumulative development.

CC

Increased traffic volumes and intersection delays on internal Presidio of


Monterey and Ord Military Community roadways and intersections.
Increased vehicle queuing at access control point locations.

Mitigation Measures
Implement policies contained in the General Plan Circulation Element.

Revise the General Plan Circulation Element to address specified roadway


segments and intersections.

Adopt and implement policies to coordinate with and assist regional agencies
in providing funding for an efficient regional transportation network and policies
to participate in regional and state transportation planning efforts.

Revise Circulation Element language to require integration of land use and


circulation plans.

Implement identified improvements, including installation of traffic signals,


provision of dedicated left-turn lanes, and construction of street extensions,
as specified.

Identify improvements for Highways 1, 68 and other locations important to


the functioning of the regional transportation network so that level of service
standards are met.

Update Capital Improvements Plan and establish funding for roadway


improvements.

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

J2-19

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix J2
Secondary Effects of Growth

TABLE J2-1 (Continued)


SIGNIFICANT MITIGABLE (S) AND SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE (U) IMPACTS OF GROWTH IDENTIFIED BY
GENERAL PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS IN THE PROJECT AREA

Impact / Mitigation

City of
Del Rey Oaks

City of Monterey

City of Del Rey


Oaks General
Plan Update EIR

City of Monterey
General Plan
Update EIR

City of Seaside

Monterey County

U.S. Department
of the Army

Sand City General


Plan Update MND

City of Seaside
General Plan EIR

Monterey County
General Plan EIR
[To 2030 / To
2092]a

Presidio of
Monterey Real
Property Master
Plan EISb

City of Sand City

Traffic and Transportation (cont.)


Mitigation Measures (cont.)
Require Traffic Studies for new development proposals.
Expand and improve pedestrian and bicycle circulation; require rights-ofway on new roads for pedestrian and bicycle access.

Require new development to pay fair share for improvements and parking.
Revise the Safety Element policy on increasing roadway connectivity to
require that emergency response routes and street connectivity plans be
required for Community Areas and Rural Centers, and for any development
producing traffic at an equivalent or greater level to five or more lots/units.

Revise policies in the Carmel Valley Master Plan to address specified


roadway improvements.

Include within the County Traffic Impact Fee Program and CIFP roadway
segments within the Agricultural and Winery Corridor Plan that exceed LOS
standards.

Encourage the use of alternative transportation.

Reconfigure parking and roadways to improve bicycle and pedestrian


accessibility

Provide sidewalk and bicycle trail connectivity throughout the Presidio.

Implement as appropriate the short-, medium-, and long-term


recommendations provided in the 2010 Comprehensive Transportation
Study.

Comply with CEQA and NEPA requirements; prepare traffic engineering


study; and acquire appropriate rights of way for development of the new
access control point.

Develop staging plan for each new project that evaluates the possible use of
nearby vacant land for staging and temporary parking.

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

J2-20

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix J2
Secondary Effects of Growth

TABLE J2-1 (Continued)


SIGNIFICANT MITIGABLE (S) AND SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE (U) IMPACTS OF GROWTH IDENTIFIED BY
GENERAL PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS IN THE PROJECT AREA

Impact / Mitigation

City of
Del Rey Oaks

City of Monterey

City of Del Rey


Oaks General
Plan Update EIR

City of Monterey
General Plan
Update EIR

City of Seaside

Monterey County

U.S. Department
of the Army

Sand City General


Plan Update MND

City of Seaside
General Plan EIR

Monterey County
General Plan EIR
[To 2030 / To
2092]a

Presidio of
Monterey Real
Property Master
Plan EISb

City of Sand City

Utilities and Service Systems


Impacts
Implementation of the General Plan would require water resources that
exceed available water supply.
Require construction of new water supply and treatment facilities.

Require construction of new or expanded stormwater drainage.

S/S

Impacts related to new or expanded solid waste facilities.

LS / U

Cumulative impact on water supply.

Mitigation Measures
Adopt and implement a water conservation ordinance, which may include
requirements for plumbing retrofits to reduce water demand and effluent
generation.

Adopt and implement a policy that requires, as a condition of approval of


development plans, verification of available water service that does not
aggravate or accelerate existing salt water intrusion in the Salinas Valley
groundwater basin.

Adopt and implement policies that consider water conservation, reclamation,


and stormwater detention to increase water supply for former Fort Ord land
and explore potential sewage treatment options to enhance the non-potable
water supply for use on golf courses.

Implement General Plan policies that manage growth consistent with


available water supply and promote development of additional water
supplies and/or the conservation of water to mitigate impacts from
insufficient supply.

Implement General Plan policies that encourage infill development and


require implementation of design features and measures to reduce the need
for additional stormwater infrastructure projects.

Implement General Plan policies to pursue development of a water


desalination plant or other systems capable of enhancing the City's water
supply.

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

J2-21

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix J2
Secondary Effects of Growth

TABLE J2-1 (Continued)


SIGNIFICANT MITIGABLE (S) AND SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE (U) IMPACTS OF GROWTH IDENTIFIED BY
GENERAL PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS IN THE PROJECT AREA

Impact / Mitigation

City of
Del Rey Oaks

City of Monterey

City of Del Rey


Oaks General
Plan Update EIR

City of Monterey
General Plan
Update EIR

City of Sand City

Sand City General


Plan Update MND

City of Seaside

Monterey County

U.S. Department
of the Army

City of Seaside
General Plan EIR

Monterey County
General Plan EIR
[To 2030 / To
2092]a

Presidio of
Monterey Real
Property Master
Plan EISb

Utilities and Service Systems


Mitigation Measures (cont.)
Analyze and mitigate the extension and/or replacement of infrastructure
facilities as part of the environmental review for private development
projects. Hold public infrastructure and facility projects to the same standard
as private projects in terms of CEQA compliance and mitigation of impacts.

Make development approval dependent upon the demonstrated availability


of water through existing allocations, proven water rights, or the successful
acquisition or production of new supplies.

Implement the General Plan Land Use Element.

Work with local water districts and water agencies to extend water supply
and conveyance infrastructure.

Support local water district efforts to develop new sources of water supply
(including wells, desalination, water recycling, and importation).

Encourage conservation and public education.

Require all future developments to include in their stormwater management


plans as many Low Impact Development (LID) techniques as feasible.

Review Countys Solid Waste Management Plan on a 5-year basis and


institute policies and programs as necessary to exceed the waste reduction
requirements of the California Integrated Waste Management Act; require
wineries to undertake individual or joint composting programs to reduce the
volume of their waste stream.

Climate Change
Impacts
Development of the general plan would have a considerable contribution to
cumulative greenhouse gas emissions and global climate change.

CC

Potential exposure of property and persons to otherwise avoidable physical


harm in light of inevitable climate change.

LCC

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

J2-22

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix J2
Secondary Effects of Growth

TABLE J2-1 (Continued)


SIGNIFICANT MITIGABLE (S) AND SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE (U) IMPACTS OF GROWTH IDENTIFIED BY
GENERAL PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS IN THE PROJECT AREA

Impact / Mitigation

City of
Del Rey Oaks

City of Monterey

City of Del Rey


Oaks General
Plan Update EIR

City of Monterey
General Plan
Update EIR

City of Sand City

Sand City General


Plan Update MND

City of Seaside

Monterey County

U.S. Department
of the Army

City of Seaside
General Plan EIR

Monterey County
General Plan EIR
[To 2030 / To
2092]a

Presidio of
Monterey Real
Property Master
Plan EISb

Climate Change (cont.)


Mitigation Measures
Modify General Plan policy regarding development and adoption of a
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan, its goals, and required content. During
preparation of the plan evaluate options for changes to County land use and
circulation policies to further achieve the 2020 and 2030 reduction goals.

Add a General Plan policy requiring adoption of a Green Building


Ordinance.

Add a General Plan policy to promote alternative energy development

Add a General Plan policy to promote recycling and waste reduction.

At five-year intervals examine the degree to which thresholds predicted in


the General Plan EIR for the timeframe 2006-2030 for increased population,
residential and commercial growth have been attained. If the examination
shows that actual growth is within 10 percent of thresholds the County shall
initiate a General Plan amendment to consider expansion of focused growth
areas.

To address Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan requirements beyond 2030, in


parallel with adoption of the 2030 General Plan the County will develop and
adopt a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan with a target to reduce 2050 GHG
emissions by 80 percent relative to 1990 emissions.

Develop and integrate climate change preparedness planning for Monterey


County.

a The Monterey County General Plan EIR evaluated impacts anticipated to occur by the General Plans 2030 planning horizon, as well as impacts anticipated to occur under full General Plan buildout, which is assumed to occur in

2092. The column shows both significance conclusions (impacts to 2030 are shown on the left and Impacts to 2092 on the right).

b Impacts and significance levels shown are for the Preferred Alternative evaluated in the EIS; this was the alternative that the Army intended to implement according to the EIS Record of Decision.

S
U
LS
CC
LCC

=
=
=
=
=

Less than Significant with Mitigation


Significant and Unavoidable
Less than significant without mitigation (shown only for impacts in Monterey County where the planning horizon impact (to 2030) would be LS but the buildout impact (to 2092) was identified as either S or U).
Cumulatively considerable impact, as identified in the general plan EIRs (i.e., the terminology used in respective general plan EIR is followed here).
Cumulative impact would be less than cumulatively considerable with mitigation, as identified in the general plan EIRs.

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

J2-23

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix J2
Secondary Effects of Growth

Appendix J2 References
City of Del Rey Oaks, Final Environmental Impact Report for the Del Rey Oaks General Plan
Update Project, May 16, 1997.
City of Monterey, City of Monterey General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report
(July 14, 2004) and Final Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No.
2003081011, October 11, 2004.
City of Sand City, Expanded Environmental Impact Study and Proposed Negative Declaration,
General Plan Update 2001-2016, October 12, 2001.
City of Seaside, Final Seaside General Plan EIR, Volume 1, January 2004.
Monterey County, 2010a. Monterey County General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report,
SCH # 2007121001, March 2010. (Includes 2007 Monterey County Draft Environmental
Impact Report, SCH # 2007121001, September 2008.)
Monterey County, 2010b. Revised Supplemental Materials to the Final EIR (October 15, 2010),
Exhibit I of the Board Package for the October 26, 2010 Board of Supervisors meeting;
available online: http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/planning/gpu/GPU_2007/102610_Board_
Package/102610_Board_Package.htm.
United States Department of the Army (U.S. Department of the Army), Final Environmental
Impact Statement, Real Property Master Plan, Presidio of Monterey, California, February
2013a.
United States Department of the Army (U.S. Department of the Army), Record of Decicion:
Presidio of Monterey Real Property Master Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement,
Monterey, California, signed September 20, 2013b.

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

J2-24

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

APPENDIX K

Existing Water Conservation and Water


Recycling

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

K-1

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix K
Existing Water Conservation and Water Recycling

Water Conservation and Demand Management


It is assumed that because there would not be enough water supply to meet baseline demand,
CalAm would continue its implementation of conservation programs and measures with the same
intensity as under existing conditions. Because these programs and measures, such as limiting
losses from aging pipes, are existing and ongoing efforts, they are not considered a component of
the No Action Alternative, but do provide context for optional further reductions in demand
compared to baseline. Estimates of the effect of these ongoing programs on baseline demand are
provided to the extent that they can be quantified.
CalAm and MPWMD implement numerous water conservation and demand management
programs within CalAms Monterey District service area that have been critical to meeting the
reduction mandates included in SWRCBs 1995 Order 95-10 and 2009 CDO, and the 2006
Seaside Groundwater Basin adjudication. Additionally, in 1998, MPWMD adopted its
Regulation XV, Expanded Water Conservation and Standby Rationing Plan, which included
seven successive stages of conservation and rationing to respond to supply constraints. In 2016,
MPWMD revised Regulation XV and adopted an updated, four-stage conservation and rationing
plan. As with the previous plan, Stage 1, Prohibition of Water Waste, remains in effect at all
times and applies to all water users. The existing and past programs and their effectiveness by
year are described below. As the table below shows, the programs that can be quantified were
estimated to reduce total demand each year between 2010 and 2015 by 200 to 370 af. Reductions
in demand achieved by these programs are reflected in the baseline, as well as in CalAms
consideration of 10-year average demand (2006-2015) and in 2010, the year CalAm used as the
basis to assess the adequacy of the MPWSP, in combination with other supplies, to meet peak and
regulatory supply capacity requirements (see Section 2.3 in Chapter 2, Water Demand, Supplies,
and Water Rights).
A recent study (Alliance for Water Efficiency, 2015) suggests that MPWMD regulations and
CalAms and MPWMDs past and ongoing conservations programs will limit the magnitude of
any post-drought rebound in demand in CalAms Monterey District. Because conservation
programs have been underway for many years and have reached a high degree of saturation in the
CalAm service area, some (minor) rebound in demand can be expected when the drought period
ends. Given past and existing programs that have resulted in long-term changes in water
consumption, and the fact that a sharply tiered rate structure was adopted in 2010, the feasibility
of achieving substantial additional water savings through conservation is uncertain. Therefore, for
purposes of determining the effectiveness of continuing to implement conservation programs to
further reduce demand in the No Project/No Action Scenario, it is assumed that additional
quantifiable conservation savings in the current year and future years will not surpass that
achieved in recent years shown in the table below. Assuming 2015 effectiveness in reducing
demand, continuation of the programs described in this appendix would result in estimated
additional conservation savings of approximately 200 af of new conservation each year, with each
years savings carrying forward to the following years. More likely, however, the annual savings
will decrease as more businesses and residents undertake such retrofits and replacements, leaving
fewer inefficient water uses in the service area from which potential additional conservation

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

K-2

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix K
Existing Water Conservation and Water Recycling

savings could be derived. Assuming a new conservation savings of 200 af in 2016 (the same as
2015) and that the effectiveness of the conservation programs decreases by 5 af each year
thereafter, the total reduction in demand by 2021 would be approximately 1,125 afy. In reality,
the effectiveness may be diminished by more than 5 af per year in future years, considering
existing conservation program saturation levels, which would result in less total reduction in
demand than assumed here.

Local Programs
CalAm and MPWMD implement numerous water conservation and demand management
programs within CalAms Monterey District service area. Promotion of water conservation, as
well as water reuse and reclamation, has been part of MPWMDs core purpose since it was
established in 1978. SWRCBs 1995 Order 95-10 and 2009 CDO, and the 2006 Seaside
Groundwater Basin adjudication, have spurred additional efforts. Conservation programs have
been critical to meeting the reduction mandates included in these orders and decisions.
Order 95-10 required CalAm, while it sought a replacement water supply, to institute additional
conservation measures to reduce demand by 15 percent by 1996 and by 20 percent thereafter,
relative to CalAms historical usage cited in Order 95-10 (14,106 afy). The 2009 CDO
necessitated additional conservation and demand management efforts: it required CalAm to
immediately reduce diversions from the Carmel River by another 5 percent, or 549 afy, starting in
October 2009, and achieve further annual reductions starting in October 2011 and continuing
until all CalAm diversions from the river in excess of CalAms established rights are terminated. 1
The CDO and 2016 Revised CDO prohibit CalAm from diverting water from the Carmel River
for new service connections or intensified water use at existing connections. The Seaside
Groundwater Basin adjudication requires reductions in the amount of water pumped every three
years until the amount pumped equals the adjudicated amount.
In 1998, MPWMD adopted its Regulation XV, Expanded Water Conservation and Standby
Rationing Plan, which included seven successive stages of conservation and rationing to respond
to supply constraints. In 2016, MPWMD revised Regulation XV and adopted an updated, fourstage conservation and rationing plan. As with the previous plan, Stage 1, Prohibition of Water
Waste, remains in effect at all times and applies to all water users.
MPWMDs water conservation regulations require that low-water-use fixtures and appliances be
used in new construction, that faucets and toilets in commercial and industrial land uses be
retrofitted with low-water use fixtures, and that all residential, commercial, and industrial
properties that have not already been retrofitted be retrofitted upon change of ownership.
Conservation programs being implemented by CalAm and/or MPWMD include incentive-based
billing rates, a restricted irrigation schedule, free water audits, free water-saving devices, rebates
on high-efficiency plumbing fixtures and appliances, rebates for turf removal and its replacement
by drought-tolerant landscaping, and educational programs that encourage water conservation.
1

The 2009 CDO specified that this endpoint be achieved by water year 2016-2017. The Revised CDO extended the
date to December 31, 2021, among other provisions (see EIR/EIS Chapter 5, Section 5.4.2.3).

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

K-3

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix K
Existing Water Conservation and Water Recycling

Table K-1 summarizes key CalAm and MPWMD conservation programs and estimated water
savings for those that are quantifiable, for years 2010 through 2015. Reductions in demand
achieved by these programs are reflected in CalAms consideration of 10-year average demand
(2006-2015) and in 2010, the year CalAm used as the basis to assess the adequacy of the MPWSP
to meet (with other supplies) peak and regulatory supply capacity requirements (see Section 2.3
in Chapter 2, Water Demand, Supplies, and Water Rights). As the table shows, the programs that
can be quantified were estimated to save from 200 to 370 afy.
These programs have contributed (with other factors such as the mild climate) to the Monterey
Peninsula having among the lowest residential per capita water use rates in the state. SWRCB
staff calculated that annual average residential per capita usage in CalAms Monterey District
service area from June 2014 through May 2016 was 55 to 57 gallons per capita per day, based on
reporting required under emergency conservation regulations. This level is in the lowest
12 percent of urban users in the state (SWRCB, 2016). Statewide water use levels reported during
the drought emergency reflect water agency actions and requirements to curtail use and comply
with the states emergency drought regulation. MPWMD already enforced all the elements of the
states regulation, but increased its efforts in coordination with CalAm (CalAm and MPWMD,
2015). Past experience suggests that when a drought period ends, water use rebounds over time.
Therefore, per capita usage under non-drought conditions can be expected to be somewhat higher
than these reported levels. Some water customers in CalAms service area undertook
extraordinary measures during the drought, implementing behavioral changes to reduce water use
that may not be sustained after the drought; however, given the Monterey Peninsulas history of
water shortages and drought, MPWMDs regulations prohibiting water waste and incentives to
conserve, and the many years of implementing conservation programs outlined above, it is
reasonable to assume that per capita water use rates on the Monterey Peninsula will stay low and
continue to be among the lowest in the state.
The Alliance for Water Efficiency study (2015) indicates that post-drought rebound in demand
has been less pronounced since the 1990s than during the 1970s and 1980s, when behavioral
changes adopted during a drought were relaxed and previous water use practices resumed after a
drought ended. The study found that adoption of plumbing codes, active retrofit programs, and
conservation billing rates has helped lessen post-drought rebound in demand and that drought
periods have in fact presented opportunities to encourage (through incentive programs, for
example) plumbing retrofits and the replacement of appliances with more water efficient models
that are now available. Such changes have helped stabilize the water savings achieved during a
drought, after the drought has ended. The study found that water suppliers policies and
regulations can also influence the magnitude of a post-drought rebound in demand (Alliance for
Water Efficiency, 2015). This study suggests, as noted above, that MPWMD regulations and
CalAms and MPWMDs past and ongoing conservations programs will limit the magnitude of
any post-drought rebound in demand in CalAms Monterey District.

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

K-4

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix K
Existing Water Conservation and Water Recycling

TABLE K-1
SUMMARY OF EXISTING SERVICE AREA CONSERVATION PROGRAMS
Estimated Savings (AF)
Program
Residential Audits

Description

Promotion/Implementation

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

CalAm offers free residential audits, called


Water Wise House Calls, for single- or
multi-family homes; the audits identify
ways to save water indoors and outside.

Bill inserts, newspaper and radio ads, and


rebate brochures offer the audit service to
customers; also targets customers who
receive high water bills due to CalAms tiered
rate structure. 350 audits and 790 high bill
investigations completed in 2015.

5.15

4.20

6.77
(estimated)

8.20
(estimated)

8.2

Savings not
quantified.

Actual
Savings:
9.6

Actual
Savings:
10.90

Actual =
17.98

5.16

19.24

19.24

28.57

28.57

40.40

Certified landscape irrigation auditors carried


out 230 audits in 2010. The program was on
hold for three years due to budget constraints
and in 2013 a software problem. From 2010
through 2012 410 audits were completed. 14
large landscape and 4 large dedicated
irrigation audits were completed in 2014.

123.00

2.93

2.93

Not
quantified

Not
quantified

Rebates

Provides customers incentives to upgrade Rebate applicants learn about the rebate
to high efficiency/water saving fixtures and program primarily through newspaper
advertising, direct-mail rebate brochures sent
appliances.
to CalAm customers, and staff contacts at
local outreach events.

62.21

25.01

2.59

57.38

75.88

32.07

Public Outreach and


Education

CalAm and MPWMD implement a joint


campaign to promote awareness about
water-saving programs and the need for
water conservation.

Outreach includes school presentations, a


conservation website, print and television ads,
radio announcements, mailed brochures and
bill inserts, booths at community events,
televised reports, and conservation classes.

Commercial,
Institutional &
Industrial (CII) Audits

Water use surveys, including audit of


water fixtures and water use patterns and
behavior. Customers receive an audit
report that includes findings,
recommendations, and expected payback
periods for recommended upgrades.

CalAm selects potential candidates with the


greatest need for water savings. Audits are
conducted by a contractor with follow-up by
CalAm conservation staff.

47.17

8.93

1.0

Rain Sensor
Installation Program

Provides direct installation of rain sensors


for residential, commercial and public
authority customers.

CalAm began the program in October 2011.

Residential Plumbing
Retrofit

Devices are distributed to CalAm customers


CalAm provides residential customers
with various free water savings devices for at community events, at the CalAm office, at
onsite audits, upon customer request.
bathrooms and kitchens and for outdoor
watering.

Large Landscape
Audits and Water
Budgets

CalAm and MPWMD complete landscape


water audits and budgets required by
MPWMDs Rule 172.

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

K-5

Not quantifiable

43.00

60.00

9.00

Actual:
12 af

2.37

100 Rain
Sensors
installed;

39 Rain
Sensors
installed

39 Rain
Sensors
installed

Not
quantified

Not
quantified.

Savings not
quantifiable

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix K
Existing Water Conservation and Water Recycling

TABLE K-1 (Continued)


SUMMARY OF EXISTING SERVICE AREA CONSERVATION PROGRAMS
Estimated Savings (AF)
Program

Description

Promotion/Implementation

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

3.00

6.00

6.00

Free Water Usage

CalAm has 14 customers who receive


free water in exchange for rights-of-way
and/or transfer of riparian water rights to
the Carmel River. The program is part of
CalAms effort to limit customers usage
and to determine whether CalAm can
negotiate a termination of free service.

Cal Am contacted free water customers in


2010. Four residential landscape audits and
one non-residential audit were performed. In
2012 CalAm started sending monthly
statements to enable the free water
customers to monitor usage.

Landscape Grant
Program

Provides grants for the replacement of turf


on city property with low-water-use
landscaping or synthetic grass and/or for
the installation of water saving irrigation
technology. Provides funding for
demonstration projects with high visibility,
water savings, exemplary landscaping,
and/or use of water saving-irrigation
technology. CalAm began implementing
the program in 2010.

CalAm sent letters about the program to the


service area cities and the Presidio of Monterey
in 2010 and 2013. In 2011, CalAm awarded
grants for projects in the cities of Monterey and
Seaside that were completed by the end of
2012 (4 af). In 2013, CalAm awarded grants for
projects in the cities of Monterey and Pacific
Grove (2.2 af). Grants provided to Monterey
Peninsula Unified School District for 9 schools
expected to save 1 million gallons per year.

4.0

2.2

Not
quantified

Conservation
Intern(s)

Internship position to assist with a variety


of tasks relating to the conservation
programs including planning, creating,
and implementing conservation programs.

In December 2009 CalAm hired a


conservation intern to assist with conservation
program implementation.

Not
quantifiable

Not
quantifiable

Not
quantifiable

Not
quantifiable

Not
quantifiable

Water Conservation
Representative

Staff position to perform water waste


enforcement and follow-up, participate in
public outreach events, and perform
property inspections and audits.

Maintain one staff position

Water Conservation
Seminars

Provide education hands-on learning with


focus on reducing outdoor and CII water
use.

MPWMDs training agenda focuses on


providing gardeners, landscapers, builders,
homeowners, plumbers and others the tools
necessary to maximize water efficiencies and
includes workshops on rainwater harvesting
and graywater use.

Water Wise
Gardening for
Monterey County

Monterey area-specific gardening


software designed to assist with waterefficient plant choices.

MPWMD licenses the product for web use,


since 2009. Before that MPWMD had
reprinted CDs for distribution.

Linen/Towel Reuse
Program

Provides cards notifying hotel customers


of the option to either reuse or obtain new
linens and towels, provides conservation
message mirror clings, and provides
drinking water served only on request
tent cards for restaurants.

Reprints cards for placement in hotels and


restaurants. The program is mandatory within
the MPWMD.

up to 101
afy at 60%
occupancy

up to 101
afy at 60%
occupancy

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

K-6

Not quantifiable

up to 101
afy at 60%
occupancy

up to 101
afy at 60%
occupancy

up to 101
afy at 60%
occupancy

up to 101
afy at 60%
occupancy

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix K
Existing Water Conservation and Water Recycling

TABLE K-1 (Continued)


SUMMARY OF EXISTING SERVICE AREA CONSERVATION PROGRAMS
Estimated Savings (AF)
Program
California Irrigation
Management
Information System
(CIMIS) Station
Maintenance

Description
CIMIS data are used by weather-based
irrigation controllers. MPWMD sponsors
three CIMIS stations on the Peninsula.

Promotion/Implementation

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

32

22.38

255

200

MPWMD staff maintains the stations by


cleaning the devices periodically.
Not quantifiable

Conservation Devices MPWMD provides CalAm customers with


various free water-savings devices
including showerheads, bathroom and
kitchen faucet aerators, leak detection
tablets/kits, and outdoor water saving
tools.

MPWMD distributes devices at community


events, at the MPWMD front desk (to walk-in
customers), at onsite inspections, upon
customer request, during presentations, and
during water waste enforcement visits.

Conservation Printed
Material

MPWMD prepares and distributes print


material promoting water conservation,
including brochures about the rebate program
(drafted with CalAm), and rainwater
harvesting and use of graywater.

The printed material program updates and


distributes water conservation materials.

2010

Water Waste
Prohibitions

The program seeks to eliminate water


running to waste and other forms of water
waste.

Notification to property occupant and follow


up to ensure corrections as needed.

Water Rate Structure

CalAm employs a tiered water rate


structure for residential and nonresidential customers specifically
designed to promote conservation.

A water rate increase affecting all accounts


and dramatically increasing the fourth and fifth
tiers of the residential rate structure took
effect in February 2010 and some of the
savings reported for the landscape audits in
2010 was attributable to the rate increase. A
large increase in residential tiered rates in
2012 prompted an upsurge in demand for
residential water audits.

Total of Quantifiable Estimated Savings

18.94

24.31

25.26

14.48

Not quantifiable

see note b

366

228

230

219

NOTES:
a Actual savings reported in the following years annual conservation report.
b The annual conservation reports generally do not quantify savings from the tiered rate structures but indicate that the rate structures are assumed to encourage participation in, and contribute to water savings reported for, other

conservation programs that are quantified (such as the large landscape audit program and rain sensor installation program). The 2013 conservation report states that fifth tier residential water usage dropped from 598 acre-feet
in 2007 to 212 acre-feet in 2013. In 2014 and 2015 fifth tier usage dropped to 194 acre-feet and 163 acre-feet, respectively. Rainfall during winter and summer months also affects outdoor usage; review of records over time
indicates that fourth and fifth tier usage normally decreases during year of high rainfall and increased during years of low rainfall.
SOURCES: CalAm and MPWMD, 2011; CalAm and MPWMD, 2012; CalAm and MPWMD, 2013; CalAm and MPWMD, 2014; CalAm and MPWMD, 2015, CalAm and MPWMD, 2016.

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

K-7

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix K
Existing Water Conservation and Water Recycling

Plumbing Code-Related Reductions


Water savings from plumbing code requirements accrue over time as water fixtures are replaced
due to failure, aging, or remodeling, and must be replaced by more efficient models, pursuant to
the state plumbing code (part of the state building code). CalAm and MPWMD have been
implementing rebate and retrofit programs that encourage or require replacement or retrofitting of
fixtures with more efficient models. This analysis assumes that a substantial portion of the
savings that would be gained by plumbing code requirements has already been realized within the
CalAm Monterey District service area and is reflected in existing service area demand.

Non-Revenue Water Reduction


Another element of demand management is reduction in non-revenue water. Non-revenue water
(also referred to as unaccounted-for water) represents the difference between total water produced
in a system (e.g., from CalAms wells and distribution facilities) and total water billed to
customers (i.e., water consumed). Reduction of system losses through maintenance and repair can
make available for other uses water that was formerly lost in the system. As described in
Chapter 2, Section 2.5.3.3, CalAm has undertaken efforts to reduce non-revenue water in its
Monterey District, and CalAms quarterly reports to the SWRCB (CalAm, 2011, 2012, 2013,
2014, 2015) indicate that CalAm has reduced system losses by an average of 506 afy over the
past five years (water years 2010-2011 through 2014-2015). It is assumed that CalAms program
to address system losses would continue under the No Project/No Action Alternative pursuant to
requirements of CPUC general rate case decisions requiring reduction in system losses. However,
while additional reductions in demand associated with non-revenue water can be expected, data
are not available to quantify potential additional future savings from such efforts. Over time, the
size of additional reductions in system losses will inevitably decrease as the oldest and most leakprone lines and mains are replaced and other efforts to reduce losses are implemented.

Water Recycling
Existing Recycled Water Projects
Water recycling involves treating wastewater to a quality suitable for irrigation and other
nonpotable uses. In the Monterey area, wastewater is currently recycled by the MRWPCA, and
through the Carmel Area Water District/Pebble Beach Community Services District (CAWD/
PBCSD) Project, which is operated by CAWD. MRWPCAs Regional Treatment Plant is capable
of producing an average of 29.6 million gallons per day (mgd) of recycled water (roughly
33,000 afy) for use as irrigation water in the northern Salinas Valley (MRWPCA, 2013).
MRWPCA currently recycles 60 percent of the incoming wastewater (MRWPCA, 2015). While
the Regional Treatment Plant has a dry weather design capacity of 29.6 mgd, it currently receives
and treats approximately 18.5 mgd of wastewater and therefore has capacity to treat additional
flows (MRWPCA, 2016).

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

K-8

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix K
Existing Water Conservation and Water Recycling

The Pebble Beach Project recycles roughly 1,000 afy of wastewater (Stoldt, 2011), 2 which is used
to meet 100 percent of the irrigation needs of all of the golf courses in the Del Monte Forest, 3
thereby offsetting the equivalent amount of potable water demand. Reductions in potable water
demand resulting from the Pebble Beach Project, including its second phase which was
completed in 2009, would largely be reflected in CalAm demand figures used for the MPWSP.

Pacific Grove Local Water Project


The City of Pacific Grove is developing the Pacific Grove Local Water Project. The primary
goal of the Local Water Project is to provide high-quality recycled water to replace the use of
potable water for non-potable water demands such as landscaping. The project consists of three
components or phases that are considered in terms of the Demand Groups that would be served
by each phase:

Demand Group I would involve construction of a new Satellite Recycled Water Treatment
Plant (SRWTP) that would provide up to 125 afy of non-potable recycled water to serve
irrigation needs at the Pacific Grove Golf Links and the El Carmelo Cemetery, as well as
water for toilet and urinal flushing at the golf links restrooms. In recognition of the water
saved by this project, MPWMD established water entitlements totaling 75 afy of metered
use, which would offset system demand of about 81 afy. Demand Group I of the Local
Water Project is scheduled to be fully online before December 31, 2016 (Ordinance 168).

Demand Group II would expand the SRWTP and the recycled water distribution system to
serve numerous small irrigation sites (such as schoolyards, parks and playfields) throughout
Pacific Grove, and would provide 99 afy. Construction of Demand Group II elements could
begin following completion of project-level CEQA analysis and regulatory approval. This
analysis assumes that such review and approval would be achieved, and the project
implemented.

Demand Group III would expand the SRWTP and serve larger-demand sites east and west
of Pacific Grove. Demand Group III would connect to the CAWD/PBCSD recycled water
system to the east and the Presidio of Monterey to the west, and would have the potential to
meet 376 afy of recycled water demand. This component is not included in the total
demand offset this analysis assumes the Pacific Grove Local Water Project will achieve,
however, because it is less certain. It would require institutional agreements between
Pacific Grove and CAWD/PBCSD and the Presidio of Monterey, as well as the
identification of suitable sites and customers able to use recycled water to replace potable
supply.

This alternatives analysis assumes that a total of 180 afy from implementation of Demand
Groups I (81 afy) and II (99 afy) would be provided to offset potable demand.

2
3

CAWD/PBCSD sold 977 af of recycled water in 2012 and 965 af in 2013 (CAWD/PBCSD, 2013); SWRCB Order
WR 2016-0016 refers to a demand offset from this project of about 970 afy.
The golf courses are Pebble Beach Golf Links, Spyglass Hill, The Links at Spanish Bay, Peter Hay, Cypress Point,
Monterey Peninsula Country Club, and Poppy Hills (CAWD, 2013).

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

K-9

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix K
Existing Water Conservation and Water Recycling

Monterey-Pacific Grove Area of Special Biological Significance


Stormwater Management Project
The Monterey-Pacific Grove ASBS Stormwater Management Project involves construction of a
stormwater treatment plant at Point Pinos (near the proposed SRWTP described above) and
multiple conveyance and storage structures, including restoration of the David Avenue Reservoir,
construction of a new underground storage facility under a local school playfield that could
potentially be used for irrigation during the dry season, and diversion structures that would direct
runoff to MRWPCAs Regional Treatment Plant. The goal of this project is primarily to reduce
the amount of polluted runoff entering the Pacific Grove Area of Special Biological Significance
(ASBS) and secondarily to provide non-potable supply for irrigation or for the Groundwater
Replenishment Project (GWR). While the project would prevent substantial quantities of
untreated stormwater runoff from entering the ASBS, the certified FEIR identifies only a limited
quantity 12.3 afy that is expected to specifically offset existing potable demand (City of
Pacific Grove, 2014b). Water would be used for irrigation at the Robert Down Elementary School
(5 afy), at Caledonia Park (1 afy), and at Point Pinos for the golf links or cemetery (6.3 afy). This
alternatives analysis therefore assumes that implementation of the Monterey-Pacific Grove ASBS
Stormwater Management Project would offset 12.3 afy of potable demand.
_________________________

References
Alliance for Water Efficiency, 2015. An Assessment of Increasing Water-Use Efficiency on
Demand Hardening. Available at: http://www.allianceforwaterefficiency.org/WorkArea/
DownloadAsset.aspx?id=9332.
California American Water (CalAm), 2011. Letter report to Barbara Evoy, Division Chief,
Division of Water Rights, State Water Resources Control Board, Re: SWRCB Order WR
2009-0060, 4th Quarterly Report for the 2010-2011 Water Year Addressing Operations for
the Period of July 1, 2011 to September 30, 2011 (Table 5, 12 Month Running Average of
Unaccounted For Water), October 10, 2011. Available: http://www.amwater.com/caaw/
customer-service/rates-information/monterey-district.html.
California American Water (CalAm), 2012. Letter report to Barbara Evoy, Division Chief,
Division of Water Rights, State Water Resources Control Board, Re: SWRCB Order WR
2009-0060, 4th Quarterly Report for the 2011-2012 Water Year Addressing Operations for
the Period of July 1, 2012 to September 30, 2012 (Table 5, 12 Month Running Average of
Unaccounted For Water), October 29, 2012. Available: http://www.amwater.com/caaw/
customer-service/rates-information/monterey-district.html.
California American Water (CalAm), 2013. Letter report to Barbara Evoy, Division Chief,
Division of Water Rights, State Water Resources Control Board, Re: SWRCB Order WR
2009-0060, 4th Quarterly Report for the 2012-2013 Water Year Addressing Operations for
the Period of July 1, 2013 to September 30, 2013 (Table 5, 12 Month Running Average of
Unaccounted For Water), October 17, 2013. Available: http://www.amwater.com/caaw/
customer-service/rates-information/monterey-district.html.

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

K-10

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix K
Existing Water Conservation and Water Recycling

California American Water (CalAm), 2014. Letter report to Barbara Evoy, Division Chief,
Division of Water Rights, State Water Resources Control Board, Re: SWRCB Order WR
2009-0060, 4th Quarterly Report for the 2013-2014 Water Year Addressing Operations for
the Period of July 1, 2014 to September 30, 2014 (Table 5, 12 Month Running Average of
Unaccounted For Water), October 22, 2014. Available: http://www.amwater.com/caaw/
customer-service/rates-information/monterey-district.html.
California American Water (CalAm), 2015. Letter report to Barbara Evoy, Division Chief,
Division of Water Rights, SWRCB, Re: SWRCB Order WR 2009-0060, 4th Quarterly
Report for the 2014-2015 Water Year Addressing Operations for the Period of July 1, 2015
to September 30, 2015, October 20, 2015. http://www.amwater.com/caaw/customerservice/rates-information/monterey-district.html.
California American Water (CalAm) and Monterey Peninsula Water Management District
(MPWMD), 2011. CAW Monterey County District MPWMD Water Conservation
Program 2010 Annual Report, May 2011.
California American Water (CalAm) and Monterey Peninsula Water Management District
(MPWMD), 2012. 2011 Monterey Peninsula Water Conservation Program Annual Report,
prepared by California American Water, Monterey County District, in Partnership with the
Monterey Peninsula Water Management District.
California American Water (CalAm) and Monterey Peninsula Water Management District
(MPWMD), 2013. 2012 Monterey Peninsula Water Conservation Program Annual Report,
prepared by California American Water, Monterey County District, in Partnership with the
Monterey Peninsula Water Management District.
California American Water (CalAm) and Monterey Peninsula Water Management District
(MPWMD), 2014. 2013 Monterey Peninsula Water Conservation Program Annual Report,
prepared by California American Water, Monterey County District, in Partnership with the
Monterey Peninsula Water Management District.
California American Water (CalAm) and Monterey Peninsula Water Management District
(MPWMD), 2015. 2014 Monterey Peninsula Water Conservation Program Annual Report,
prepared by California American Water, Monterey County District, in Partnership with the
Monterey Peninsula Water Management District.
California American Water (CalAm) and Monterey Peninsula Water Management District
(MPWMD), 2016. 2015 Monterey Peninsula Water Conservation Program Annual Report,
prepared by California American Water, Coastal Division, in Partnership with the
Monterey Peninsula Water Management District; received by MPWMD Board of Directors
at June 20, 2016, Regular Board Meeting.
Carmel Area Water District (CAWD), 2013. Reclamation. Available online at:
http://cawd.org/reclamation.html. Accessed April 23, 2013.
CAWD/PBCSD, 2013. CAWD/PBCSD Reclamation Project: An Enterprise Fund of the
Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, Annual Financial Report June 30, 2013.

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

K-11

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Appendix K
Existing Water Conservation and Water Recycling

Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency (MRWPCA), 2013. Slowing Seawater
Intrusion. Available online at: http://www.mrwpca.org/recycling/index.php. Accessed
April 23, 2013.
Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency (MRWPCA), 2015. About Us Recycled
Water. Available online at http://www.mrwpca.org/about_facilities_water_recycling.php.
Accessed April 20, 2015.
MRWPCA, 2016. Wastewater Treatment. Available online at: http://www.mrwpca.org/about_
facilities_treatment.php. Accessed December 28, 2016.
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), 2016. Order WR 2016-0016, In the Matter of
Application of California American Water Company, To Amend State Water Board Order
2009-0060. Adopted July 19, 2016.
Stoldt, David J., 2011. General Manager, Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, letter
to Mike Novo, Director of Planning, Monterey County Resource Management Agency,
Re: Pebble Beach Company Water Entitlement, December 14, 2011. Available online at:
http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/planning/major/Pebble%20Beach%20Company/DEIR_Com
ment_Letters/COMMENTb_LETOo_PLN100138_MPWMD_12-14-2011.pdf.

CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project


Draft EIR/EIS

K-12

ESA / 205335.01
January 2017

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen