Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Prepared for
California Public Utilities Commission and
Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary
January 2017
Appendices
Prepared for
California Public Utilities Commission and
Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary
January 2017
photo: Copyright 2015 Kenneth & Gabrielle Adelman, California Coastal Records Project,
www.californiacoastline.org
APPENDICES
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
ESA / 205335.01
January 2017
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.
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.
Public Relations
Sanctuary Advisory Council
Research Activity Panel
A-2
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:
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
Paul Michel
November 9, 2012
F_MBNMS
Diane K. Noda
November 9, 2012
F_USFWS
Diana S. Brooks
November 9, 2012
S_CPUC_DRA
Cy R. Oggins
S_CSLC
Raul Martinez
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
L_Monterey
David Stoldt
November 8, 2012
L_MPWMD
Thomas Frutchey
November 8, 2012
L_PacGrove
Federal Agencies
State Agencies
Group
Ag Land Trust
Molly Erickson
November 9, 2012
G_AgLandTrust
Tim Miller
November 9, 2012
G_CalAm
November 9, 2012
G_CPB
November 8, 2012
G_CPW
John H. Farrow
October 1, 2012
G_LandWatch
Tom Rowley
G_MPTA
Jonas Minton
G_PCL
Karin Locke
Gabriel Ross and Edward
Schexnayder
G_SPG
November 9, 2012
G_Surfrider
Surfrider Foundation
Salinas Valley Water Coalition
Nancy Isakson
October 2, 2012
G_SVWC1
Nancy Isakson
G_SVWC2
Ron Weitzman
October 4, 2012
G_WaterPlus1
WaterPlus
Dick Rotter
G_WaterPlus2
WaterPlus
Ron Weitzman
G_WaterPlus3
WaterPlus
Ron Weitzman
November 9, 2012
G_WaterPlus4
WaterPlus
Dick Rotter
November 6, 2012
G_WaterPlus5
Individual
November 2, 2012
I_Bottomley
Individual
George Brehmer
November 9, 2012
I_Brehmer
Individual
Bill Carrothers
I_Carrothers
Individual
Roger J. Dolan
November 6, 2012
I_Dolan
Individuals
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
November 8, 2012
I_Fierro
Individual
Mike Fillmon
I_Fillmon
Individual
November 8, 2012
I_Harrod
Individual
Chris Herron
I_Herron
Individual
Christina W. Holston
I_Holston
Individual
I_Olsen
Individual
Robert Siegfried
I_Siegfried1
Individual
Robert Siegfried
I_Siegfried2
Individual
Robert Siegfried
I_Siegfried3
Individual
Roy L. Thomas
I_Thomas
Not Given
ScopingMTG1
Not Given
ScopingMTG2
Not Given
ScopingMTG3
Individuals (cont.)
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]
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]
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]
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 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 slant wells would require coordination with the City of Marina as to its Local Coastal
Program. [ScopingMTG2-15]
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 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]
A-8
ESA / 205335.01
January 2017
Appendix A
NOP and NOI Scoping Report
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 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]
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]
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 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]
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]
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]
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 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]
A-13
ESA / 205335.01
January 2017
Appendix A
NOP and NOI Scoping Report
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]
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]
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 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]
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]
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]
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]
A-16
ESA / 205335.01
January 2017
Appendix A
NOP and NOI Scoping Report
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 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 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]
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
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 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]
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]
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]
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 direct and cumulative impacts to marine
resources associated with brine discharge from alternative desalination projects. [G_CPW26]
The alternatives analysis should consider the likelihood for the desalination alternatives to
be legally challenged in court. [G_CPW-28]
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 evaluation of the No Project Alternative should address compliance with the
SWRCBs Cease and Desist Order. [G_PCL-01]
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]
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]
A-21
ESA / 205335.01
January 2017
Appendix A
NOP and NOI Scoping Report
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
Commenter requests that EIR tables be formatted with numbers vertically aligned.
[G_AgLandTrust-23]
A-24
ESA / 205335.01
January 2017
Appendix A
NOP and NOI Scoping Report
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]
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]
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 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]
The EIR should evaluate any potential health risks associated with drinking desalinated
product water. [I_Siegfried3-02]
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]
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]
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]
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.
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]
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]
Date
10/01/15
Summary of Comment
Supportive of desalination because
of need for water from hospitality
perspective
09/28/15
A-27
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
A-28
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
Water Plus,
Ron Weitzman
10/01/15
Michael Baer
09/08/15
Diffuser length
Diffusion calculations
A-29
ESA / 205335.01
January 2017
Appendix A
NOP and NOI Scoping Report
Affiliation/Name
Date
Summary of Comment
Robert Evans
09/29/15
Salinity monitoring
Water supply should not degrade
environment; recycling would be
best
10/02/15
Surfrider Monterey
Chapter,
Staley Prom
A-30
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
Jeff Alford
09/04/15
Sustainable Pacific
Grove, Karin Locke
Circular Sea
Initiative, Francis
Jeffrey
Broadcaster,
Hebard Olsen
09/10/15
09/10/15
Ohlone/Costanoan
Esselen Nation,
Louise Miranda
Ramirez
Planet Earth,
Michael Baer
09/10/15
09/10/15
09/10/15
A-31
ESA / 205335.01
January 2017
Appendix A
NOP and NOI Scoping Report
A-32
ESA / 205335.01
January 2017
Appendix A
NOP and NOI Scoping Report
Attachment A
Notice of Preparation
A-33
ESA / 205335.01
January 2017
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
NOTICE OF PREPARATION
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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
Marina
ive
r
Sand
City
Seaside
Pacific
Grove
Monterey
Pebble
Beach
218
Carmel
By The Sea
Car m
el Va
lley R
1
Carmel
Highlands
Ca
rm
el R
ive
Carmel
Valley Village
2
Miles
Figure 1
Project Location Map
6
S
al
Seawater Intake n a
s R
System Option A
iver
0
Miles
MPWSP Desalination
Plant (Proposed)
Bo
ule
va
rd
B a y
MRWPCA Regional
Wastewater Treatment
Plant (Existing)
l Mon
Potential Subsurface
Slant Well Locations
(Proposed)
De
CSIP Pond
(Existing)
te
Seawater Intake
System Option B
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)
Figure 2
Preliminary Project Facilities Map
Notice of Preparation
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.
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
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.
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.
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 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.
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
in partnership with the Monterey County Water Resources Agency and growers in the Salinas Valley.
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.
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
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.
13
ESA / 205335.01
October 2012
Appendix A
NOP and NOI Scoping Report
Attachment B
Notice of Intent
A-35
ESA / 205335.01
January 2017
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 165 / Wednesday, August 26, 2015 / Notices
VerDate Sep<11>2014
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:
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
51787
E:\FR\FM\26AUN1.SGM
26AUN1
51788
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 165 / Wednesday, August 26, 2015 / Notices
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
[Docket ID: DoD2015OS0088]
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
Jkt 235001
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\26AUN1.SGM
26AUN1
APPENDIX A1
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
A1-2
ESA / 205335.01
January 2017
Appendix A1
Draft EIR/EIS Distribution List
A1-3
ESA / 205335.01
January 2017
Appendix A1
Draft EIR/EIS Distribution List
A1-4
ESA / 205335.01
January 2017
Appendix A1
Draft EIR/EIS Distribution List
A1-5
ESA / 205335.01
January 2017
Appendix A1
Draft EIR/EIS Distribution List
A1-6
ESA / 205335.01
January 2017
Appendix A1
Draft EIR/EIS Distribution List
A1-7
ESA / 205335.01
January 2017
Appendix A1
Draft EIR/EIS Distribution List
A1-8
ESA / 205335.01
January 2017
Appendix A1
Draft EIR/EIS Distribution List
A1-9
ESA / 205335.01
January 2017
Appendix A1
Draft EIR/EIS Distribution List
Individuals
Douglas Smith
Mel Kent
James Toy
Christina W. Holston
Nancy Selfridge
Jay Roland
Bill Carrothers
Ronald J. Roland
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
Meredith Harrill
R. Burkan
Marion Botty
Jean Donnelly
Leslie Rosenfeld
Chris Herron
Dan Presser
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
Lindy Marrington
Buck Jones
Christina Bell
Doug Wilhelm
Barbara Martin
Safwat Malek
Peter Le
Michael Cate
Ken Ekelund
Robert Siegfried
Susan Willey
A1-10
ESA / 205335.01
January 2017
APPENDIX B1
B1-1
ESA / 205335.01
January 2017
Exhibit CA-30
(A.12-04-019)
Provided by California American Water
CPUC Evidentiary Hearing
December 2, 2013
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
15,296
Total
15,296
Total
13,291
1,180
325
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.
Demand
Supply
Item
Desai Plant
Carmel River
Sand City
ASR
Seaside Basin
Total
Item
(AFY)
9,752
3,376
94
774
13,996
(AFY)
13,291
1,180
325
Lots of Record
Pebble Beach
500
15,296
Total
Deficit
1,300
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
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
500
Carmel River
Seaside Basin
774
14,644
15,469
Total
15,296
Total
Deficit
173
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
Pebble Beach
325
500
15,469
Total
Deficit
1,473
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
Pebble Beach
325
500
15,469
Total
14,696
Deficit
773
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
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
1,180
Pebble Beach
325
500
17,167
Total
Deficit
10 year
Supply
Item
Demand
(AFY)
(AFY)
Item
Desai Plant
9,976
Carmel River
3,376
Lots of Record
Sand City
94
Pebble Beach
ASR
1,300
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
Demand
(AFY)
Desai Plant
9,976
Carmel River
3,376
Lots of Record
Sand City
94
Pebble Beach
ASR
(AFY)
Item
15,162
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
Supply
Demand
(AFY)
Item
(AFY)
Item
Desai Plant
9,976
Carmel River
3,376
Lots of Record
Sand City
94
Pebble Beach
ASR
15,162
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
Seaside Basin
370
Total
1,724
1,388
Pebble Beach
ASR (Extraction)
Total
(AFY)
Item
1,580
Deficit
(143)
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
Seaside Basin
370
Total
Total
1,724
1,724
Deficit
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
Seaside Basin
448
Total
Total
1,901
1,902
(0)
Deficit
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
48
1,901
Total
Deficit
433
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
B2-1
ESA / 205335.01
January 2017
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:
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.
-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
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................................................. i
1.
Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1
2.
Background .............................................................................................................. 2
3.
4.
5.
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.4.1
5.4.2
5.4.3
5.4.4
5.5
6.
6.2
6.3
6.4
7.
Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 48
8.
Recommendations .................................................................................................. 50
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.
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,
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
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
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.
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 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
21
16
Figure SWRCB 7
17
4.3
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
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
4.5
Groundwater Modeling
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.
5.1
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
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
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
26
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
46
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
49
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
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
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)
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.
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.
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:
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
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.
59
286 (City of Santa Maria).) See also, Hutchins (1956) The California
Law of Water Rights pp. 351-354; 497-498.
2) Donlan:
60
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.
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
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
65
66
R ECEIVE D
4-28-13
Paul Murphey
Division of Water Rights
State Water Resources Control Board
P.O. Box 2000
Sacramento, CA 95812-2000
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
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
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.
Id., p. 37.
10
Id., p. 36.
11
Id., p. 37.
12
Id.
71
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
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.
73
Respectfully,
Ron Weitzman
President, Water Plus
74
A.12-04-019
(Filed April 23, 2012)
Ron Weitzman
Email: ronweitzman@redshift.com
President, Water Plus
75
Table of Contents
Table of Contents................................................................................................... 1
I.
II.
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.
77
III.
35
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
79
85
90
95
100
105
110
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
14
89
350
355
360
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
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
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
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
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
Respectfully submitted,
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
RE:
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
May 3, 2013
R ECEIVE D
5-3-13
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
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
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,
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
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
R ECEIVE D
5-3-13
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
May 3, 2013
Page 22
Commission. The SWRCB should honor and consider the state-certified plan if the
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
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
November 6,2006
Jensen Uehida
c/o California Public Utilities Commission
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
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.
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
Respect&lly,
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
uiu/ui mnntopouhopQlrl mm
Desal EIR
dealt blow
By JIM JOHNSON
HeraldStaffWrite-
Water from
the sea
%-----
-.-
144
Exhibit B, p. 1 of 2
Desal
From page A1
under
on it.
state
environmental
applicable to an alternative
contingency
desal project.
Late last month, at a PUC
conference,
Cal
Am
assumption
plan,
of
the
constant
state
Public
Commission.
Utilities
mental law.
availability of groundwater
for the desal project and the
potential
environmental
impact, especially after the
county Water Resources
Agency admitted it still
source of delay.
The company must find a
replacement source of water
atjjohnson@monterey
pump
plished
address
herald.com or 753-6753.
organization's environmental
inadequate
discussion
of
water rights.
"Ag Land Trust has been
raising the issue of water
rights since at least 2006,"
Erickson said. "For more
She
said
Cal
deals.
Carmel River.
because
water
from
the
the
that
could
be
145
Herald.
completion
and
PUC
approval of the environmen
tal impact report.
water
rights,
die
amended ruling
and
Exhibit B, p. 2 of 2
_|_
EXHIBIT C
146
FILED
APR 1 7 2012
CONNIE MAZZEI
CARMEN 8. 0RO7rr
6
7
COUNTY OF MONTEREY
AG LAND TRUST,
10
v.
12
13
14
2012
[PROP03CD]
JUDGMENT GRANTING FIRST
AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF
15
MANDATE (CALIFORNIA
16
17
18
Dept: 15
19
/
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
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
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
1.
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.
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
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
23
24
25
3.
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
28
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
6.
Dated- m 17 2012
LYDIAM.VILLAR&EAL
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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
6
7
COUNTY OF MONTEREY
AG LAND TRUST,
10
2012
11
12
13
14
[PROPOSED]
PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE
15
/
16
17
having been entered in this proceeding, ordering that a peremptory writ of mandate be
20
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
151
[Proposed]
PeremptoryWrit of Mandate
Exhibit C, p. 5 of 42
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
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
12
Under Public Resources Code section 21168.9, subdivision (b), this Court
13
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
18
19
20
Dated:
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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
COUNTY OF MONTEREY
CONNIE MAZZEI
CLERKjOE.THESUPERIOI
bailV LOPez PI iPUTY
Plaintiff/Petitioner,
Case No.:
AG LAND TRUST,
M105019
vs.
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
Background
14
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Discussion
10
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
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
"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
(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
Marina Coast's April 5, 2010 Resolution No. 2010-20s purpose was to "conditionally" approve
16
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
"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
"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
"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
"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
"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
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
"By this resolution, the Directors makeand adopt appropriate Findings, Statementof Overriding
17
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
159
Exhibit C, p. 13 of 42
/Sf^<k
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
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
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
18
PASSED AND ADOPTED on April 5, 2010, by the Board of Directors of the Marina
19
20
(B). Marina Coast's April 5,2010 Resolution Attachment A: Findings for Marina Coast
21
"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
"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
"[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
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
"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
"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
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
"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
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
"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
"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
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
[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
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
"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
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
determinations regarding the Armstrong Ranch Property Acquisition and appurtenance Easements:"
16
"... [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
"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
"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
" 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 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
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
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
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
"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
"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
recommends that the Board approve the Acquisition for execution inthe form presented to the Board in
25
-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
"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
"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
"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
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
"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] 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
"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
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
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
"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
"'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
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
Any CEQA compliance byMarina Coast must be done under the auspices of its role asthe lead
7
agency.
8
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
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
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
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
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
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
-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
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
-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
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
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
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
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
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
"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
(4). Salinas Valley Water Coalition letter dated April 15,2009 addressed to Mr. Barnsdale
9
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
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
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
The response to these comments provided intheFinal EIR provides "refer to comment rezones
16
(6). Pajaro/Sunny MesaCommunity Services District sent a letter to the Cal PUC on April
18
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
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
(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
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
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
The EIR assumes that groundwater rights will be perfected in the future and that such rights do
6
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
24
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
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
24
25
11
184
Exhibit C, p. 38 of 42
/#itey
/^\
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Disposition
16
18
19
Lydia M. Villarreal
20
21
22
DatedFEB 02 2012
HON. LYDIA M. VILLARREAL
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
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
Monterey, CA 93940
10
11
12
13
Salinas, CA 93902-2510
14
15
Dated:
FEB 0 2 2012
16
17
18
19
Sally Lopez
20
By.
, Deputy Clerk
21
22
23
24
25
-35
188
Exhibit C, p. 42 of 42
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
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:
{00147049;1}
194
Exhibit SV-6
195
26-Sep-08
CONTENTS
1.0
INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
2.0
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
5.0
i
196
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
5.8.3
Calibration Results......................................................................................... 17
6.0
7.0
8.0
REFERENCES...................................................................................................................33
FIGURES
ii
197
26-Sep-08
FIGURES
No.
Description
Potential Projects
10
11
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)
iii
198
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
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
iv
199
26-Sep-08
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
1
200
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.
2
201
26-Sep-08
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.
3
202
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.
approximately 100 miles from headwaters in the southeast to Monterey Bay in the northwest.
4
203
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).
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).
5
204
26-Sep-08
http://www.mcwra.co.monterey.ca.us/SVWP/01swi180.pdf;
http://www.mcwra.co.monterey.ca.us/SVWP/01swi400.pdf , Accessed 6-Jun-08.
6
205
26-Sep-08
Project Purpose
Agency
Project Location
California
American
Water
Company
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
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
7
206
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.
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.
8
207
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
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).
9
208
26-Sep-08
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.
10
209
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.
11
210
26-Sep-08
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
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
Model
Layer
SVIGSM
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.
12
211
26-Sep-08
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.
13
212
26-Sep-08
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.
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.
14
213
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)
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.
15
214
26-Sep-08
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.
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.
(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.
16
215
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.
17
216
26-Sep-08
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:
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.
18
217
26-Sep-08
Summary of Groundwater Model Predictive Scenarios Run Using the North Marina Model
Predictive Scenario
Project Facilities
Baseline Scenario
(No Project)
Baseline Boundary
Conditions provided by
Regional Model
Baseline Boundary
Conditions provided by
Regional Model
Regional Project 3a
Scenario 3a Boundary
Conditions provided by
Regional Model
Regional Project 4b
Scenario 4b Boundary
Conditions provided by
Regional Model
Assumptions made for each of the model scenarios are provided below:
1. Baseline
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).
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,
19
218
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).
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.
The combined total production for the well field would be 17.8 mgd, and
20
219
26-Sep-08
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.
21
220
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
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.
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
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)
24
223
Change in
Groundwater
Storage
26-Sep-08
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.
infiltration of precipitation and streamflow percolation during wet years allows for more
groundwater outflow to the ocean.
25
224
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
26
225
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).
27
226
26-Sep-08
35,000
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.
28
227
26-Sep-08
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.
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
29
228
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
30
229
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.
extraction wells indicates that the wells are producing a mixture of seawater and onshore
groundwater.
31
230
26-Sep-08
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
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.
32
231
26-Sep-08
8.0 REFERENCES
Anderson, Mary P., and Woessner, William W., 1992.
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.
33
232
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.
Prepared in
U.S.G.S. Water-
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.
34
233
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.
35
234
FIGURES
235
Las Lomas
(
!
(
!
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
(
!
(
!
(
!
Sand City
(
!
!Seaside
(
(
!
Carmel-by-the-Sea
GEOSCIENCE Groundwater
Model Boundary
Pebble Beach
y
nt
ou
Pacific Grove
(
!
EXPLANATION
Co
un
ty
o
sn
Salinas
$
^
"
!
ou
e
Fr
Marina
(
!
dC
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
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
!
!
!
Monterey
Regional Water
Supply Project
Scenario 4b
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
!
(
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
(
!
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
239
Date: 26-SEP-08
Checked:
Figure
Drawn:
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
(
!
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
an
FLOW MODEL
CALIBRATION
HYDROGRAPHS
180-FOOT AQUIFER
Oce
Elkhorn
I
Prunedale
Pac
10
Ground Water Elevation, ft amsl
(
!
ifi c
20
(
!
-10
EXPLANATION
-20
-30
-40
-50
(
!
-60
Castroville
GEOSCIENCE Groundwater
Model Boundary
8
!
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
Highway
9
!
1994
Water Years
Major Roads
Rivers and Creeks
10
0
-10
-20
-30
Marina
(
!
-40
z
A
-50
-70
(
!
a
lin
Salinas
Sa
-60
sR
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1980
ive
-80
Water Years
(
!
Pacific Grove
Sand City
(
!
(
!
(
!
Seaside
Monterey
(
!
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
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
20
-50
10
-60
Measured Water Level
-20
-70
-30
-80
1980
-40
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
Water Years
-50
-60
Measured Water Level
-70
-80
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
FLOW MODEL
CALIBRATION
HYDROGRAPHS
400-FOOT AQUIFER
0
-10
10
1994
Water Years
-20
-30
(
!
Elkhorn
-40
-50
Prunedale
(
!
-60
Measured Water Level
-70
2
!
3
!
0
-10
EXPLANATION
-80
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
Water Years
6
! Castroville
(
!
GEOSCIENCE Groundwater
Model Boundary
20
!5
Highway
-10
-20
-30
-50
20
-60
10
-70
-80
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
Water Years
Major Roads
11
!
-40
10
12
!
13
!
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
Marina
-60
(
!
14
!
-80
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
z
A
Salinas
(
!
a
lin
Sa
1980
Water Years
i ve
sR
r
10
10
0
-10
(
!
-20
Pacific Grove
-30
-40
-50
(
!
-60
-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
20
Pac
ific
Oce
an
Oaks
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
Measured Water Level
-70
-80
-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
FLOW MODEL
CALIBRATION
HYDROGRAPHS
DEEP AQUIFER
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
(
!
Elkhorn
-70
-80
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
Prunedale
(
!
1994
Water Years
20
1
!
10
EXPLANATION
-10
4!
!7
-20
(
!
GEOSCIENCE Groundwater
Model Boundary
-30
-40
10
!
-50
Castroville
Highway
-60
Measured Water Level
-70
Major Roads
-80
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
Water Years
10
(
!
z
A
-10
Salinas
(
!
-20
-30
Sa
a
lin
-40
-80
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
Oce
an
Water Years
1994
10
-70
20
-60
-10
-20
-30
(
!
if ic
Pacific Grove
Sand City
(
!
-40
-50
(
!
-60
Measured Water Level
-70
(
!
Seaside
Monterey
-80
(
!
1980
(
!
Pac
ive
-50
sR
Marina
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_8_Hydrographs_deep_aquifer_9-08.mxd
Figure 8
Miles
243
40%
40%
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
26-Sep-08
20 to 30
30 to 40
0%
0%
40 to 50
50 to 60
Figure 9
0%
0%
244
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
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
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
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
Pa c
-20
-15
-20
-10
Pa c
-5
ific
ific
Oce
Oce
an
an
-5
-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
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
15
-15
-10
-1
-5
-5
-1 0
EXPLANATION
20
Model Yr = 33
May-81(Normal)
10
Model Yr = 35
Mar-83 (Wet)
10
Model Yr = 13
Jun-1961 (Dry)
-5
-1 0
-1
-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
20
10
Baseline
an
Oce
ifi c
-10
-20
Pac
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
!
44
16060
48
17520
52
18980
56
20440
30
180-FOOT AQUIFER
SLANT WELL
FEEDWATER SUPPLY
SCENARIO (22 MGD)
HYDROGRAPHS
MCWD Well
Slant Well
9
!
20
GEOSCIENCE Groundwater
Model Boundary
10
Baseline
11
!
Highway
-10
Major Roads
-20
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
Baseline
20
10
0
Slant Well Scenario
-10
-20
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
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)
A
z
?
?
Model Yr = 29
Aug-1977 (Dry)
A
b
A
b
A
b
A
b
Model Yr = 13
Jun-1961 (Dry)
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
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
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
Highway
40,000
Major Roads
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
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
ic
Oc
ean
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
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
10
15
10
z
A
5
15
20
Model Yr = 33
May-81(Normal)
25
15
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)
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
10
Baseline
0
-10
Scenario
-20
-30
20
10
30
Baseline
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
Pa c
i
O ce fic
an
30
30
Deep
Aquifer
180 ft
Aquifer
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
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
Scenario
10
0
15
GEOSCIENCE Groundwater
Model Boundary
11
-10
-20
11
Highway
Baseline
13
-30
-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
48
17520
52
18980
56
20440
180 ft
Aquifer
30
20
10
Baseline
0
-10
400 ft
Aquifer
Scenario
-20
-30
30
30
20
20
Scenario
10
0
-10
-20
-30
400 ft
Aquifer
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
1460
Slant Wells
20
00
30
400 ft
Aquifer
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
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)
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
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
(
!
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
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
Major Roads
30,000
25,000
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
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
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
40,000
35,000
40,000
Elkhorn
35,000
ific
1460
Pac
00
Oc
5,000
30,000
PREDICTED TDS
CONCENTRATIONS
FROM REGIONAL
PROJECT
EXTRACTION WELLS
ean
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
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
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
20
20
5
10
z
A
25
5
10
15
15
30
30
?
25
Highway
15
20 20
25 25
z
A
Model Yr = 33
May-81(Normal)
25
Model Yr = 35
Mar-83 (Wet)
25
20
Model Yr = 13
Jun-1961 (Dry)
-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
20
10
Baseline
0
-10
20
Scenario
Scenario
-20
-30
30
Scenario
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
Pa c
i
O ce fic
an
Deep
Aquifer
180 ft
Aquifer
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
-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
48
52
17520
18980
56
20440
180 ft
Aquifer
30
20
Baseline
10
0
GEOSCIENCE Groundwater
Model Boundary
15
Highway
11
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
52
18980
56
20440
180 ft
Aquifer
30
180 ft
Aquifer
400 ft
Aquifer
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
Baseline
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
400 ft
Aquifer
20
Scenario
Baseline
0
0
30
-20
30
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
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)
Model Yr = 13
Jun-1961 (Dry)
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
PREDICTED TDS
CONCENTRATIONS
FROM REGIONAL
PROJECT SCENARIO 4b
EXTRACTION WELLS
35,000
25,000
ean
20,000
15,000
Oc
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
(
!
ific
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
35,000
Monterey Regional
Project Well
GEOSCIENCE Groundwater
Model Boundary
Highway
Major Roads
11
30,000
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
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
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
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
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
260
LAW OFFICES OF
MICHAEL W. STAMP
Michael W. Stamp
Molly Erickson
Olga Mikheeva
Jennifer McNary
LATE COMMENT
June 10, 2013
6-10-13
Sacramento, CA 95812-0100
Subject:
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
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.
3.
262
June 10,2013
Page 3
Impacts of Brine. After the Final EIR was released, and before the
5.
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.
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
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
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:
265
Public Comment
MPWSP Draft Report
Deadline: 5/3/13 by 12 noon
LATE COMMENT
5-30-13
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
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
C1-1
ESA / 205335.01
January 2017
www.pwa-ltd.com
Suite 900
San Francisco, CA 94108
415.262.2300 phone
415.262.2303 fax
memorandum
date
April 2, 2013
to
from
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
65.5 in by 2100
Projection
36.2 in by 2100
16.7 in by 2100
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.
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
IPCC, 2007
Global
1961 - 2003
N/A
1973 - 2006
San Francisco
1930 - 1980
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.
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.
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
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
C2-1
ESA / 205335.01
January 2017
www.esassoc.com
Suite 200
Petaluma, CA 94954
707.795.0900 phone
Memorandum
date
to
from
Project Team
subject
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.
www.esassoc.com
Suite 900
San Francisco, CA 94108
415.896.5900 phone
415.896.0332 fax
memorandum
date
to
from
project
subject
Analysis of Historic and Future Coastal Erosion with Sea Level Rise
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
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
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
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
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.
1932 2010
1945 1998
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.
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.
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 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.
Primary Variables
historic erosion
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
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.
Source
Minimum of
~0 ft NAVD
Dataset
Date Collected
May/June 2010
June 2011
Maximum of
-25 to -45 ft NAVD
LiDAR topography
(3 meter resolution)
April 1998
(post El Nino
winter)
Minimum of
~0 ft NAVD
LiDAR topography
(3 meter resolution)
Fall 1997
(pre El Nino
winter)
Minimum of
~0 ft NAVD
Unknown based
on several
surveys.
N/A
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.
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
ell Cluster)
Profile
#1 - M
oss L
Pr
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)
MPWSP Desalination
Plant (Proposed)
MRWPCA
Regional Wastewater
Treatment Plant (Existing)
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)
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
Figure 1
Regional Map of Analysis Profiles
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
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
Erosion st
udy limit
it
dy lim
#5
n stu
file
dy
io
Eros
Pro
stu
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
stu
dy
lim
it
200 100
200 ft
2050
2060
2100
Data Source: ESA PWA 2013 hazard zone analysis, NAIP 2012 imagery
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
Figure 4
Representative Profiles and Envelopes by Ed Thornton, unpublished
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
APPENDIX C3
C3-1
ESA / 205335.01
January 2017
PREPARED FOR:
MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectHydrogeologicInvestigation
TechnicalMemorandum(TM1)SummaryofResultsExploratoryBoreholes8Jul14
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
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
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
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
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
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
45
46
47
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
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.
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
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.
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
The geologic and hydrogeologic data collected during this investigation was used to prepare the
interpretationsofhydrostratigraphicrelationshipsintheMossLandingandCEMEXareas.Aconceptual
modelofthehydrostratigraphicunitsfromtheMossLandingtoCEMEXareaasinterpretedfromdata
collectedfromthisinvestigationisshownbelowonFigure11
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
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
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.
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
ThecurrentdocumentisAttachment1oftheHydrogeologicInvestigationReport.
Characterizetheaquiferunits,
Characterize the water contained in the aquifer units (to determine if it is seawater,
groundwater,orseawaterintrudedgroundwater),and
DetermineiftheSalinasValleyAquitard(ablueclaylayer)existsbetweentheaquiferunitsat
thislocation.
Thistechnicalmemorandum:
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
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.
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
3.1.3
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.
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:
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
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.
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
22
CaliforniaAmericanWater&RBFConsulting
MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectHydrogeologicInvestigation
TechnicalMemorandum(TM1)SummaryofResultsExploratoryBoreholes8Jul14
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]
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
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
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
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
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.
The180/400FootAquiferSubbasinisboundedbygroundwaterdividesonthesouthbytheSeasideand
theCorraldeTierraSubbasins.
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
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
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).
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.
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.
30
CaliforniaAmericanWater&RBFConsulting
MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectHydrogeologicInvestigation
TechnicalMemorandum(TM1)SummaryofResultsExploratoryBoreholes8Jul14
brackish water estuarine environments prevailed during the deposition of the horizons, forming the
principleaquicludesandaquitardsinthe180/400FootAquiferSubbasin.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
38
CaliforniaAmericanWater&RBFConsulting
MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectHydrogeologicInvestigation
TechnicalMemorandum(TM1)SummaryofResultsExploratoryBoreholes8Jul14
4.6.5
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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 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
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).
Hydrostratigraphic
Unit
CX-B2WQ
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
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.
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
125135
190200
ML-3
TDS
(mg/L)
34,000
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
Mean
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
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
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
5.6
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
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.
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.
56
CaliforniaAmericanWater&RBFConsulting
MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectHydrogeologicInvestigation
TechnicalMemorandum(TM1)SummaryofResultsExploratoryBoreholes8Jul14
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
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).
Water Quality
Zone Zone
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
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
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.
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).
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
NORTH
4
Miles
Figure 1
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
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
El
o
Tor
e
Cre
Ha rp er
Cr eek
k
n Cree
Wat so
el
m
Riv
er
Limekiln Cree
Eastside Aquifer
Langley Area
Seaside Area
NORTH
8-Jul-14
4
Miles
Figure 5
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?
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
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
Qfc
Marina
Mmy
Qfg?
Qfc
Qfp
1'
Ppu
Mmy
Qfp
Qfc
Qae
Qms
-10
Qfp
Qfa
Ppu
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
Kgr
ific
QmsQrb
KgrPzls
Kgr
Pzls
Pzls
Pzls
Qrb
Ppu
Qms
Pzls
Qfg
Qfc
Qe?
o
cti
se
Qms
Ppu
Qms
Ppu
Qd
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
Qfg
Ppu
Qe?
Qls
Qfg
Qaf
Qe
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
Figure 6a
Qb - Basin Deposits
Qd - Dune Sand
Qo - Older Alluvium
Qt - Terrace Deposits
Q - Alluvium
Qs - Sand
Qe - Eolian Sand
Qal (*) - River Alluvium
Miocene
Oligocene
PaleoceneEocene
Cretaceous
Jurassic
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
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
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
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
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
Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Attachment 1 - Technical Memorandum (TM 1) - Summary of Results - Exploratory Boreholes
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
Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Attachment 1 - Technical Memorandum (TM 1) - Summary of Results - Exploratory Boreholes
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
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
Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Attachment 1 - Technical Memorandum (TM 1) - Summary of Results - Exploratory Boreholes
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
Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Attachment 1 - Technical Memorandum (TM 1) - Summary of Results - Exploratory Boreholes
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
Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Attachment 1 - Technical Memorandum (TM 1) - Summary of Results - Exploratory Boreholes
4.0
3.5
3.0
CX-B1WQ-4
CX-B1WQ-5
CX-B2WQ-3
2.5
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
Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Attachment 1 - Technical Memorandum (TM 1) - Summary of Results - Exploratory Boreholes
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
Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Attachment 1 - Technical Memorandum (TM 1) - Summary of Results - Exploratory Boreholes
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
Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Attachment 1 - Technical Memorandum (TM 1) - Summary of Results - Exploratory Boreholes
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
Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Attachment 1 - Technical Memorandum (TM 1) - Summary of Results - Exploratory Boreholes
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
Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Attachment 1 - Technical Memorandum (TM 1) - Summary of Results - Exploratory Boreholes
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
Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Attachment 1 - Technical Memorandum (TM 1) - Summary of Results - Exploratory Boreholes
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
Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Attachment 1 - Technical Memorandum (TM 1) - Summary of Results - Exploratory Boreholes
PR-1-2
4.0
ML-6-1
3.5
ML-6-2
3.0
MDW-1-2
MDW-1-4
2.5
ML-1-1
2.0
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
Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Attachment 1 - Technical Memorandum (TM 1) - Summary of Results - Exploratory Boreholes
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
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
Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Attachment 1 - Technical Memorandum (TM 1) - Summary of Results - Exploratory Boreholes
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
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
Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Attachment 1 - Technical Memorandum (TM 1) - Summary of Results - Exploratory Boreholes
-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
Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Attachment 1 - Technical Memorandum (TM 1) - Summary of Results - Exploratory Boreholes
-10
Vienna Standard
Mean Ocean Water
ML-2-1
-20
d2H ()
ML-4-1
-30
ML-4-2
ML-2-2
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
GROUND WATER
MODEL BOUNDARIES
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
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)
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
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
->
54 0
!
(!
(!
(
MW-1M
<- idirec
t ion
MW-1S MW-1D
MW-2M MW-2S
!
(!
(!
(MW-2D
(
!
MW-3S MW-3D
!
(!
(!
(
MW-3M
Monitoring
Well Locations
!
(!
(!
(
(
!
!
(
!
(
!
(
2 0 ft
MW-4S MW-4D
!
(
!
(
!
(
540
20 f t
MW-4M
200
400
Feet
8-Jul-14
Prepared by: DWB. Map Projection: State Plane 1983, Zone IV.
NORTH
10
20
Miles
2,000
4,000
Feet
Figure 28
WELL AND
CROSS-SECTION
LOCATIONS
3'
-300
0
-9
0
-30
-20
8
E
-150
-130
(
!
14
-100
30-36)
20
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
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
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
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
14S/2E-09D4
CEMEX
Project Area
12
-80
18
-60
4
-80
-10
0
n
Bla
0
-8
12
10
-6
0
Cross-Section Location
Castroville
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.
NORTH
4
Miles
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
6,000
12,000
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
6,000
12,000
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
6,000
12,000
Legend
South
200
200
100
100
Pacic Ocean
-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
6,000
12,000
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
200
400
6,000
12,000
North
South
Perched A
Aquifer
100
100
Pacic Ocean
Perched A Aquifer
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
-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
66,000
60,000
400
72,000
6,000
12,000
North
South
Salinas Valley
Aquitard
200
100
200
100
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
-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
400
72,000
66,000
60,000
0
6,000
12,000
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'
20
G
C'
100
80
z
A
40
20
Pac
ific
Oce
an
Pipeline Outfall
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.
NORTH
4
Miles
120
8-Jul-14
20
14
0
F'
r
ive
200
180
sR
a
lin
Sa
16 0
G'
Figure 37
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'
20
G
C'
z
A
Pipeline Outfall
40
an
60
80
Pac
80
ific
Oce
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.
NORTH
I
F'
4
Miles
G'
Figure 38
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
80
320
Castroville
120
140
z
A
32
C'
an
200
36
0
Pac
260
D'
240
24 0
CEMEX
Project Area
380
220
ific
34
0
100
Pipeline Outfall
0
30
0
40
Oce
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.
NORTH
4
Miles
G'
Figure 39
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
20
G
C'
z
A
20
40
60
ific
Oce
an
60
Pipeline Outfall
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.
NORTH
4
Miles
G'
Figure 40
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
Castroville
20
G
30
0
z
A
C'
100
Pac
350
100
ific
Oce
150
0
20
an
15 0
Pipeline Outfall
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.
NORTH
4
Miles
G'
Figure 41
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
20
C'
100
z
A
80
160
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.
NORTH
4
Miles
G'
Figure 42
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
Castroville
20
G
200
C'
500
z
A
700
600
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.
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'
Figure 43
Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Attachment 1 - Technical Memorandum (TM 1) - Summary of Results - Exploratory Boreholes
100
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%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Figure 47
0.01
Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Attachment 1 - Technical Memorandum (TM 1) - Summary of Results - Exploratory Boreholes
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
0.1
Horizontal K - High Estimate
Horizontal K - Low Estimate
Vertical K - High Estimate
0.01
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Figure 46
Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Attachment 1 - Technical Memorandum (TM 1) - Summary of Results - Exploratory Boreholes
100
10
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%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Figure 45
0.01
Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Attachment 1 - Technical Memorandum (TM 1) - Summary of Results - Exploratory Boreholes
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%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Figure 44
0.01
TABLES
Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Attachment 1 - Technical Memorandum (TM 1) - Summary of Results - Exploratory Boreholes
Table 1
Method
Sample Type
K Direction
Hydraulic
Conductivity, K
[ft/day]
Lithology
79-79.5
Hazen
MGA
Horizontal
86
79-79.5
Krumbein-Monk
MGA
Horizontal
45
79-79.5
Kozeny-Carman
MGA
Horizontal
130
Borehole
Interval
[ft bgs]
CX-B1
CX-B1
CX-B1
Average :
CX-B1
88-88.5
Hazen
MGA
Horizontal
535
CX-B1
88-88.5
Krumbein-Monk
MGA
Horizontal
491
CX-B1
88-88.5
Kozeny-Carman
MGA
Horizontal
2,115
Average :
1,047
CX-B1
104.5-105
Hazen
MGA
Horizontal
79
CX-B1
104.5-105
Krumbein-Monk
MGA
Horizontal
40
CX-B1
104.5-105
Kozeny-Carman
MGA
Horizontal
112
Average :
77
CX-B1
115-116
Hazen
MGA
Horizontal
351
CX-B1
115-116
Krumbein-Monk
MGA
Horizontal
249
CX-B1
115-116
Kozeny-Carman
MGA
Horizontal
624
CX-B1
187-188
Hazen
MGA
Horizontal
150
CX-B1
187-188
Krumbein-Monk
MGA
Horizontal
127
CX-B1
187-188
Kozeny-Carman
MGA
Horizontal
344
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
CX-B1
295-296
Krumbein-Monk
MGA
Horizontal
176
CX-B1
295-296
Kozeny-Carman
MGA
Horizontal
549
CX-B2
53
Hazen
MGA
Horizontal
371
CX-B2
53
Krumbein-Monk
MGA
Horizontal
292
CX-B2
53
Kozeny-Carman
MGA
Horizontal
770
CX-B2
116
Hazen
MGA
Horizontal
24
CX-B2
116
Krumbein-Monk
MGA
Horizontal
16
CX-B2
116
Kozeny-Carman
MGA
Horizontal
65
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
Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Attachment 1 - Technical Memorandum (TM 1) - Summary of Results - Exploratory Boreholes
Table 1
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
CX-B2
273
Krumbein-Monk
MGA
Horizontal
206
CX-B2
273
Kozeny-Carman
MGA
Horizontal
725
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
CX-B3
121
Krumbein-Monk
MGA
Horizontal
21
CX-B3
121
Kozeny-Carman
MGA
Horizontal
69
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
CX-B3
291
Krumbein-Monk
MGA
Horizontal
191
CX-B3
291
Kozeny-Carman
MGA
Horizontal
829
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
Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Attachment 1 - Technical Memorandum (TM 1) - Summary of Results - Exploratory Boreholes
Table 1
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
MDW-1
153-154
Krumbein-Monk
MGA
Horizontal
302
MDW-1
153-154
Kozeny-Carman
MGA
Horizontal
984
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
Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Attachment 1 - Technical Memorandum (TM 1) - Summary of Results - Exploratory Boreholes
Table 1
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
Horizontal
445
Horizontal
1,322
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
Horizontal
654
Horizontal
1,175
Average :
ML-2
177
445
Average :
766
MGA
Horizontal
Krumbein-Monk
MGA
Horizontal
383
Kozeny-Carman
MGA
Horizontal
1,090
50-50.5
Hazen
MGA
Horizontal
ML-2
50-50.5
Krumbein-Monk
MGA
ML-2
50-50.5
Kozeny-Carman
MGA
Average :
497
656
92
SP: Sand
Horizontal
56
SP: Sand
Horizontal
151
SP: Sand
Average :
100
ML-2
110.5-111
Hazen
MGA
Horizontal
517
ML-2
110.5-111
Krumbein-Monk
MGA
Horizontal
484
ML-2
110.5-111
Kozeny-Carman
MGA
Horizontal
949
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
ML-2
188.5-189
Krumbein-Monk
MGA
Horizontal
18
ML-2
188.5-189
Kozeny-Carman
MGA
Horizontal
93
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
Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Attachment 1 - Technical Memorandum (TM 1) - Summary of Results - Exploratory Boreholes
Table 1
Borehole
Interval
[ft bgs]
Method
Sample Type
K Direction
Hydraulic
Conductivity, K
[ft/day]
Lithology
ML-3
182.5-183
Hazen
MGA
Horizontal
446
ML-3
182.5-183
Krumbein-Monk
MGA
Horizontal
452
ML-3
182.5-183
Kozeny-Carman
MGA
Horizontal
1,511
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
ML-3
195-195.5
Krumbein-Monk
MGA
Horizontal
367
ML-3
195-195.5
Kozeny-Carman
MGA
Horizontal
480
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
ML-6
94-94.5
Krumbein-Monk
MGA
Horizontal
49
ML-6
94-94.5
Kozeny-Carman
MGA
Horizontal
178
ML-6
104-104.5
Hazen
MGA
Horizontal
306
ML-6
104-104.5
Krumbein-Monk
MGA
Horizontal
149
ML-6
104-104.5
Kozeny-Carman
MGA
Horizontal
610
ML-6
121-121.5
Hazen
MGA
Horizontal
Average :
Average :
Average :
8-Jul-14
803
5 of 6
149
91
355
37
SP: Sand
Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Attachment 1 - Technical Memorandum (TM 1) - Summary of Results - Exploratory Boreholes
Table 1
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
PR-1
66-67
Krumbein-Monk
MGA
Horizontal
302
PR-1
66-67
Kozeny-Carman
MGA
Horizontal
561
PR-1
76-77
Hazen
MGA
Horizontal
311
PR-1
76-77
Krumbein-Monk
MGA
Horizontal
836
PR-1
76-77
Kozeny-Carman
MGA
Horizontal
1,150
PR-1
110-111
Hazen
MGA
Horizontal
699
PR-1
110-111
Krumbein-Monk
MGA
Horizontal
703
PR-1
110-111
Kozeny-Carman
MGA
Horizontal
1,148
PR-1
124-125
Hazen
MGA
Horizontal
1,055
PR-1
124-125
Krumbein-Monk
MGA
Horizontal
9,561
PR-1
124-125
Kozeny-Carman
MGA
Horizontal
2,579
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
PR-1
188-189
Krumbein-Monk
MGA
Horizontal
160
PR-1
188-189
Kozeny-Carman
MGA
Horizontal
429
Average :
249
PR-1
197-198
Hazen
MGA
Horizontal
170
PR-1
197-198
Krumbein-Monk
MGA
Horizontal
132
PR-1
197-198
Kozeny-Carman
MGA
Horizontal
413
Average :
8-Jul-14
49
6 of 6
238
Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Attachment 1 - Technical Memorandum (TM 1) - Summary of Results - Exploratory Boreholes
Lithology
Core
Vertical
0.782
Core
Horizontal
4.337
Core
Vertical
1.380
Core
Horizontal
1.729
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
CX-B3
107.5-108
EPA9100
Core
Horizontal
14.512
CX-B3
129-129.5
EPA9100
Core
Vertical
0.008
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
ML-1
107.5-108
EPA9100
Core
Vertical
24.149
ML-1
107.5-108
EPA9100
Core
Horizontal
17.744
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
ML-2
117.5-118
EPA9100
Core
Horizontal
0.312
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
Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Attachment 1 - Technical Memorandum (TM 1) - Summary of Results - Exploratory Boreholes
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
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
ML-6
107.5-108
EPA9100
Core
Horizontal
11.338
ML-6
167.5-168
EPA9100
Core
Vertical
0.205
ML-6
167.5-168
EPA9100
Core
Horizontal
0.368
PR-1
67-67.5
EPA 9100
Core
Vertical
0.259
PR-1
67-67.5
EPA 9100
Core
Horizontal
0.171
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
-
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
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.
Page 6 of 6
Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Attachment 1 - Technical Memorandum (TM 1) - Summary of Results - Exploratory Boreholes
Borehole
Qod
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
0.25
0.38
0.38
Total K value
[ft/day]
GW: Gravel
SW: WellGraded
Sand
SM: Silty
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
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
Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Attachment 1 - Technical Memorandum (TM 1) - Summary of Results - Exploratory Boreholes
Dune
Sand
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
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
Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Attachment 1 - Technical Memorandum (TM 1) - Summary of Results - Exploratory Boreholes
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
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
Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Attachment 1 - Technical Memorandum (TM 1) - Summary of Results - Exploratory Boreholes
Thickness [ft]
86
91
91
90
90
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
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
Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Attachment 1 - Technical Memorandum (TM 1) - Summary of Results - Exploratory Boreholes
Thickness [ft]
86
91
91
90
90
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
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
Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Attachment 1 - Technical Memorandum (TM 1) - Summary of Results - Exploratory Boreholes
Table 8
8-Jul-14
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
Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Attachment 1 - Technical Memorandum (TM 1) - Summary of Results - Exploratory Boreholes
Table 9
8-Jul-14
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
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
A1-i
Appendix A1
GEOSCIENCE
BOREHOLE NAME
CX-B1
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
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
CX-B1
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
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
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
CX-B1
CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER
LOCATION
Marina, CA
Lithologic Log
Depth
bgs
(feet)
0
GAMMA
(GAPI)
Zone
Test
CLID
(mmho/m)
110 1500
110
Graphic
Log
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
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
CX-B1
CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER
LOCATION
Marina, CA
Lithologic Log
Depth
bgs
(feet)
0
GAMMA
(GAPI)
Zone
Test
CLID
(mmho/m)
110 1500
165
*
Graphic
Log
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
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
CX-B1
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
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
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
CX-B1
CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER
LOCATION
Marina, CA
Lithologic Log
Depth
bgs
(feet)
0
GAMMA
(GAPI)
Zone
Test
CLID
(mmho/m)
110 1500
275
285
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
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.
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
BOREHOLE NAME
CX-B2
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
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
CX-B2
CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER
LOCATION
Marina, CA
Lithologic Log
Depth
bgs
(feet)
0
GAMMA
(GAPI)
Zone
Test
CLID
(mmho/m)
110 1500
Graphic
Log
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.
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
CX-B2
CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER
LOCATION
Marina, CA
Lithologic Log
Depth
bgs
(feet)
0
GAMMA
(GAPI)
Zone
Test
CLID
(mmho/m)
110 1500
Graphic
Log
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
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
CX-B2
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
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
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.
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
CX-B2
CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER
LOCATION
Marina, CA
Lithologic Log
Depth
bgs
(feet)
0
GAMMA
(GAPI)
Zone
Test
CLID
(mmho/m)
110 1500
220
Graphic
Log
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
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
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
CX-B2
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
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.
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
BOREHOLE NAME
CX-B3
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
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
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
CX-B3
CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER
LOCATION
Marina, CA
Lithologic Log
Depth
bgs
(feet)
0
GAMMA
(GAPI)
Zone
Test
CLID
(mmho/m)
110 1500
Graphic
Log
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
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
CX-B3
CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER
LOCATION
Marina, CA
Lithologic Log
Depth
bgs
(feet)
0
GAMMA
(GAPI)
Zone
Test
CLID
(mmho/m)
110 1500
Graphic
Log
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.
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
CX-B3
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
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
CX-B3
CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER
LOCATION
Marina, CA
Lithologic Log
Depth
bgs
(feet)
0
GAMMA
(GAPI)
Zone
Test
CLID
(mmho/m)
110 1500
Graphic
Log
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
A1-17
SS: Splitspoon sample GRAB: Grab sample PTS: Splitspoon submitted for analysis SIEVE: Grab sieved by GSSI
250
Appendix A1
GEOSCIENCE
BOREHOLE NAME
CX-B3
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
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.
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
CX-B3
CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER
LOCATION
Marina, CA
Lithologic Log
Depth
bgs
(feet)
0
GAMMA
(GAPI)
Zone
Test
CLID
(mmho/m)
110 1500
Graphic
Log
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
A1-19
Appendix A1
GEOSCIENCE
BOREHOLE NAME
CX-B4
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
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
A1-20
SS: Splitspoon sample GRAB: Grab sample PTS: Splitspoon submitted for analysis SIEVE: Grab sieved by GSSI
25
Appendix A1
GEOSCIENCE
BOREHOLE NAME
CX-B4
CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER
LOCATION
Marina, CA
Lithologic Log
Depth
bgs
(feet)
0
GAMMA
(GAPI)
Zone
Test
CLID
(mmho/m)
110 1500
Graphic
Log
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
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
CX-B4
CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER
LOCATION
Marina, CA
Lithologic Log
Depth
bgs
(feet)
0
GAMMA
(GAPI)
Zone
Test
CLID
(mmho/m)
110 1500
Graphic
Log
Depth
bgs
(feet)
Sample
Type
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.
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
CX-B4
CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER
LOCATION
Marina, CA
Lithologic Log
Depth
bgs
(feet)
0
GAMMA
(GAPI)
Zone
Test
CLID
(mmho/m)
110 1500
165
Graphic
Log
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
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
CX-B4
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.
A1-24
Sample
Type
SS: Splitspoon sample GRAB: Grab sample PTS: Splitspoon submitted for analysis SIEVE: Grab sieved by GSSI
Zone
#2
250
260
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
CX-B4
CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER
LOCATION
Marina, CA
Lithologic Log
Depth
bgs
(feet)
0
GAMMA
(GAPI)
Zone
Test
CLID
(mmho/m)
110 1500
Graphic
Log
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
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
CX-B4
CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER
LOCATION
Marina, CA
Lithologic Log
Depth
bgs
(feet)
0
GAMMA
(GAPI)
Zone
Test
CLID
(mmho/m)
110 1500
Graphic
Log
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
A1-26
Appendix A1
GEOSCIENCE
BOREHOLE NAME
MDW-1
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
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
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
MDW-1
CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER
LOCATION
Castroville, CA
Lithologic Log
Depth
bgs
(feet)
0
GAMMA
(GAPI)
Zone
Test
CLID
(mmho/m)
110 1500
Graphic
Log
Depth
bgs
(feet)
Sample
Type
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
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
MDW-1
CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER
LOCATION
Castroville, CA
Lithologic Log
Depth
bgs
(feet)
0
GAMMA
(GAPI)
Zone
Test
CLID
(mmho/m)
110 1500
Graphic
Log
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
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
MDW-1
CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER
LOCATION
Castroville, CA
Lithologic Log
Depth
bgs
(feet)
0
GAMMA
(GAPI)
Zone
Test
CLID
(mmho/m)
110 1500
Graphic
Log
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.
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
MDW-1
CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER
LOCATION
Castroville, CA
Lithologic Log
Depth
bgs
(feet)
0
GAMMA
(GAPI)
Zone
Test
CLID
(mmho/m)
110 1500
Graphic
Log
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.
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
MDW-1
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
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
A1-32
Appendix A1
GEOSCIENCE
BOREHOLE NAME
ML-1
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
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
A1-33
SS: Splitspoon sample GRAB: Grab sample PTS: Splitspoon submitted for analysis SIEVE: Grab sieved by GSSI
25
Appendix A1
GEOSCIENCE
BOREHOLE NAME
ML-1
CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER
LOCATION
Moss Landing, CA
Lithologic Log
Depth
bgs
(feet)
0
GAMMA
(GAPI)
Zone
Test
CLID
(mmho/m)
110 1500
Graphic
Log
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
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
ML-1
CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER
LOCATION
Moss Landing, CA
Lithologic Log
Depth
bgs
(feet)
0
GAMMA
(GAPI)
Zone
Test
CLID
(mmho/m)
110 1500
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
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
ML-1
CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER
LOCATION
Moss Landing, CA
Lithologic Log
Depth
bgs
(feet)
0
GAMMA
(GAPI)
Zone
Test
CLID
(mmho/m)
110 1500
Graphic
Log
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
A1-36
200
SS: Splitspoon sample GRAB: Grab sample PTS: Splitspoon submitted for analysis SIEVE: Grab sieved by GSSI
195
Appendix A1
GEOSCIENCE
BOREHOLE NAME
ML-2
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
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
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
ML-2
CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER
LOCATION
Moss Landing, CA
Lithologic Log
Depth
bgs
(feet)
0
GAMMA
(GAPI)
Zone
Test
CLID
(mmho/m)
110 1500
Graphic
Log
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
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
ML-2
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
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
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
ML-2
CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER
LOCATION
Moss Landing, CA
Lithologic Log
Depth
bgs
(feet)
0
GAMMA
(GAPI)
Zone
Test
CLID
(mmho/m)
110 1500
Graphic
Log
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.
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
BOREHOLE NAME
ML-3
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
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
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
ML-3
CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER
LOCATION
Moss Landing, CA
Lithologic Log
Depth
bgs
(feet)
0
GAMMA
(GAPI)
Zone
Test
CLID
(mmho/m)
110 1500
Graphic
Log
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.
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
ML-3
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
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.
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
ML-3
CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER
LOCATION
Moss Landing, CA
Lithologic Log
Depth
bgs
(feet)
0
GAMMA
(GAPI)
Zone
Test
CLID
(mmho/m)
110 1500
Graphic
Log
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.
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
BOREHOLE NAME
ML-4
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",
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
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
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
ML-4
CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER
LOCATION
Moss Landing, CA
Lithologic Log
Depth
bgs
(feet)
0
GAMMA
(GAPI)
Zone
Test
CLID
(mmho/m)
110 1500
Graphic
Log
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.
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
ML-4
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
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
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
ML-4
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
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.
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
BOREHOLE NAME
ML-6
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
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
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
ML-6
CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER
LOCATION
Moss Landing, CA
Lithologic Log
Depth
bgs
(feet)
0
GAMMA
(GAPI)
Zone
Test
CLID
(mmho/m)
110 1500
Graphic
Log
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
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
ML-6
CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER
LOCATION
Moss Landing, CA
Lithologic Log
Depth
bgs
(feet)
0
GAMMA
(GAPI)
Zone
Test
CLID
(mmho/m)
110 1500
Graphic
Log
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.
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
ML-6
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
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.
A1-52
SS: Splitspoon sample GRAB: Grab sample PTS: Splitspoon submitted for analysis SIEVE: Grab sieved by GSSI
195
190
Appendix A1
GEOSCIENCE
BOREHOLE NAME
PR-1
LOCATION
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
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
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
A1-53
SS: Splitspoon sample GRAB: Grab sample PTS: Splitspoon submitted for analysis SIEVE: Grab sieved by GSSI
25
Appendix A1
GEOSCIENCE
BOREHOLE NAME
PR-1
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
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.
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
PR-1
CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER
LOCATION
Castroville, CA
Lithologic Log
Depth
bgs
(feet)
0
GAMMA
(GAPI)
Zone
Test
CLID
(mmho/m)
110 1500
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
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
PR-1
CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER
LOCATION
Castroville, CA
Lithologic Log
Depth
bgs
(feet)
0
GAMMA
(GAPI)
Zone
Test
CLID
(mmho/m)
110 1500
Graphic
Log
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.
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
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
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.
CX-B1 66.5-67
CX-B1 257.5-258
66.5-67
166.5167.0
257.5-258
CX-B2 207.5-208
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
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.
Core
Hydraulic
Recovery Conductivity
ft.
Pkg.
Vert. 1"
Plugs:
Hydraulic
Conductivity
API RP40/EPA 9100
Horz. 1"
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
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
C-6
API RP 40
API RP 40
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
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
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
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.
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
145.5-146
0.50
152-152.5
0.50
200.5-201
0.50
2.00
TOTALS:
4 cores
Laboratory Test Program Notes
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
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
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
91.1
2.08
2.03
5120
9.13E-05
2.08E-06
2.04E-06
5.10E-03
C-9
Page 1 of 1
Appendix C
PTS File No:
Client:
Report Date:
PTS Laboratories
43626
Geoscience Support Services
10/14/13
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
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.
CX-B1 66.5-67
CX-B1 257.5-258
66.5-67
166.5167.0
257.5-258
CX-B2 207.5-208
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
X
X
X
X
C-17
CLIENT CONFIDENTIAL
23
PTS Laboratories
Project Name:
Project Number:
CORE ID
Appendix C
MPWSP
13017-13
Depth
ft.
Core
Hydraulic
Recovery Conductivity
ft.
Pkg.
Vert. 1"
Plugs:
Hydraulic
Conductivity
API RP40/EPA 9100
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Attachment 1 - Technical Memorandum (TM 1) - Summary of Results - Exploratory Boreholes
DRAFT
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
Cal Am / RBF
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation
Attachment 1 - Technical Memorandum (TM 1) - Summary of Results - Exploratory Boreholes
DRAFT
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
G-ii
APPENDIX D1
D1-1
ESA / 205335.01
January 2017
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;
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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).
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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)
uj
g od
(2)
15
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
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
Case
No.
Background
conditions
Effluent
conditions
Cederwall formula
Port conditions
Cederwall at
BMZ
UM3
Salinity
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.
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.
20
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
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
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.
25
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
26
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)
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
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
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
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
0.140
319
1.7
59.1
0.146
354
1.9
13.6
78.3
0.153
398
2.1
140
31.9
1137.0
0.290
1136
6.1
8.7
41
10.4
31.7
0.152
205
1.1
17.4
9.8
46
11.5
43.6
0.161
243
1.3
0.91
18.5
10.9
50
12.7
58.4
0.177
285
1.5
1.88
1.18
32.5
24.0
116
26.5
644.3
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
0.160
239
1.3
10.93
1036.5
7.9
1.74
0.95
18.2
10.9
52
12.7
61.7
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
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
0.531
1181
6.4
V10
25.85
1014.7
12.6
2.16
32
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
35
36
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
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
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
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
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 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.
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
P1
P2
P3
P4
P5
P6
V1
V2
V3
V4
V5
V6
V7
V8
V9
V10
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
-
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
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
48
(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
Qj
Vj
49
(A2)
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
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
51
(A5)
(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)
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)
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Zebra mussel
Dreissena
polymorpha
veliger
Turbulence
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
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
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
Additional notes
Juhl et al.
2001
Juhl et al.
2000
Growth rate
Latz et al.
decreased in all 2009
cases; often
catastrophicall y
(near 100%)
58
Reference
Kirboe and
Saiz 1995
Saiz &
Kirboe 1995
Kirboe and
Saiz 1995
Kirboe and
Saiz 1995
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
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)
= 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
Alvarez et al.
1994
Heart rate
increased 5
27%
Heart rate
increased 93%
Alvarez et al.
1994
= 0.001 cm2/s3
(as compared to
calm)
Decreases
predator
sensing ability
Gilbert and
Buskey 2005
59
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
Bickel et al.
2011
Jessop 2007
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
62
APPENDIX D2
D2-1
ESA / 205335.01
January 2017
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
Upwelling (July),
(
Brine Only
O
13.98
13.98
*m
mgd = million gallons
g
per day
y.
M
m (TM) summ
marizes the analyses Floow Science ccompleted foor
This Technical Memorandum
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
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.
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
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
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)
F0
U0
gd 0 a / a
where
U0 = initial jet velocity
g = gravitational acceleration
0 = initial density of the jet
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)
(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)
(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
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.
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. 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
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
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.
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
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
A-1
ESA
Augu
ust 29, 2014
Chart
C
provided
d by Tideflex Technologies.
A--2
ESA
August 29, 2014
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
C-1
ESA
August 29, 2014
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
Gang Zhao, Ph.D., P.E., Aaron Mead, P.E., E. John List, Ph.D., P.E.
SUBJECT:
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
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
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
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
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)
U0
gd 0 a / a
where
U0 = initial jet velocity
g = gravitational acceleration
0 = initial density of the jet
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
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)
(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)
(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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
D3-1
ESA / 205335.01
January 2017
Technical Memorandum
July 2016
Prepared for:
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
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
3.1
3.2
3.3
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
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.
July 2016
scenarios for the MPWSP and Variant to address data gaps noted in the original analyses (2015b
and 2015c).
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
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
July 2016
GWR Concentrate
Figure 2 Schematic of existing MRWPCA RTP and proposed AWT Facility treatment
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
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.
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.
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.
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)
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
Municipal Wastewater
Desalination
Facility
Regional Treatment
Plant
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)
July 2016
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.
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.
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.
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
Variant Secondary
Effluent
Add projected
influence from new
source waters
GWR Concentrate
Calculation based
on secondary
effluent
GWR pilot testing
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.
July 2016
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).
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.
10
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.
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.
11
July 2016
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.
12
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.
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
Desal Brine
Hauled
Brine a
19.78
0.1
13.98
0.1
13.98
0.1
13.98
0.1
13.98
0.1
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.
13
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.
14
July 2016
Discharge Scenario
Desal Brine
GWR
Concentrate
Hauled
Brine a
8.99
0.1
8.99
0.1
8.99
0.1
5.8
8.99
0.1
19.78
8.99
0.1
15
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.
16
July 2016
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.
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.
17
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(<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(<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)
18
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.
19
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.
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.
20
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
Desal Brine
Hauled
brine a
13.98
0.1
Dm b
14.6
21
July 2016
Table 6 Flow scenarios and modeled Dm values used for Ocean Plan compliance analysis for Variant
No.
Discharge Scenario
Desal
Brine
GWR
Concentrate
Hauled
Brine a
Dm b
8.99
0.1
14.9
8.99
0.1
15.7
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).
22
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.
23
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
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.
24
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
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.
25
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
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.
26
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
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.
27
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.
28
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.
29
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
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
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
30
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
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
31
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
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
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
32
Constituent
Units
Ocean Plan
Objective
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.
33
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
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
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
34
Constituent
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
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
<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
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
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
36
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
<0.1% <0.1%
3
<0.1%
Variant
6
10
<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%
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%
37
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
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.
38
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.
39
Ocean&Plan&Compliance&Assessment&&
for&the&Pure&Water&Monterey&Groundwater&
Replenishment&Project!
Technical&Memorandum&
February(2015(
&
Prepared for:
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.(
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!
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.
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.
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.
&
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.
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)
February 2015
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.
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.
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.
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.
10
February 2015
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).
11
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
12
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
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)
13
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&
14
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.
15
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
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
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.
16
February 2015
Constituent
Units
Ocean
Plan
Objective
Acute Toxicitya
Chronic Toxicitya
Phenolic Compounds (non-
TUa
TUc
0.3
1
ug/L
30
chlorinated)
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
17
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
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.
&
18
February 2015
Table&4&&Predicted&concentrations&of&all&COP&constituents,&expressed&as&percent&of&Ocean&Plan&
Objective&
Constituent
Units
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
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%
19
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
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
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.
22
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.
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:
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.&
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!
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).
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).
April 2015
!
Table!1!!Updated!minimum!probable!dilution!(Dm)!values!for!select!MPWSP!discharge!scenarios!!
No.
Discharge Scenario
(Ocean Condition)
Secondary
effluent
Hauled
Waste
Desal
Brine
Previously
Reported Dm
(120 ports)a
Updated Dm
(130 ports)
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
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
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)
Hauled
Waste
GWR
Concentrate
Desal
Brine
Previously
Reported
Dm
(120 ports)a
Updated
Dm
(130 ports)
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
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
April 2015
Table!5!!Updated!minimum!probable!dilution!(Dm)!values!for!select!MPWSP!discharge!scenarios!!
No.
Discharge Scenario
(Ocean Condition)
Hauled
Waste
GWR
Concentrate
Previously
Reported Dm
(120 ports)a
Updated Dm
(130 ports)
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
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.
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).
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.
10
April 2015
Appendix!A!!Updated!Ocean!Discharge!Modeling!Results!
FlowScience, 2015. Results of dilution analysis FSI 144082. Transmittal from Gang Zhao.
April 17, 2015!
11
T r a n s m it t a l L e t t e r
To:
Subject:
From:
Date:
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.
RTP
Secondary
Effluent
Hauled
Waste
GWR
Concentrat
e
Desal
Brine
Ocean Condition
Total
Combined Combined
Discharge TDS (mg/L) Temp (C)
Flow (MGD)
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
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
X
X
X
X
X
130
130
130
130
130
Var.6
5.3
0.1
0.94
8.99
15.33
35,145
14.1
130
86
24
18
Var.7
5.6
0.1
0.94
8.99
15.63
34,491
14.2
130
99
28
20
Var.8
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
X
X
X
X
X
X
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
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%
14
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
<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.
15
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
chlorinated)
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
16
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
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.
17
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
chlorinated)
Ocean
Plan
Objective
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
18
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
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.
19
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
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%
20
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%
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.
21
APPENDIX E1
E-1
ESA / 205335.01
January 2017
LBNL-1006421
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP) April 2015 Draft EIR
*Corresponding author
cmoldenburg@lbl.gov
510-486-7419
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
iv
Rev. 2.0
Table of Contents
1.
Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1
2.
Conclusions ............................................................................................................................ 2
3.
Acknowledgments ................................................................................................................. 3
4.
References .............................................................................................................................. 3
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
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
Weeks 1-2
Weeks 2-4
Weeks 2-8
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
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
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.
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
10
Rev. 2.0
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
12
Rev. 2.0
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
12
L**3
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
4960042496.0000
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
4112643072.0000
10538483.0000
RECHARGE =
84051560.0000
RECHARGE =
240196.7969
TOTAL OUT =
27971900.0000
IN - OUT =
20218.0000
IN - OUT =
-160768.0000
12
L**3
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
4960042496.0000
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
4112643072.0000
10538483.0000
RECHARGE =
84051560.0000
RECHARGE =
240196.7969
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=
icount=
icount=
icount=
icount=
icount=
icount=
icount=
icount=
icount=
icount=
icount=
icount=
icount=
icount=
icount=
icount=
icount=
icount=
icount=
icount=
icount=
icount=
icount=
icount=
icount=
icount=
icount=
icount=
icount=
icount=
icount=
icount=
icount=
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
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
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
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.
Rev. 2.0
Rev. 2.0
22
Rev. 2.0
West
14S/
2E-18E1
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
E2-1
ESA / 205335.01
January 2017
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.
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
Tem
bla
der
o
Slo
l
Sa
ug
h
ina
s
Ri
ve
CEMEX site
Former
Fort Ord
Area
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
CEMEX
2016
NMGWM
I
na c tiv eMod elCell
Mea sured *
8.0
Notes:
*m ea sured v a lues a red etrend ed
2015
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
NMGWM Boundary
Modeled Hydraulic
Conductivity Zone
Slant Well
Wells
CEMEX Monitoring
Other
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
EXPLANATION
River Model Cell
Active Model Cell
Constant Head
Model Cell
NMGWM Boundary
Modeled Hydraulic
Conductivity Zone
Slant Well
Wells
CEMEX Monitoring
Other
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
NMGWM Boundary
Modeled Hydraulic
Conductivity Zone
Slant Well
Wells
CEMEX Monitoring
Other
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
NMGWM Boundary
Modeled Hydraulic
Conductivity Zone
Slant Well
Wells
CEMEX Monitoring
Other
PROJECT: 5073
DATE: 8/19/2016
Miles
Figure
E-6
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
Slant Well
Constant Head
Model Cell
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
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
Slant Well
Constant Head
Model Cell
NMGWM Boundary
Modeled Hydraulic
Conductivity Zone
2
Miles
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
Table 3.1
Table 5.1
Table 5.2
Table 5.3
HydroFocus, Inc.
November 23, 2016
List of Figures
Figure 1.1
Figure 1.2
Figure 2.1
Figure 2.2
Figure 2.3
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
Figure 3.2b
Figure 3.2c
Figure 3.2d
Figure 3.2e
Figure 3.2f
Figure 3.3a
Figure 3.3b
Figure 3.3c
Figure 3.3d
Figure 3.4a
Figure 3.4b
Figure 3.4c
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
Figure 4.3a
Figure 4.3b
Measured vs. NMGWM2016 calculated water levels and residuals, Model Layers 2-8.
Figure 4.3c
HydroFocus, Inc.
November 23, 2016
Figure 4.3d
Figure 4.4
Figure 4.5
Figure 4.6
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
Figure 5.3b
Figure 5.4a
Figure 5.4b
Figure 5.5
Figure 5.6
Figure 5.7
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.
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
Figure 5.12
Figure 5.13
Figure 6.1
Figure 6.2
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
HydroFocus, Inc.
November 23, 2016
Table 3.1
Modifications implemented in NMGWM2016
NMGWM2015
NMGWM2016
Objective
Layer 1 is effectively a
boundary condition, and
represents the ocean as a freesurface water body (See Figure
3.2b).
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.
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.
Objective
Represent effect of dredge
pond.
Represent ocean water column
overlying Layers 7 and 8.
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
Layer 4
NMGWM2016
Objective
Calibration data
Implemented in MODFLOW
Head Observation (HOB) file.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
76
2015
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.
HydroFocus, Inc.
November 23, 2016
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)
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
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
CEMEX Site
Drawdown Without
Return Water
Project
Site
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
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
31
HydroFocus, Inc.
November 23, 2016
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
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.
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
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]
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).
90
Ibid. [33]
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
DATE: 11/8/2016
EXPLANATION
NMGWM Boundary
I
0
Miles
Tem
bla
der
o
Slo
l
Sa
ug
h
ina
s
Ri
ve
CEMEX site
Former
Fort Ord
Area
DATE: 11/15/2016
Figure
1.2
North
South
Salinas
River
Shallow Aquifer
Shallow Aquifer
Tembladero
Slough
Layer 2
Layer 3
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
DATE: 11/18/2016
Miles
Figure
2.1
Former
Fort Ord
Area
EXPLANATION
NMGWM Boundary
SVIGSM Boundary
Miles
DATE: 11/15/2016
Figure
2.2
EXPLANATION
0.25
0.5
Miles
2
Miles
Former
Fort Ord
Area
DATE: 8/25/2016
Figure
2.3
EXPLANATION
MW-BW-31-A
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
DATE: 8/30/2016
Figure
3.1
EXPLANATION
A
Labeled with
Section ID
NMGWM Boundary
Miles
D'
E'
C
C'
A'
B'
D
E
Former
Fort Ord
Area
DATE: 8/12/2016
Figure
3.2a
A
200 ft
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
Layer 5
180/400-FT Aquitard
Layer 6
Aromas Sand
Dune Sand
Layer 7
400/900-FT Aquitard
Older Alluvim
Layer 8
Ocean
Layer 3
-1400 ft
Layer 2
Layer 4
-1600 ft
Notes:
See Figure 3.3 for map view of the conductivity zones.
Not all zones/geologic descriptions are in all cross sections.
-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
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
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
Layer 6
Aromas Sand
Dune Sand
Layer 7
400/900-FT Aquitard
Older Alluvim
Layer 8
Layer 3
-1300 ft
-1400 ft
Ocean
Layer 2
Layer 4
-1500 ft
Notes:
See Figure 3.3 for map view of the conductivity zones.
Not all zones/geologic descriptions are in all cross sections.
-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
DATE: 11/21/2016
36,000
ft
40,000
ft
44,000
ft
48,000
ft
Figure
3.2c
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
Ocean
Layer 4
Layers
1-5
Older Alluvim
Layer 5
180/400-FT Aquitard
Layer 6
Aromas Sand
Layer 7
400/900-FT Aquitard
Layer 8
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
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
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
Layer 1
Ocean
Layer 4
-1500 ft
-1600 ft
Layer 2
-1700 ft
Layer 3
Layer 5
180/400-FT Aquitard
Layer 6
Aromas Sand
Layer 7
400/900-FT Aquitard
Layer 8
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.
-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
DATE: 11/21/2016
45,000
ft
50,000
ft
55,000
ft
60,000
ft
Figure
3.2e
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
Layer 2
-1400 ft
Layer 3
Layer 5
180/400-FT Aquitard
Layer 6
Aromas Sand
Layer 7
400/900-FT Aquitard
Layer 8
Older Alluvim
Inactive cells
Layer 4
-1500 ft
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
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
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
KH9
KH8
KH16
KH13
KH6
KH8
KH1
KH3
KH8
KH8
Zone
KH1
KH2
KH3
KH4
KH5
KH6
KH7
KH8
KH9
KH13 & KH15
KH4
KH4
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
KHLAY6
DATE: 11/21/2016
2016
Figure
3.3a
Model Layer 3
Model Layer 2
NMGWM2016 Boundary
Model Layer 4
KV8
KV6
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
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
DATE: 11/21/2016
KVLAY7
KVLAY8
Figure
3.3b
Model Layer 3
Model Layer 2
NMGWM2016 Boundary
Model Layer 4
SS8
SS6
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
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
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.
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
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
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
8 Miles
0.498
0.781
0.848
0.932
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
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
Figure
3.4c
Jan-85
May-90
Sep-95
Date
Jan-01
May-06
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
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
Date
Jan-01
May-06
Sep-11
Jan-85
Simulated
Modeled Hydraulic
Conductivity Zone
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
Sep-95
May-90
Jan-85
Sep-95
10
-10
May-90
14S/2E-03R01
MW-2-15-180M
30
30
Jan-85
Jan-85
Model Layer 4
-20
13S/2E-33R01
-10
-10
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
-70
Oct-79
Model Layer 2
50
-50
-60
MW-BW-11-A
60
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
MW-BW-31-A
70
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
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
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
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
Simulated
Modeled Hydraulic
Conductivity Zone
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
Sep-95
May-90
13S/2E-19Q03
CEMEX
Site
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
Jan-85
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
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
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
13S/2E-30A01
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
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
DATE: 8/19/2016
Figure
4.2
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
Observation Well
Linear (Wells)
1 to 1
Residual
0
-25
-50
y = -0.1x + 0.5
r = 0.0
-75
-100
EXPLANATION
-125
-75
-50
-25
25
50
75
Residual
Linear (Wells)
Histograms of Residuals
1,600
1,400
Frequency
1,200
1,000
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)
DATE: 8/18/2016
Figure
4.3a
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
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
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
50
-25
50
75
100
125
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
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
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
125
75
Frequency
-75
Model Layer 4
Model-calculated water level (feet amsl)
40
-75
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
Histograms of Residuals
75
Residual
Model Layer 2
Figure
4.3b
180-FT Aquifer
50
180-FT Aquifer
80
60
25
40
0
Residual
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
EXPLANATION
Observation Well
Linear (Wells)
1 to 1
25
50
-80
-60
-40
-20
20
40
EXPLANATION
Residual
Linear (Wells)
60
80
50
Residual
-20
DATE: 8/12/2016
Figure
4.3c
35
30
30
25
25
20
20
15
15
10
10
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
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)
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
0 - 3.6
3.6 - 7.2
7.2 - 10.8
NMGWM Boundary
Modeled Hydraulic
Conductivity Zone
Miles
10.8 - 14.4
DATE: 8/18/2016
Figure
4.4
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
CSIP Area
River Model Cell
NMGWM Boundary
2
Miles
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
CEMEX
2016
NMGWM
I
na c tiv eMod elCell
Mea sured *
8.0
Notes:
*m ea sured v a lues a red etrend ed
2015
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
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
Other
10 years
5 years
20 years
63 years
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
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.
0% Return Water
NMGWM Boundary
3% Return Water
Modeled Hydraulic
Conductivity Zone
6% Return Water
12% Return Water
Wells
Slant Well
*
#
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
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
Wells
Slant Well
*
#
CEMEX Monitoring
Other
0% Return Water
3% Return Water
6% Return Water
12% Return Water
2
Miles
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
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
*
#
CEMEX Monitoring
Other
Wells
0% Return Water
3% Return Water
6% Return Water
12% Return Water
2
Miles
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
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
*
#
CEMEX Monitoring
Other
Wells
0% Return Water
3% Return Water
6% Return Water
12% Return Water
2
Miles
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
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
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
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
Slant Well
Constant Head
Model Cell
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
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
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
Wells
CEMEX Monitoring
Other
NMGWM Boundary
1 year
10 years
Modeled Hydraulic
Conductivity Zone
5 years
20 years
63 years
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
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
Wells
Slant Well
*
#
CEMEX Monitoring
Other
0% Return Water
3% Return Water
6% Return Water
12% Return Water
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
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
Wells
Slant Well
*
#
CEMEX Monitoring
Other
0% Return Water
3% Return Water
6% Return Water
12% Return Water
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
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
Wells
Slant Well
*
#
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
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.
0% Return Water
3% Return Water
6% Return Water
12% Return Water
Wells
Slant Well
*
#
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
Constant Head
Model Cell
Wells
CEMEX Monitoring
NMGWM Boundary
Other
Modeled Hydraulic
Conductivity Zone
2
Miles
DATE: 11/15/2016
Figure
5.11
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
Slant Well
Constant Head
Model Cell
NMGWM Boundary
Modeled Hydraulic
Conductivity Zone
2
Miles
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
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
porosity = 0.1
DATE: 11/23/2016
NMGWM Boundary
Miles
Figure
5.13
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
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
NMGWM Boundary
Modeled Hydraulic
Conductivity Zone
CEMEX Monitoring
Other
2
Miles
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
NMGWM Boundary
Modeled Hydraulic
Conductivity Zone
Slant Well
Wells
CEMEX Monitoring
Other
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
EXPLANATION
River Model Cell
Active Model Cell
Constant Head
Model Cell
NMGWM Boundary
Modeled Hydraulic
Conductivity Zone
Slant Well
Wells
CEMEX Monitoring
Other
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
NMGWM Boundary
Modeled Hydraulic
Conductivity Zone
Slant Well
Wells
CEMEX Monitoring
Other
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
NMGWM Boundary
Modeled Hydraulic
Conductivity Zone
Slant Well
Wells
CEMEX Monitoring
Other
PROJECT: 5073
DATE: 8/19/2016
Miles
Figure
6.4b
Attachment 1
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
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
10 miles
Wells:
Recharge:
Aquifer Properties:
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
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
EXPLANTION
Layer 3
Layer 5
Storage change: 17
Regional Pumping: 6,004
11,781
13,859
5,532
6,004
40
30
20
10
EXPLANATION
Simulated water level elevation contour (ft)
Model Layer 1
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
0
5,532
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
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
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
EXPLANTION
Layer 1 Background
Layer 3 Background
Layer 5 Background
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
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
Layer 1
EXPLANTION
Layer 3
Layer 5
DATE: 8/16/2016
Figure
A1.4
Attachment 2
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 6
Model Layer 8
EXPLANATION
NMGWM Boundary
NMGWM2016
Wells
Other
CEMEX Monitoring
Slant Well
PROJECT: 5073
DATE: 11/15/2016
Miles
Figure
A2.1
APPENDIX F
Special-status Plant and Wildlife Species
Considered
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
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
marsh sandwort
(Arenaria paludicola)
FE/SE/
CRPR 1B.1
FT/--/CRPR
1B.1
FE/SE/ CRPR
1B.1
Monterey spineflower
(Chorizanthe pungens var.
pungens)
Critical Habitat
FT/--/CRPR
1B.2
Robust spineflower
(Chorizanthe robusta var.
robusta)
FE/CRPR
1B.1
Seaside birds-beak
(Cordylanthus rigidus ssp.
littoralis)
SE/CRPR
1B.1
California jewel-flower
(Caulanthus californicus)
F-2
ESA / 205335.01
January 2017
Appendix F
Special-status Plant and Wildlife Species Considered
Name
Status*
(USFWS/
CDFW/CRPR) Habitat
Regional Occurrence
Plants (cont.)
Menzies wallflower (Erysimum
menziesii)
Includes the formerly
recognized subspecies E.
menziesii ssp. yadonii and
ssp. menziesii
FE/SE/ CRPR
1B.1
sand gilia
(Gilia tenuiflora ssp. arenaria)
FE/ST/ CRPR
1B.2
FT/SE/ CRPR
1B.1
FE/CRPR
1B.1
Gowen cypress
(Hesperocyparis goveniana)
Santa Cruz tarplant
(Holocarpha macradenia)
FT/CRPR
1B.2
beach layia
(Layia carnosa)
FE/SE/ CRPR
1B.1
Tidestroms lupine
(Lupinus tidestromii)
FE/SE/ CRPR
1B.1
FE/CRPR
1B.2
F-3
ESA / 205335.01
January 2017
Appendix F
Special-status Plant and Wildlife Species Considered
Name
Status*
(USFWS/
CDFW/CRPR) Habitat
Regional Occurrence
Plants (cont.)
Yadons rein orchid
(Piperia yadonii)
FE/CRPR
1B.1
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.
Monterey clover
(Trifolium trichocalyx)
FE/SE/ CRPR
1B.1
Invertebrates
vernal pool fairy shrimp
(Branchinecta lynchi)
FT/--
FE/--
Fish
tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius
newberryi)
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
ESA / 205335.01
January 2017
Appendix F
Special-status Plant and Wildlife Species Considered
Name
Status*
(USFWS/
CDFW/CRPR) Habitat
Regional Occurrence
Fish (cont.)
Free-flowing coastal rivers and streams.
Spawning habitat: clear, cool streams with
overhanging vegetation.
FC/ST
FT/ST
steelhead, south-central
California coast DPS
(Onchorhynchus mykiss
irideus)
FT/--
longfin smelt
(Spirinchus thaleichthys)
Amphibians
California tiger salamander
(Ambystoma californiense)
FE/SE/FP
FT/CSSC
F-5
ESA / 205335.01
January 2017
Appendix F
Special-status Plant and Wildlife Species Considered
Name
Status*
(USFWS/
CDFW/CRPR) Habitat
Regional Occurrence
Birds
FT/SE
Marbled murrelet
(Brachyramphus marmoratus)
FT/CSSC
FE/SE
California condor
(Gymnogyps californianus)
FE/SE
Bald Eagle
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
FD/SE
bank swallow
(Riparia riparia)
--/ST
F-6
ESA / 205335.01
January 2017
Appendix F
Special-status Plant and Wildlife Species Considered
Name
Status*
(USFWS/
CDFW/CRPR) Habitat
Regional Occurrence
Birds (cont.)
California least tern
(Sternula antillarum browni)
FE/SE
Mammals
Townsends big-eared bat
(Corynorhinus townsendii)
--/CT
Plants
vernal pool bent grass
(Agrostis lacuna-vernalis)
CRPR 1B.1
Hickmans onion
(Allium hickmanii)
CRPR 1B.2
Hooker's manzanita
(Arctostaphylos hookeri ssp.
hookeri)
CRPR 1B.2
F-7
ESA / 205335.01
January 2017
Appendix F
Special-status Plant and Wildlife Species Considered
Name
Status*
(USFWS/
CDFW/CRPR) Habitat
Regional Occurrence
Plants (cont.)
Toro manzanita
(Arctostaphylos
montereyensis)
CRPR 1B.2
Pajaro manzanita
(Arctostaphylos pajaroensis)
CRPR 1B.1
sandmat manzanita
(Arctostaphylos pumila)
CRPR 1B.2
CRPR 4.2
alkali milk-vetch
(Astragalus tener var. tener)
CRPR 1B.2
pink Johnny-nip
(Castilleja ambigua var.
insalutata)
CRPR 1B.1
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.
CRPR 4.3
F-8
ESA / 205335.01
January 2017
Appendix F
Special-status Plant and Wildlife Species Considered
Name
Status*
(USFWS/
CDFW/CRPR) Habitat
Regional Occurrence
Plants (cont.)
Monterey ceanothus
(Ceanothus rigidus)
CRPR
1B.2
CRPR 1B.2
CRPR 3.2
CRPR 1B.2
Hutchinsons larkspur
(Delphinium hutchinsoniae)
CRPR 1B.2
Congdons tarplant
(Centromadia parryi ssp.
congdonii)
Jolon clarkia
(Clarkia jolonensis)
CRPR 4.2
CRPR 1B.1
F-9
ESA / 205335.01
January 2017
Appendix F
Special-status Plant and Wildlife Species Considered
Name
Status*
(USFWS/
CDFW/CRPR) Habitat
Regional Occurrence
Plants (cont.)
umbrella larkspur
(Delphinium umbraculorum)
CRPR 1B.3
Woodland
Eastwoods goldenbush
(Ericameria fasciculata)
CRPR 1B.1
Pinnacles buckwheat
(Eriogonum nortonii)
CRPR 1B.3
sand-loving wallflower
(Erysimum ammophilum)
CRPR 1B.2
fragrant fritillary
(Fritillaria liliacea)
CRPR 1B.2
CRPR 1B.3
CRPR 3.2
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
Name
Status*
(USFWS/
CDFW/CRPR) Habitat
Regional Occurrence
Plants (cont.)
Monterey cypress
(Hesperocyparis macrocarpa)
CRPR 1B.2
Kelloggs horkelia
(Horkelia cuneata ssp.
sericea)
CRPR 1B.1
CRPR 1B.2
Legenere
(Legenere limosa)
CRPR 1B.1
CRPR 1B.1
CRPR 1B.2
CRPR 1B.2
Rocky chaparral.
CRPR 1B.2
F-11
ESA / 205335.01
January 2017
Appendix F
Special-status Plant and Wildlife Species Considered
Name
Status*
(USFWS/
CDFW/CRPR) Habitat
Regional Occurrence
Plants (cont.)
Oregon meconella
(Meconella oregana)
CRPR 1B.1
marsh microseris
(Microseris paludosa)
CRPR 1B.2
CRPR 3.2
Northern curly-leaved
monardella
(Monardella sinuata ssp.
nigrescens)
CRPR 1B.2
woodland woollythreads
(Monolopia gracilens)
CRPR 1B.2
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
ESA / 205335.01
January 2017
Appendix F
Special-status Plant and Wildlife Species Considered
Name
Status*
(USFWS/
CDFW/CRPR) Habitat
Regional Occurrence
Plants (cont.)
Choriss popcorn flower
(Plagiobothrys chorisianus
var. chorisianus)
CRPR 1B.2
hooked popcornflower
(Plagiobothrys uncinatus)
CRPR 1B.2
Pine rose
(Rosa pinetorum)
CRPR 1B.2
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
CRPR 1B.2
CRPR 1B.1
saline clover
(Trifolium hydrophilum =
depauperatum var.
hydrophilum)
CRPR 1B.2
--/SR/CRPR
1B.1
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.
F-13
ESA / 205335.01
January 2017
Appendix F
Special-status Plant and Wildlife Species Considered
Name
Status*
(USFWS/
CDFW/CRPR) Habitat
Regional Occurrence
Invertebrates
--/*
CSSC
CSSC
CSSC
CSSC
CSSC
CSSC
Monarch butterfly
(Danaus plexippus)
F-14
ESA / 205335.01
January 2017
Appendix F
Special-status Plant and Wildlife Species Considered
Name
Status*
(USFWS/
CDFW/CRPR) Habitat
Regional Occurrence
Birds
Coopers hawk
(Accipiter cooperii)
3503.5
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.
3503.5
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)
Red-tailed hawk
(Buteo jamaicensis)
3503.5
(nesting)
F-15
ESA / 205335.01
January 2017
Appendix F
Special-status Plant and Wildlife Species Considered
Name
Status*
(USFWS/
CDFW/CRPR) Habitat
Regional Occurrence
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)
FP
(nesting)
F-16
ESA / 205335.01
January 2017
Appendix F
Special-status Plant and Wildlife Species Considered
Name
Status*
(USFWS/
CDFW/CRPR) Habitat
Regional Occurrence
Birds (cont.)
California horned lark
(Eremophila alpestris actia)
Prairie falcon
(Falco mexicanus)
WL
WL/3503.5
(nesting)
FD/SD/FP
American kestrel
(Falco sparverius)
loggerhead shrike
(Lanius ludovicianus)
3503.5
(nesting)
CSSC
(nesting)
Osprey
(Pandion haliaetus)
Brown pelican
(Pelecanus occidentalis)
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.
F-17
ESA / 205335.01
January 2017
Appendix F
Special-status Plant and Wildlife Species Considered
Name
Status*
(USFWS/
CDFW/CRPR) Habitat
Regional Occurrence
Mammals
pallid bat
(Antrozous pallidus)
CSSC/
WBWG-H
CSSC/
WBWG-H
CSSC/
WBWG-H
Hoary bat
(Lasiurus cinereus)
WBWG-M
CSSC
Monterey shrew
(Sorex ornatus salarius)
CSSC
F-18
ESA / 205335.01
January 2017
Appendix F
Special-status Plant and Wildlife Species Considered
Name
Status*
(USFWS/
CDFW/CRPR) Habitat
Regional Occurrence
Mammals (cont.)
American badger
(Taxidea taxus)
CSSC
SOURCES: CalFlora, 2016; CDFW, 2016; CNPS, 2016; eBird, 2016; USFWS, 2016.
F-19
ESA / 205335.01
January 2017
APPENDIX G1
G1-1
ESA / 205335.01
January 2017
ROG
NOx
CO
29.48
383.59
--
--
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
ROG
NOx
CO
PM10
PM2.5
15.42
324.38
311.73
12.75
11.08
--
--
--
59.21
9.30
4.53
--
--
--
--
Total
19.95
324.38
311.73
71.96
20.38
Fugitive Dust
ROG
NOx
CO
PM10
PM2.5
On-road Exhaust
0.09
1.46
2.36
0.10
0.04
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?
ROG
NOx
CO
PM10
PM2.5
On-road Exhaust
0.09
1.46
2.36
0.10
0.04
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?
Feb
Mar Apr
May
Jun
Jul
2019
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
2020
Aug Sept Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sept Oct
Nov
Dec
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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%
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
5.7
400
2,285
1,143
139,932
398,041
199,021
Off Road
Equipment
Paver
Total
Average gallons/hour
2.8
See Appendix Section G.1.4 for detail regarding the equipment total hours estimates.
(av. gal/yr)
Total Gallons
Vehicle Type
Fuel Type
Total Trips
Miles/trip
Total Miles
Travelled
gasoline
171,125
10
1,711,248
20.7
82,669
41,334
diesel
90,216
63
5,683,608
7.0
811,944
405,972
(miles/gallon)
gal/proj
Fuel Type
(ave. gal/yr)
Gasoline
10,580
147,000,000
0.01%
Diesel
15,509
68,000,000
0.02%
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
3.3
See Appendix Section G.1.4 for detail regarding the equipment total hours estimates.
Total
Gallons
Vehicle Type
Fuel Type
Total Trips/year
Miles/trip
Total Miles
Travelled
(miles/gallon)
gal/yr
gasoline
21,900
10
219,000
20.7
10,580
diesel
1,560
63
98,280
7.0
14,040
gal/year
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
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
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
Trips/day
CO
PM10
Emissions (pounds/day)
PM2.5
ROG
NOx
CO
PM10
PM2.5
194
10
0.0823
0.2714
2.4773
4.8E-02
2.1E-02
0.35
1.16
10.60
0.21
0.09
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
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
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
Emissions (pounds/day)
Vehicle Type
Trips/day
miles/trip
ROG
NOx
CO
PM10
PM2.5
ROG
NOx
CO
PM10
PM2.5
66
10
0.0823
0.2714
2.4773
4.8E-02
2.1E-02
0.12
0.39
3.60
0.07
0.03
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
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
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
Emissions (pounds/day)
Vehicle Type
Trips/day
miles/trip
ROG
NOx
CO
PM10
PM2.5
ROG
NOx
CO
PM10
PM2.5
56
10
0.0823
0.2714
2.4773
4.8E-02
2.1E-02
0.10
0.34
3.06
0.06
0.03
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
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
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
Emissions (pounds/day)
Vehicle Type
Trips/day
miles/trip
ROG
NOx
CO
PM10
PM2.5
ROG
NOx
CO
PM10
PM2.5
28
10
0.0823
0.2714
2.4773
4.8E-02
2.1E-02
0.05
0.17
1.53
0.03
0.01
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
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
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
Emissions (pounds/day)
Vehicle Type
Trips/day
miles/trip
ROG
NOx
CO
PM10
PM2.5
ROG
NOx
CO
PM10
PM2.5
28
10
0.0823
0.2714
2.4773
4.8E-02
2.1E-02
0.05
0.17
1.53
0.03
0.01
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
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
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
Emissions (pounds/day)
Vehicle Type
Trips/day
miles/trip
ROG
NOx
CO
PM10
PM2.5
ROG
NOx
CO
PM10
PM2.5
28
10
0.0823
0.2714
2.4773
4.8E-02
2.1E-02
0.05
0.17
1.53
0.03
0.01
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
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
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
Emissions (pounds/day)
Vehicle Type
Trips/day
miles/trip
ROG
NOx
CO
PM10
PM2.5
ROG
NOx
CO
PM10
PM2.5
56
10
0.0823
0.2714
2.4773
4.8E-02
2.1E-02
0.10
0.34
3.06
0.06
0.03
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
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
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
Emissions (pounds/day)
Vehicle Type
Trips/day
miles/trip
ROG
NOx
CO
PM10
PM2.5
ROG
NOx
CO
PM10
PM2.5
56
10
0.0823
0.2714
2.4773
4.8E-02
2.1E-02
0.10
0.34
3.06
0.06
0.03
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
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
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
Emissions (pounds/day)
Vehicle Type
Trips/day
miles/trip
ROG
NOx
CO
PM10
PM2.5
ROG
NOx
CO
PM10
PM2.5
88
10
0.0823
0.2714
2.4773
4.8E-02
2.1E-02
0.16
0.53
4.81
0.09
0.04
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
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
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
Emissions (pounds/day)
Vehicle Type
Trips/day
miles/trip
ROG
NOx
CO
PM10
PM2.5
ROG
NOx
CO
PM10
PM2.5
56
10
0.0823
0.2714
2.4773
4.8E-02
2.1E-02
0.10
0.34
3.06
0.06
0.03
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
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
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
Emissions (pounds/day)
Vehicle Type
Trips/day
miles/trip
ROG
NOx
CO
PM10
PM2.5
ROG
NOx
CO
PM10
PM2.5
56
10
0.0823
0.2714
2.4773
4.8E-02
2.1E-02
0.10
0.34
3.06
0.06
0.03
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
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
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
Emissions (pounds/day)
Vehicle Type
Trips/day
miles/trip
ROG
NOx
CO
PM10
PM2.5
ROG
NOx
CO
PM10
PM2.5
28
10
0.0823
0.2714
2.4773
4.8E-02
2.1E-02
0.05
0.17
1.53
0.03
0.01
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
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
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
Emissions (pounds/day)
Vehicle Type
Trips/day
miles/trip
ROG
NOx
CO
PM10
PM2.5
ROG
NOx
CO
PM10
PM2.5
28
10
0.0823
0.2714
2.4773
4.8E-02
2.1E-02
0.05
0.17
1.53
0.03
0.01
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
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
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
Emissions (pounds/day)
Vehicle Type
Trips/day
miles/trip
ROG
NOx
CO
PM10
PM2.5
ROG
NOx
CO
PM10
PM2.5
28
10
0.0823
0.2714
2.4773
4.8E-02
2.1E-02
0.05
0.17
1.53
0.03
0.01
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
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
PM2.5
0.03
0.02
0.04
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
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.
HPa
Load
Factorb
HCc
1,000
0.74
0.030
2.000
0.150
804
0.74
0.030
2.000
68
0.74
0.100
6.900
Equipment
Emergency Generator - at Desal Plant
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
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
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
4.2
12
0.21
11.02
0.83
0.76
1.27
0.01
0.36
0.03
0.03
0.04
4.2
12
0.06
3.21
0.07
0.06
0.35
0.00
0.11
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.32
16.92
1.10
1.02
1.93
0.01
0.56
0.04
0.03
0.06
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.
Equipment
HP
Load
Factora
13,405
0.74
MW
10
2.000
2.000
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
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
It is assumed that each generator would be tested approximately 60 hours per year (5.0 hours per test, 12 tests per year).
CO2e Emissions
(metric tons)
7,087.22
1,880.56
575.17
198.02
Castroville Pipeline
271.09
Pipeline to CSIP
189.61
571.10
873.98
Terminal Reservoir
1,876.08
ASR Pipelines
472.24
866.65
249.65
264.03
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
Total
2,120.29
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.
Total
756.31
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.
Total
229.61
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.
Total
111.63
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.
Total
155.90
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.
Total
74.42
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.
Total
225.54
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.
Total
355.64
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.
Total
465.20
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.
Total
184.27
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.
Total
313.75
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.
Total
111.43
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.
Total
148.84
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.
Total
111.63
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.
575.17
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.
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
59.17
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
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
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
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
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.
On-road Sources
Miles/trip
CO2
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.
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.
Off-Road Equipment
MW
Hrs/yr
CO2
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
0.00
CO2e
74.28
14.86
Alternative 5
Source
Off-road Equipment
Amortized over 5
years
CO2
51.84
10.37
0.00
CO2e
52.00
10.40
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.
(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
Total
15.1
3
Total
CO2
(MT/yr)
65.081
42.9
107.981
(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
(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.
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
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
0 0.1428 0.5447
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
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
Page 1 of 1
Size
Metric
Lot Acreage
Population
0.00
1000sqft
15.00
0.00
Urban
Climate Zone
Utility Company
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
641.35
CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
2.8
0.029
55
Operational Year
2020
N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0.006
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
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
tblOffRoadEquipment
PhaseName
tblOffRoadEquipment
PhaseName
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
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Year
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
tons/yr
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
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
0.00
0.00
0.00
Phase Name
Phase Type
Start Date
End Date
7/2/2018
9/13/2019
315
Desalination Plant
Site Preparation
7/2/2018
6/4/2020
504
7/2/2018
12/24/2018
126
Terminal Reservoir
Site Preparation
7/2/2018
9/13/2019
315
Site Preparation
7/2/2018
6/18/2019
252
Site Preparation
7/2/2018
9/13/2019
315
12/25/2018
9/13/2019
189
Site Preparation
1/2/2019
6/26/2019
126
Site Preparation
1/2/2019
6/26/2019
126
10
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
4/2/2019
6/27/2019
63
13
Phase Description
14
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
Site Preparation
10/1/2025
2/4/2026
91
Amount
Usage Hours
Horse Power
Load Factor
6.00
200
0.29
8.00
200
0.38
8.00
200
0.74
6.00
160
0.42
6.00
90
0.38
8.00
90
0.36
8.00
150
0.37
Bore/Drill Rigs
6.90
350
0.50
Cranes
12.00
200
0.29
Excavators
3.40
200
0.38
Generator Sets
3.40
200
0.74
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
1.00
90
0.36
Desalination Plant
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
11.00
150
0.37
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
8.00
90
0.36
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
1.10
90
0.36
Terminal Reservoir
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
6.90
150
0.37
Bore/Drill Rigs
3.80
350
0.50
Cranes
1.30
200
0.29
Excavators
1.30
200
0.38
Generator Sets
6.70
200
0.74
Graders
0.20
200
0.41
Off-Highway Tractors
1.30
200
0.44
Off-Highway Trucks
1.30
350
0.38
Pavers
0.20
160
0.42
Rollers
1.50
90
0.38
1.30
90
0.36
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
1.30
150
0.37
Bore/Drill Rigs
0.80
350
0.50
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
8.00
90
0.36
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
8.00
150
0.37
Bore/Drill Rigs
1.30
350
0.50
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
8.00
90
0.36
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
8.00
150
0.37
Bore/Drill Rigs
0.60
350
0.50
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
8.00
90
0.36
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
8.00
150
0.37
Cranes
1.30
200
0.29
Generator Sets
8.00
200
0.74
Graders
0.30
200
0.41
Pavers
0.10
160
0.42
Rollers
2.70
90
0.38
2.70
90
0.36
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
2.70
150
0.37
Cranes
1.30
200
0.29
Generator Sets
8.00
200
0.74
Graders
0.30
200
0.41
Pavers
0.10
160
0.42
Rollers
2.70
90
0.38
2.70
90
0.36
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
8.00
90
0.36
Castroville Pipeline
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
8.00
150
0.37
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
8.00
90
0.36
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
8.00
150
0.37
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
8.00
90
0.36
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
8.00
150
0.37
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
8.00
90
0.36
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
8.00
150
0.37
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
8.00
90
0.36
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
8.00
150
0.37
Graders
5.30
200
0.41
Cranes
6.00
200
0.29
5.30
90
0.36
Generator Sets
8.00
200
0.74
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Category
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
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
CH4
N2O
CO2e
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
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Category
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
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
CH4
N2O
CO2e
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
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Category
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
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
CH4
N2O
CO2e
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
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
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
CH4
N2O
CO2e
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
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Category
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
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
CH4
N2O
CO2e
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
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Category
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
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
CH4
N2O
CO2e
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
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Category
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
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
CH4
N2O
CO2e
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
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Category
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
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
CH4
N2O
CO2e
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
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Category
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
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
CH4
N2O
CO2e
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
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Category
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
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
CH4
N2O
CO2e
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
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Category
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
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
CH4
N2O
CO2e
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
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Category
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
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
CH4
N2O
CO2e
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
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Category
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
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
ROG
NOx
CO
Category
SO2
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
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Category
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
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
CH4
N2O
CO2e
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
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Category
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
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
CH4
N2O
CO2e
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
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Category
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
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
CH4
N2O
CO2e
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
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Category
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
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
CH4
N2O
CO2e
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
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Category
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
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
CH4
N2O
CO2e
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
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Category
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
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
CH4
N2O
CO2e
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
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Category
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
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
CH4
N2O
CO2e
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
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Category
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
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
ROG
NOx
CO
Category
SO2
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
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Category
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
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
CH4
N2O
CO2e
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
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Category
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
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
CH4
N2O
CO2e
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
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Category
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
tons/yr
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
ROG
NOx
CO
Category
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Fugitive
PM2.5
tons/yr
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
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Category
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
tons/yr
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
ROG
NOx
CO
Category
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Fugitive
PM2.5
tons/yr
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
Page 1 of 1
Size
Metric
Lot Acreage
Population
0.00
1000sqft
15.00
0.00
Urban
Climate Zone
Utility Company
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
641.35
CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
2.8
0.029
55
Operational Year
2020
N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0.006
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
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
tblOffRoadEquipment
PhaseName
tblOffRoadEquipment
PhaseName
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
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Year
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
lb/day
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
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
0.00
0.00
0.00
CH4
N20
CO2e
0.00
0.00
0.00
Phase Name
Phase Type
Start Date
End Date
7/2/2018
9/13/2019
315
Desalination Plant
Site Preparation
7/2/2018
6/4/2020
504
7/2/2018
12/24/2018
126
Terminal Reservoir
Site Preparation
7/2/2018
9/13/2019
315
Site Preparation
7/2/2018
6/18/2019
252
Site Preparation
7/2/2018
9/13/2019
315
12/25/2018
9/13/2019
189
Site Preparation
1/2/2019
6/26/2019
126
Site Preparation
1/2/2019
6/26/2019
126
10
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
4/2/2019
6/27/2019
63
14
Site Preparation
5/2/2019
6/28/2019
42
15
Ryan Ranch-Bishop
Interconnection
Site Preparation
7/1/2019
10/24/2019
84
16
Site Preparation
7/1/2019
9/25/2019
63
17
Site Preparation
10/1/2025
2/4/2026
91
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
Amount
Usage Hours
Horse Power
Load Factor
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
8.00
90
0.36
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
8.00
150
0.37
Bore/Drill Rigs
6.90
350
0.50
Cranes
12.00
200
0.29
Excavators
3.40
200
0.38
Generator Sets
3.40
200
0.74
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
1.00
90
0.36
Desalination Plant
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
11.00
150
0.37
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
8.00
90
0.36
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
1.10
90
0.36
Terminal Reservoir
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
6.90
150
0.37
Bore/Drill Rigs
3.80
350
0.50
Cranes
1.30
200
0.29
Excavators
1.30
200
0.38
Generator Sets
6.70
200
0.74
Graders
0.20
200
0.41
Off-Highway Tractors
1.30
200
0.44
Off-Highway Trucks
1.30
350
0.38
Pavers
0.20
160
0.42
Rollers
1.50
90
0.38
1.30
90
0.36
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
1.30
150
0.37
Bore/Drill Rigs
0.80
350
0.50
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
8.00
90
0.36
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
8.00
150
0.37
Bore/Drill Rigs
1.30
350
0.50
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
8.00
90
0.36
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
8.00
150
0.37
Bore/Drill Rigs
0.60
350
0.50
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
8.00
90
0.36
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
8.00
150
0.37
Cranes
1.30
200
0.29
Generator Sets
8.00
200
0.74
Graders
0.30
200
0.41
Pavers
0.10
160
0.42
Rollers
2.70
90
0.38
2.70
90
0.36
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
2.70
150
0.37
Cranes
1.30
200
0.29
Generator Sets
8.00
200
0.74
Graders
0.30
200
0.41
Pavers
0.10
160
0.42
Rollers
2.70
90
0.38
2.70
90
0.36
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
8.00
90
0.36
Castroville Pipeline
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
8.00
150
0.37
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
8.00
90
0.36
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
8.00
150
0.37
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
8.00
90
0.36
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
8.00
150
0.37
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
8.00
90
0.36
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
8.00
150
0.37
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
8.00
90
0.36
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
8.00
150
0.37
Graders
5.30
200
0.41
Cranes
6.00
200
0.29
5.30
90
0.36
Generator Sets
8.00
200
0.74
Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
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
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
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
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
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
1.3035
5,332.7081
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Category
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
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
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
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
Pollutant
DPM
DPM
DPM
DPM
DPM
DPM
TOTALS
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
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
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
Pollutant
DPM
DPM
DPM
DPM
DPM
DPM
TOTALS
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
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
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
Carmel Valley Pump Station Modeling Results - Without Contours but showing concentrations at receptors
ASR Injection Modeling Results - Without Contours but showing concentrations at receptors
APPENDIX G2
G2-1
ESA / 205335.01
January 2017
Technical Memorandum
Response to Comment on CalAm MPWSP DEIR
Date:
To:
CC:
Prepared by:
Reviewed by:
Subject:
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
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.
%&'(
)*+ ,-
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.
November 2016
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.
November 2016
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.
November 2016
Figure 3 Time for Slant Well to Pull 96% Seawater (GeoScience 2014b).
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.
November 2016
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
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.
November 2016
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
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.
November 2016
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
November 2016
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.
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+:
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)
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.
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+:
10
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:
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
11
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)
12
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)
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
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
13
November 2016
ln !j = ln 10 log !j
ln !j = ln !j + 0.37201 V 0.0162 V
6.3
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
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
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
14
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)
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
15
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.
16
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/.
17
November 2016
Weiss, R. F. (1974). "Carbon dioxide in water and seawater: the solubility of non-ideal gas."
Marine Chemistry 2: 203-215.
18
November 2016
APPENDIX A
RO Modeling Results Using August 2016 Slant Well Data
19
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
Stagewise Pressure
Perm.
psi
Boost
psi
Conc
psi
0
0
0
0
0
0
652.3
145.5
127.3
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Stream No.
SlantWellWQ_Sep2016
16.2 C
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
H-1
ESA / 205335.01
January 2017
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
)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.
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.
2-2
October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
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.
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.
2-3
October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
This amount represents the five-year average actual production of tertiary-treated water by the
Salinas Valley Reclamation Plant (2009 2013).
2-4
October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
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;
2-5
October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
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.
2-6
October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
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.
2-7
October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
2-8
October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
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
$)<
3,504
3,191
3,087
2,669
CalAms application to the CPUC for the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project presumes a
1,300 AFY average yield for Aquifer Storage and Recovery. This was based on the start-up period for
Aquifer Storage and Recovery and the possibility that an amount less than the long-term yield would
be available for extraction starting in 2017.
2-9
October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
7DEOH
&DO$PV$GMXGLFDWHG$OORFDWLRQRI1DWLYH6HDVLGH
*URXQGZDWHU%DVLQ:DWHU<HDUV
<HDU
2015-2017
2018-2020
2021-2023
2024-2026
$)<
2,251
1,820
1,494
1,494
2-10
October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
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.
2-11
October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
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.
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.
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.
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
2-13
October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
1957
335,000 AF
344 square miles
1967
23,843 AF
112 square miles
1941
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.
2-14
October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
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.
2-15
October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
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).
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-
2-16
October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
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.
2-17
October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
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.
Monthly data from Monterey County Water Resources Agency, presented as calendar year totals.
2-18
October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
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.
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.
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.
2-19
October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
Existing infrastructure systems that are relevant to these sources of water include the
following:
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:
In addition, recycled water produced for crop irrigation would be conveyed to growers
through the existing CSIP distribution system.
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.
2-20
October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
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
2-21
October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
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.
2-22
October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
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.
2-23
October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
2-24
October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
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
).
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.
2-25
October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
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
2-26
October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
'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
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).
2-27
October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
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
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/phase_ii_municipal.shtml
2-28
October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
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.
2-29
October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
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
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:
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)
2-30
October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
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.
$65
3URMHFWV
5HFRYHU\
:DWHU<HDU
2006
--
2007
2008
3URGXFWLRQE\&DO$P
6\VWHP
6HDVLGH
%DVLQ
/DJXQD
6HFD
6XEDUHD
446
&DUPHO
9DOOH\
$OOXYLDO
$TXLIHU
&DUPHO
5LYHU
0DLQ
6\VWHPDOO
VRXUFHV
H[FHSW/66
$OO6RXUFHV
7RWDO0DLQ
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
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.
2-31
October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
(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.
2-32
October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
2-33
October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
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
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
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
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
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.
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\ 'HPDQGDOO LQPHJDZDWWKRXUV
SHU\HDU summarizes the power demands of the Proposed Project.
2-35
October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
Table 2-10
Overview of Typical Facility Operations Proposed Project
7UXFNV
SHUGD\
(PSOR\HHV
(PSOR\HH
7ULSVSHU
GD\
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
3URGXFW:DWHU&RQYH\DQFH
Pipelines, appurtenant facilities, and Booster
Pump Station
,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
7RWDOZLWKWKH&DO$PFRPSRQHQWV
2-36
24 hours per day, 365 days per year
October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
Table 2-11
Overview of Proposed Project Electricity Demand (all in megawatt-hours per year)
6RXUFH:DWHU'LYHUVLRQDQG6WRUDJH6LWHV6RXUFH9LQRG%DGDQL(&RQVXOWLQJ2FWREHUH[FHSWDVQRWHG
Existing MRWPCA Wastewater Collection System Pump Stations
(increased pumping for source water collection) (Source: Bob Holden, MRWPCA, October 2014)
1,100
10
Proposed Salinas Industrial Wastewater Treatment Plant Storage and Recovery Component
(pumping, lighting, SCADA, misc. electricity)
224
(1,875)
250
461
731
10
7UHDWPHQW)DFLOLWLHVDW5HJLRQDO7UHDWPHQW3ODQW6RXUFH%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
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&$2FWREHU
(1,900)
3URGXFW:DWHU&RQYH\DQFH6RXUFH7*&ROH2FWREHU
Pumping of product water to Injection Well Facilities under either option (RUWAP or Coastal)
,QMHFWLRQ:HOO)DFLOLWLHV6RXUFH9LQRG%DGDQL(&RQVXOWLQJ(QJLQHHUV2FWREHU
Back-flush of four (4) deep injection wells, lighting, HVAC, meters, instruments, SCADA
&DO$P'LVWULEXWLRQ6\VWHP&KDQJHV6RXUFH&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\
10,952
2-37
October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
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
2-38
October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
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.
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).
2-39
October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
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).
2-40
October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
Table 2-12
Source Waters Flows: Existing and Assumed Available for Proposed Project (in AFY)
'HILQLWLRQVRI([LVWLQJ)ORZVLQ$)<
+LVWRULFDO$YHUDJH)ORZVDYHUDJLQJSHULRG
7\SHRI6RXUFH:DWHU
([FHVV8QXVHG5HJLRQDO7UHDWPHQW3ODQW
0XQLFLSDO(IIOXHQW05:3&$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
5LYHU6RXUFH6FKDDI :KHHOHUD
/DNH(O(VWHUR6WRUDJH0DQDJHPHQW:DWHU
6RXUFH6FKDDI :KHHOHUD
727$/61RWH
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.
2-41
October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
2-42
October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
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:
2-43
October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
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.
2-44
October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
AFY of raw source waters to feed the proposed new AWT Facility in wet and normal years
(assumed five years out of six).
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.
2-45
October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
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.
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
Use of wastewater from member agencies would not require construction of new source water delivery
infrastructure.
2-46
October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
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.
2-47
October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
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
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
2-48
October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
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.
2-49
October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
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.
2-50
October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
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.
Construction
Construction of the Salinas Pump Station urban runoff diversion structure is discussed as part of
the Agricultural Wash Water facility construction in 6HFWLRQ
2-51
October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
-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&DVWURYLOOHDFUHIHHW.
21
SWRCB Permit Application No. A032263, filed by Monterey County Water Resources Agency.
2-52
October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
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).
2-53
October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
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.
2-54
October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
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.
-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
2-55
October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
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.
2-56
October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
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.
2-57
October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
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.
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.
2-58
October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
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.
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.
2-59
October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
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.
2-60
October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
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
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
2-61
October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
Chloramination
Ozonation
Biological filtration (if required)
2-62
October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
%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.
2-63
October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
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
2-64
October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
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.
2-65
October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
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.
2-66
October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
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.
27
2-67
October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
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.
2-68
October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
2-69
October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
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.
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.
2-70
October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
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.
2-71
October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
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.
2-72
October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
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.
2-73
October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
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).
2-74
October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
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
2-75
October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
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.
This concept is defined in more detail in &KDSWHU :DWHU 4XDOLW\ 3HUPLWWLQJ DQG 5HJXODWRU\
2YHUYLHZ
2-76
October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
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.
2-77
October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
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.
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.
2-78
October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
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.
2-79
October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
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.
2-80
October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
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.
2-81
October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
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.
2-82
October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
2-83
October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
Table 2-20
Construction Area of Disturbance and Permanent Footprint
&RQVWUXFWLRQ
%RXQGDU\IHHW
3HUPDQHQW&RPSRQHQW)RRWSULQWIHHW
:LGWK
0D[LPXP
+HLJKWDERYH
JURXQG
VXUIDFH
0D[LPXP
'HSWKEHORZ
JURXQG
VXUIDFH
3URMHFW&RPSRQHQW
/HQJWK
:LGWK
/HQJWK
6RXUFH:DWHU'LYHUVLRQDQG6WRUDJH6LWHV
6DOLQDV3XPS6WDWLRQ'LYHUVLRQ
VHYHUDOGLVFUHWHWUHQFKHVDQGSLWVWRWDOLQJDFUHV
6DOLQDV7UHDWPHQW)DFLOLW\6WRUDJHDQG5HFRYHU\
5HFRYHU\3XPS6WDWLRQ
5HFRYHU\3LSHOLQH1RWH
3RQGSXPSVWDWLRQDQGLQOHWVWUXFWXUH
3LSHOLQHIURP3RQG
5HFODPDWLRQ'LWFK'LYHUVLRQ
7HPEODGHUR6ORXJK'LYHUVLRQ
%ODQFR'UDLQ'LYHUVLRQ
'LYHUVLRQ3XPS6WDWLRQ
)RUFH0DLQDQG*UDYLW\3LSHOLQHLQFOXGLQJSLSHOLQHVORFDWHG
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:DWHU3LSHOLQHV1RWH
58:$3$:7WR%RRVWHU3XPS6WDWLRQ
58:$3%RRVWHU3XPS6WDWLRQWR,QMHFWLRQ:HOOV
&RDVWDO$:7)DFLOLW\WR%RRVWHU3XPS6WDWLRQ
&RDVWDO%RRVWHU3XPS6WDWLRQWR,QMHFWLRQ:HOOV
%RRVWHU3XPS6WDWLRQRQHRIWZRRSWLRQDOVLWHV
2-84
October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
Table 2-20
Construction Area of Disturbance and Permanent Footprint
&RQVWUXFWLRQ
%RXQGDU\IHHW
3HUPDQHQW&RPSRQHQW)RRWSULQWIHHW
3URMHFW&RPSRQHQW
/HQJWK
:LGWK
/HQJWK
&RQVWUXFWLRQ
%RXQGDU\IHHW
:LGWK
:LGWK
0D[LPXP
'HSWKEHORZ
JURXQG
VXUIDFH
3HUPDQHQW&RPSRQHQW)RRWSULQWIHHW
/HQJWK
:LGWK
0D[LPXP
+HLJKWDERYH
JURXQG
VXUIDFH
0D[LPXP
'HSWKEHORZ
JURXQG
VXUIDFH
3URMHFW&RPSRQHQW
/HQJWK
0D[LPXP
+HLJKWDERYH
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
10
100
100
900
4200
40
4200
20
10
1200
10
1200
1000
20
1000
10
&DO$P'LVWULEXWLRQ6\VWHP,PSURYHPHQWV
Note
15 (trenched
0
3
sections); 25
(trenchless
Note
Monterey Pipeline
28,700
3080
28,700
0
sections, pits)
3
Note 1: The existing 33-inch industrial wastewater conveyance pipeline would be slip-lined with the new 18-inch recovery pipeline. This would require
the excavation of up to 12 sending/receiving pits measuring approximately 60-feet long by up to 20-feet wide.
Note 2: The Product Water Conveyance Pipeline between the Regional Treatment Plant and the General Jim Moore Boulevard /Lightfighter Rd
intersection would be built within either the RUWAP or the Coastal Alignment, not both.
Note 3: Pipeline trenches would generally be no more than seven (7) feet wide, except in areas with sandy soils and lack of constraints to a wider
trench. Constraints include known sensitive or protected resources, geography such as steep slopes, existing utilities, buildings, or other facilities that
restrict the construction area. A trench section with a ground surface width of up to approximately 10 to 15 feet would be potentially used in some soil
types to increase efficiencies related to shoring the trench.
Transfer Pipeline
13,000
3080
13,000
2-85
October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
Table 2-21
Proposed Project Construction Assumptions
3URMHFW&RPSRQHQW
([FHVV
6SRLOV'HEULV
WR2II+DXO
FXELF\DUGV
&RQVWUXFWLRQ(TXLSPHQW
VHH$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
100
1,200
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
1,500
%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
2-86
October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
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
510
58:$33LSHOLQH$OLJQPHQW
58:$33LSHOLQH$OLJQPHQW
5HJLRQDO7UHDWPHQW3ODQWWR%RRVWHU3XPS6WDWLRQ
5,090
%RRVWHU3XPS6WDWLRQWR,QMHFWLRQ:HOO)DFLOLWLHV
3,580
&RDVWDO3LSHOLQH$OLJQPHQW
5HJLRQDO7UHDWPHQW3ODQWWR%RRVWHU3XPS6WDWLRQ
5,290
%RRVWHU3XPS6WDWLRQWR,QMHFWLRQ:HOO)DFLOLWLHV
2,890
2-87
&RDVWDO3LSHOLQH$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.
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$QDO\VLVIRU
PRUHGHWDLOV
&RQVWUXFWLRQ6KLIWVDQG:RUN+RXUV
VHH7DEOHLQ6HFWLRQ
7UDIILFDQG7UDQVSRUWDWLRQIRU
DVVXPHGFRQVWUXFWLRQZRUNHUDQG
WUXFNWULSLQIRUPDWLRQ
180
600
320
320
,QMHFWLRQ:HOO)DFLOLWLHV
1)
2)
3)
%DFNIOXVK:DWHU3LSHOLQHDQG%DVLQ
4,000
5RDGZD\VSLSHOLQHVDQGHOHFWULFDOFRQGXLW
3,500
3URSRVHG3URMHFW7RWDO([FHVV&RQVWUXFWLRQ6SRLOV
(without CalAm Distribution System Pipelines)
21,080
See above
a) 10,680
b) 3,330
&DO$P'LVWULEXWLRQ6\VWHP3LSHOLQHV
a) Monterey Pipeline
b) Transfer Pipeline
&DO$P7RWDO([FHVV6SRLOVDQG'HEULV
&RPELQHG([FHVV6SRLOVDQG'HEULVWR2II+DXO
Approx.
14,010
35,090 cubic
yards
2-88
October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
2-89
October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
Table 2-22
List of Permits and Authorizations
$JHQF\(QWLW\
3HUPLWWLQJ5HJXODWLRQ$SSURYDO5HTXLUHPHQW
'LVFXVVLRQ
)HGHUDO$JHQFLHV
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA)
6WDWH$JHQFLHV
California Public Utilities
Commission (CPUC)
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.
Table 2-22
List of Permits and Authorizations
$JHQF\(QWLW\
3HUPLWWLQJ5HJXODWLRQ$SSURYDO5HTXLUHPHQW
'LVFXVVLRQ
California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans)
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.
Table 2-22
List of Permits and Authorizations
$JHQF\(QWLW\
3HUPLWWLQJ5HJXODWLRQ$SSURYDO5HTXLUHPHQW
'LVFXVVLRQ
CSUMB.
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.
Table 2-22
List of Permits and Authorizations
$JHQF\(QWLW\
3HUPLWWLQJ5HJXODWLRQ$SSURYDO5HTXLUHPHQW
'LVFXVVLRQ
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.
Transportation Agency of
Monterey County
Monterey Peninsula Airport
District//Airport Land Use
Commission
3ULYDWH(QWLWLHV
Landowners
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.
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.
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
2-95
October 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
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
April 2015
2-97
2-1
Figure
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
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
September 2015
2-100
Figure
2-4 rev
Figure
April 2015
2-101
2-5
Figure
April 2015
2-102
2-6
Legend
Figure
September 2015
2-103
2-7 rev
2-7a new
Figure
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
Figure
April 2015
2-105
2-8
Figure
April 2015
2-106
2-9
Figure
April 2015
2-107
2-10
Figure
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
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
19.2
36.8
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
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
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
Salinas River
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
INA
SR
IV E
R
1.25
Figure
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
April 2015
2-112
2-15
The pump station shown has been replaced with a new one that is shown on Figure 2-25a.
Figure
September 2015
2-113
2-16 rev
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
(
!
iver
sR
lina
Sa
Monterey
Bay
Seaside
Pacific
Grove
Sand
City
[
68
Legend
Fort Ord
National Monument
(
!
(
!
Project ^
_
Location
[
218
Monterey
68
68
Lake El Estero
Diversion
City Limits
(
!
2 Miles
Highways
68
Figure
April 2015
2-115
2-18
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
Castroville Interceptor
w
Ne
Key:
Source Water Types:
Seaside Pump Station
Existing Flow
Proposed Infrastructure
Urban Stormwater
Existing Infrastructure
Salinas Industrial
Wastewater Treatment
Facility
Proposed Lake
El Estero Diversion
April 2015
2-117
Figure
2-19
Existing Municipal
Wastewater plus
new source waters 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
Modifications
Key:
Treated Effluent for Discharge via
Ocean Outfall
Existing Flow
Tertiary Treatment/
Recycled Water for Irrigation
Proposed Infrastructure
Existing Infrastructure
Proposed Pump Station
To Seaside Groundwater
Basin for Injection
April 2015
2-118
Figure
2-20
Figure
April 2015
2-119
2-21
2-120
Figure
April 2015
2-121
2-22
2-122
Figure
April 2015
2-123
2-23
LEGEND
Project Area of Interest
Diversion Components
!
H
IntakeScreen
Pump/Lift Structure
CASTROVILLE
P.S
Pipe
EXIST.
HEADWORKS
FLOW METER
(PUMP CONTROL)
PUMP VALVE BOX
LOW LIFT
(DIVERSION)
(2 PUMPS w/ VFDs)
PUMP STA.
INTAKE
SCREEN
!
H
0
TEMB
L
ADER
O SLO
15
30
60 Feet
U GH
Figure
2-24
DF
r
Fo
ce
ai
M
t.
is
36
"S
al
a
in
s
r
te
In
ce
ion
o
pt
r
Exist. 30" dia SRDF
Force Main
18" dia Blanco Drain
FM
SALINAS RIVER
FM
18" dia Blanco Drain
Flow Meter
River Crossing
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
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
rceptor
nF
M
st
"d
ia
i
Ex
Bla
nc
oD
rai
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
April 2015
2-126
2-25b
April 2015
2-127
Figure
2-26
Figure
April 2015
2-128
2-27
Screening
BioFlocculation
Brine
Mixing Station
RO
Brine
Reverse
Osmosis
(RO)
Advanced
Oxidation
(AOP)
2-129
Ozonation
April 2015
Secondary
Clarification
Secondary Treatment
Primary
Biological
Sedimentation Trickling Filters
Primary Treatment
To ocean
outfall
To injection
wells
To existing
tertiary
treatment
Product
Water
Stabilization
MRWPCA Wastewater
2-28
Figure
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)
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)
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
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
0.5
1 Miles
IM
JIN
April 2015
2-131
Figure
2-30
CSUMB CAMPUS
115
230
April 2015
2-132
460 FEET
Figure
2-31
)LQDO(,5
6HSWHPEHU
7KLVJXUHKDVEHHQUHYLVHGLQUHVSRQVHWRFRPPHQW/
7KHORFDWLRQRIWKLVDOOLJQPHQW
LVDSSUR[LPDWHDQGPD\EH
DGMXVWHGEDVHGRQ&LW\RI6HDVLGH
FRQVXOWDWLRQ$Q\QHZORFDWLRQZRXOG
KDYHWKHVDPHRUVLPLOLDUOHQJWKDQG
ZRXOGEHZLWKLQWKH$UHDRI3RWHQWLDO
(IIHFWERXQGDU\VKRZQRQWKLVPDS
Figure
2-133
2-32 rev
2-134
Figure
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
April 2015
2-136
2-34
April 2015
2-137
Figure
2-35
100
200
300
Transducer
tube
400
500
600
Filter pack
700
18-inch diameter stainless steel
screen (650-880)
800
20-foot tailpipe
900
April 2015
2-138
Figure
2-36
50
3-inch vent
line
(perforated
30-50)
Filter pack
100
150
30-inch diameter borehole
(150 - 200)
4-inch PVC
vent/transducer
tube
200
250
300
350
400
Static Water Level 430 (approximate)
450
April 2015
2-139
Figure
2-37
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
April 2015
2-140
2-38
City of
Pacific Grove
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
April 2015
2-141
2-39
Project Component
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep Oct
Nov Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar Apr
May Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov Dec
Jan
Feb Mar
Site Preparation
Underground work, vauts and pipelines
Valves, controls and site finishing
Site Preparation
Underground work, vauts and pipelines
Valves, controls and site finishing
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
DRAFT PRODUCT
NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION
April 2015
2-142
Figure
2-40
APPENDIX I1
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
I1-6
ESA / 205335.01
January 2017
Appendix I1
Open-Water and Subsurface Intakes
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.
I1-7
ESA / 205335.01
January 2017
APPENDIX I2
I2-1
ESA / 205335.01
January 2017
Appendix I2
Component Screening Results Component Options NOT Carried Forward
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.
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.
I2-3
ESA / 205335.01
January 2017
Appendix I2
Component Screening Results Component Options NOT Carried Forward
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
I2-11
ESA / 205335.01
January 2017
Appendix I2
Component Screening Results Component Options NOT Carried Forward
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.
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.
I2-13
ESA / 205335.01
January 2017
APPENDIX J1
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
J1-2
ESA / 205335.01
January 2017
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
8-11
October 2009
as certified on December 17, 2009
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
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
Jurisdiction
48
68
116
210
60
386
City of Seaside
133
21
44
298
283
97
582
892
892
37
10
196
1,135
115
23
138
2,530
209
1,051
755
4,545
Total
8-12
October 2009
as certified on December 17, 2009
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%
158
20
178
48
27%
1%
City of Monterey
3,922
488
4,411
705
16%
16%
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
Monterey Peninsula
Airport District
Total
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
8-13
October 2009
as certified on December 17, 2009
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
1,650
1,692
City of Monterey
29,674
30,350
34,658
14%
15,522
N/A
N/A
See note e
261
261
1,295
396%
City of Seaside
31,696
31,696
N/A
See note e
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%
8,032
7,702
13,133
71%
87
90
587
552%
11,005
11,005
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.
8-14
October 2009
as certified on December 17, 2009
The date of the general plan and general plan housing element and their respective buildout or planning horizon years
The estimated total new (future) demand and the subtotal of future demand for new
residential and new non-residential development
City of Carmel
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.
165 units in the citys multifamily residential district (35 units) and three commercial
districts (130 units)
8-15
October 2009
as certified on December 17, 2009
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.
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.
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
8-16
October 2009
as certified on December 17, 2009
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).
MPWMDs May 2005 draft estimate indicates 282 second units; the May 2006 final estimate does not indicate
number of units.
8-17
October 2009
as certified on December 17, 2009
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
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.
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
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).
8-18
October 2009
as certified on December 17, 2009
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.
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.
8-19
October 2009
as certified on December 17, 2009
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
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.
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)
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):
-
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.
8-20
October 2009
as certified on December 17, 2009
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.
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.
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).
8-21
October 2009
as certified on December 17, 2009
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
8-22
October 2009
as certified on December 17, 2009
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
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).
Non-Residential square footage: 1,270,000 sf of commercial use and 318 rooms for visitor
accommodation, including
-
8-23
October 2009
as certified on December 17, 2009
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
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).
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.
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).
8-24
October 2009
as certified on December 17, 2009
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.
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
8-25
October 2009
as certified on December 17, 2009
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
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.
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
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).
12 The circulation element covers the planning horizon years 2015 to 2020 (City of Sand City, 2002).
8-26
October 2009
as certified on December 17, 2009
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).
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.
8-27
October 2009
as certified on December 17, 2009
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
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,
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.
8-28
October 2009
as certified on December 17, 2009
5.91 af. Based on information presented in this table, Seasides seven-year average for
remodels was 2.72 af.
Other:
-
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.
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.
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.
8-29
October 2009
as certified on December 17, 2009
TABLE 8-8
EXISTING SEASIDE DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATES: ENTIRE CITY AND AREA SERVED BY CalAm
Land Use
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
5,992
3,655
1,023
1,023
187
187
0
-1,228
3,120
1,892
-3
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
(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
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.
8-30
October 2009
as certified on December 17, 2009
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)
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
3,381
2,685
-696
1,246
630
-616
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
Special Designations
Mixed Use
40
a sf = square feet
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).
8-31
October 2009
as certified on December 17, 2009
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
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).
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
8-32
October 2009
as certified on December 17, 2009
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
Remodels: 250 fixture units per year resulting in water use of 2.5 afy (information provided
by MCWRA)
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.
8-33
October 2009
as certified on December 17, 2009
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.
8-34
October 2009
as certified on December 17, 2009
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
8-35
October 2009
as certified on December 17, 2009
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
8-36
October 2009
as certified on December 17, 2009
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
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.
8-37
October 2009
as certified on December 17, 2009
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.
8-38
October 2009
as certified on December 17, 2009
8-39
October 2009
as certified on December 17, 2009
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.
8-44
October 2009
as certified on December 17, 2009
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.
8-45
October 2009
as certified on December 17, 2009
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.
8-46
October 2009
as certified on December 17, 2009
8-47
October 2009
as certified on December 17, 2009
APPENDIX J2
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.
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.
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 Monterey
General Plan
Update EIR
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
U/U
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.
J2-2
ESA / 205335.01
January 2017
Appendix J2
Secondary Effects of Growth
Impact / Mitigation
City of
Del Rey Oaks
City of Monterey
City of Monterey
General Plan
Update EIR
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
CC
Mitigation Measures
No feasible mitigation beyond General Plan goals and policies is available.
Air Quality
Impacts
Construction-related air quality impacts.
S/S
Net change ozone precursor (ROG and NOx) and particulate matter
emissions.
U/U
S/S
S/S
CC
Mitigation Measures
Implement General Plan Circulation Element policies to maximize the
efficiency of the transportation network such that level of service standards
are met.
J2-3
ESA / 205335.01
January 2017
Appendix J2
Secondary Effects of Growth
Impact / Mitigation
City of
Del Rey Oaks
City of Monterey
City of Monterey
General Plan
Update EIR
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
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.
J2-4
ESA / 205335.01
January 2017
Appendix J2
Secondary Effects of Growth
City of Monterey
City of Monterey
General Plan
Update EIR
Impact / Mitigation
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
S/U
S/S
S/S
CC
Mitigation Measures
Implement General Plan polices contained in the Conservation/Open Space,
Conservation, Open Space, and/or Urban Design elements.
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.
J2-5
ESA / 205335.01
January 2017
Appendix J2
Secondary Effects of Growth
Impact / Mitigation
City of
Del Rey Oaks
City of Monterey
City of Monterey
General Plan
Update EIR
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
Work with USACOE, USFWS, CDFG during project permitting and review.
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.
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.
J2-6
ESA / 205335.01
January 2017
Appendix J2
Secondary Effects of Growth
Impact / Mitigation
City of
Del Rey Oaks
City of Monterey
City of Monterey
General Plan
Update EIR
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
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.
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.
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.
J2-7
ESA / 205335.01
January 2017
Appendix J2
Secondary Effects of Growth
Impact / Mitigation
City of
Del Rey Oaks
City of Monterey
City of Seaside
Monterey County
U.S. Department
of the Army
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
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.
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.
J2-8
ESA / 205335.01
January 2017
Appendix J2
Secondary Effects of Growth
Impact / Mitigation
City of
Del Rey Oaks
City of Monterey
City of Monterey
General Plan
Update EIR
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/S
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.
Enforce State and seismic structural design standards for all new
development.
For each construction project, prepare and submit to the SWRCB Permit
Registration Document; implement best management practices in the
required Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan.
J2-9
ESA / 205335.01
January 2017
Appendix J2
Secondary Effects of Growth
Impact / Mitigation
City of
Del Rey Oaks
City of Monterey
City of Monterey
General Plan
Update EIR
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
Impacts
Potential exposure of people and development, including schools, to
hazardous materials releases.
CC
Mitigation Measures
Require facilities dealing with hazardous waste to incorporate actions to
minimize hazards to public health and safety.
J2-10
ESA / 205335.01
January 2017
Appendix J2
Secondary Effects of Growth
Impact / Mitigation
City of
Del Rey Oaks
City of Monterey
City of Monterey
General Plan
Update EIR
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.
X
X
J2-11
ESA / 205335.01
January 2017
Appendix J2
Secondary Effects of Growth
Impact / Mitigation
City of
Del Rey Oaks
City of Monterey
City of Monterey
General Plan
Update EIR
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.
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
S/U
S/U
S
S/S
S/U
J2-12
LS / U
ESA / 205335.01
January 2017
Appendix J2
Secondary Effects of Growth
Impact / Mitigation
City of
Del Rey Oaks
City of Monterey
City of Monterey
General Plan
Update EIR
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
LS / U
LS / U
CC
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.
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.
J2-13
ESA / 205335.01
January 2017
Appendix J2
Secondary Effects of Growth
Impact / Mitigation
City of
Del Rey Oaks
City of Monterey
City of Monterey
General Plan
Update EIR
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
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.
J2-14
ESA / 205335.01
January 2017
Appendix J2
Secondary Effects of Growth
Impact / Mitigation
City of
Del Rey Oaks
City of Monterey
City of Monterey
General Plan
Update EIR
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
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.
J2-15
ESA / 205335.01
January 2017
Appendix J2
Secondary Effects of Growth
Impact / Mitigation
City of
Del Rey Oaks
City of Monterey
City of Monterey
General Plan
Update EIR
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.
Mitigation Measures
Implement the General Plan Housing Element Policies
Noise
Impact
Exposure of existing and new sensitive land uses to increased noise.
U
S
J2-16
ESA / 205335.01
January 2017
Appendix J2
Secondary Effects of Growth
Impact / Mitigation
City of
Del Rey Oaks
City of Monterey
City of Monterey
General Plan
Update EIR
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.
Enforce noise limits (e.g. noise levels and hours of operation) and
construction/ operation noise regulations.
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.
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.
J2-17
ESA / 205335.01
January 2017
Appendix J2
Secondary Effects of Growth
Impact / Mitigation
City of
Del Rey Oaks
City of Monterey
City of Monterey
General Plan
Update EIR
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
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.
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.
J2-18
U/U
ESA / 205335.01
January 2017
Appendix J2
Secondary Effects of Growth
Impact / Mitigation
City of
Del Rey Oaks
City of Monterey
City of Monterey
General Plan
Update EIR
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
S/S
CC
CC
CC
Mitigation Measures
Implement policies contained in the General Plan Circulation Element.
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.
J2-19
ESA / 205335.01
January 2017
Appendix J2
Secondary Effects of Growth
Impact / Mitigation
City of
Del Rey Oaks
City of Monterey
City of Monterey
General Plan
Update EIR
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
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.
Include within the County Traffic Impact Fee Program and CIFP roadway
segments within the Agricultural and Winery Corridor Plan that exceed LOS
standards.
Develop staging plan for each new project that evaluates the possible use of
nearby vacant land for staging and temporary parking.
J2-20
ESA / 205335.01
January 2017
Appendix J2
Secondary Effects of Growth
Impact / Mitigation
City of
Del Rey Oaks
City of Monterey
City of Monterey
General Plan
Update EIR
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/S
LS / U
Mitigation Measures
Adopt and implement a water conservation ordinance, which may include
requirements for plumbing retrofits to reduce water demand and effluent
generation.
J2-21
ESA / 205335.01
January 2017
Appendix J2
Secondary Effects of Growth
Impact / Mitigation
City of
Del Rey Oaks
City of Monterey
City of Monterey
General Plan
Update EIR
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
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).
Climate Change
Impacts
Development of the general plan would have a considerable contribution to
cumulative greenhouse gas emissions and global climate change.
CC
LCC
J2-22
ESA / 205335.01
January 2017
Appendix J2
Secondary Effects of Growth
Impact / Mitigation
City of
Del Rey Oaks
City of Monterey
City of Monterey
General Plan
Update EIR
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
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
=
=
=
=
=
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.
J2-24
ESA / 205335.01
January 2017
APPENDIX K
K-1
ESA / 205335.01
January 2017
Appendix K
Existing Water Conservation and Water Recycling
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).
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.
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
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
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
Commercial,
Institutional &
Industrial (CII) Audits
47.17
8.93
1.0
Rain Sensor
Installation Program
Residential Plumbing
Retrofit
Large Landscape
Audits and Water
Budgets
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
Description
Promotion/Implementation
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
3.00
6.00
6.00
Landscape Grant
Program
4.0
2.2
Not
quantified
Conservation
Intern(s)
Not
quantifiable
Not
quantifiable
Not
quantifiable
Not
quantifiable
Not
quantifiable
Water Conservation
Representative
Water Conservation
Seminars
Water Wise
Gardening for
Monterey County
Linen/Towel Reuse
Program
up to 101
afy at 60%
occupancy
up to 101
afy at 60%
occupancy
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
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
Conservation Printed
Material
2010
Water Waste
Prohibitions
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.
K-7
ESA / 205335.01
January 2017
Appendix K
Existing Water Conservation and Water Recycling
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).
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.
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).
K-9
ESA / 205335.01
January 2017
Appendix K
Existing Water Conservation and Water Recycling
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.
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.
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.
K-12
ESA / 205335.01
January 2017