Water Resources Report for Village Park &Commons Carmel Valley, California

Prepared for Delfino Family 5100 Coe Avenue Seaside, CA 93955

November 27, 2006

TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1 SECTION 2: WATER SUPPLY PLAN..................................................................................... 2 Potable Water Demand ............................................................................................................... 2 Water Supply Wells .................................................................................................................... 4 Water System Operations ........................................................................................................... 7 Non-Potable Water...................................................................................................................... 7 SECTION 3: WATER BALANCE ANALYSIS ....................................................................... 8 Overview..................................................................................................................................... 8 Existing Conditions..................................................................................................................... 8 Proposed Development Conditions........................................................................................... 10 SECTION 4: NITRATE LOADING ASSESSMENT ............................................................ 12 Background ............................................................................................................................... 12 Cumulative Groundwater Nitrate Impact.................................................................................. 13 References................................................................................................................................. 15 SECTION 5: GROUNDWATER MOUNDING ANALYSIS FOR COMMUNITY LEACHFIELD........................................................................................................................ 17 Introduction............................................................................................................................... 17 Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 17 Data and Assumptions .............................................................................................................. 17 Calculations............................................................................................................................... 18 Offsite Implications .................................................................................................................. 19 APPENDICES Appendix A - Water Use Data Appendix B - Water Balance Data Appendix C - Nitrate Loading Data and Calculations Appendix D - Groundwater Mounding Information

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION This report provides water resources information for the Village Park and Commons project is located at the former Carmel Valley Airport site in Carmel Valley, California. The proposed project includes the development of 29 single-family residences and 10 multi-family affordable housing units plus an approximately 5-acre common space. The project is planned to be selfsupporting with respect to water and sanitation facilities, since public water and sewer are not available in the area. Onsite wells will be developed for the potable water supply. An onsite community wastewater system will be developed for the project, including a tertiary treatment plant and subsurface dispersal using a combination of leachfields and seasonal drip irrigation. Onsite drainage retention facilities will be developed or enhanced for percolation-recharge of a large portion of the site runoff as well as portions of runoff from upslope tributary areas that have historically drained onto the site. Included in this report are the following items: • Section 2 presents the Water Supply Plan for the project, including estimation and supporting basis for the projected water demand, source capacity requirements and water treatment needs. Section 3 presents a Water Balance Analysis for the project site, including estimates and comparison of annual groundwater recharge volumes for existing conditions and developed conditions. The water balance accounts for inflows (recharge) to the groundwater system that include infiltration-percolation of onsite rainfall, runoff from offsite areas, subsurface wastewater discharges and irrigation seepage losses. It also accounts for outflows of water from the site that include evapotranspiration, site runoff, and the proposed extraction of groundwater for domestic water supply needs. Section 4 presents a Nitrate Loading Analysis for the project, focusing specifically on the nitrate loading from the proposed onsite wastewater treatment and disposal system. The results are compared with established criteria contained in the Carmel Valley Wastewater Study, Monterey County Code Chapter 15.23, and the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board’s Basin Plan. Section 5 presents a Groundwater Mounding Analysis addressing the potential effects on the water table in the area of the proposed community leachfield system. The projected rise (mounding) of the water table is estimated for wet weather conditions to verify that the amount of rise will not interfere with the operation or treatment performance of the leachfield system or pose a significant impact on neighboring properties in the area.

Questa Engineering Corporation


260149_VillageParkWaterPlan / 11-27-2006

SECTION 2: WATER SUPPLY PLAN This section discusses the planned water supply requirements and facilities for the Village Park Commons project. POTABLE WATER DEMAND The project will include 29 single-family market rate homes, and 10 multi-family housing units (i.e., affordable housing). The estimated annual potable water demand for the project, including system losses and RO treatment losses is approximately 12.18 acre-feet per year (AFY), or roughly an average of 0.033 acre-feet per day. This equates to an average raw water demand of about 280 gallons per day for the 39 proposed residential units. The estimated potable water demand is based on the following assumptions: • Market Rate Housing. The estimated annual water demand for single-family residences is 0.27 acre-feet per year (AFY), which equates to an average daily water usage of about 240 gpd. This is based on review of water use data compiled by California American Water Company (Cal Am) for the period of 2004-2006 for similar residences in the immediate vicinity of the project. The data are provided in Appendix A. Briefly, they show the annual water usage rates ranging from 0.244 to 0.264 acre-feet per year (AFY) for a sampling of about 60 residential service connections located on the following streets: Lupin, Ford, Via Contenta, Virginia, Merrill, Flight, Poppy and Lilac. To be conservative, an average water usage rate of 0.27 AFY per market rate home is estimated for the proposed Village Park & Commons project. It is generally assumed that about half to two-thirds of the total residential water demand is used within the home and the remainder is for outside uses (e.g., irrigation, washing, etc), which varies seasonally. Assuming two-thirds is attributed to inside water uses, this translates to average wastewater flow of about 160 gpd/residence; this value is used later in the report to approximate the average wastewater flow generated by the project. This estimate assumes fairly stringent requirements for drought tolerant landscaping, which will be an adopted element of the project. • Multi-family Affordable Housing. Water demand for multi-family housing units is estimated at 0.18 AFY per connection. This is a very conservative estimate based on water usage data for other apartment units in the immediate area of the project. The Cal Am data in Appendix A indicates an average water use rate of approximately 0.09 AFY per apartment for an existing 4-unit apartment complex at 127 Ford Road. This equates to an average daily water use rate of about 80 gpd, which is very low. For planning purposes, a water usage of 0.18 AFY (160 gpd) per connection is included to provide a good factor of safety. The affordable housing units are assumed to have lower outside water uses and would also generate proportionately less wastewater flow as compared with the single family market rate residences.

Questa Engineering Corporation


260149_VillageParkWaterPlan / 11-27-2006

System Losses. Water system losses can encompass a wide range of both “apparent” losses as well as physical losses, including distribution system maintenance flushing, distribution leaks, water treatment losses, tank overflows, fire fighting, storm drain and sewer flushing, illegal connections (stolen water), un-metered uses, and meter and billing inaccuracies. The industry standard is 7%, which is assumed here. RO Treatment System Losses. Water treatment will be required for removal of salts (total dissolved solids). The treatment process will generate reject water amounting to about 5 to 15 percent of the total water processed. The losses will depend on the efficiency and type of water treatment system installed. Losses of 15% are assumed at this stage of analysis based on eight years of operating data for the nearby Monterra Ranch water system. Table 1 Potable Water Demand Estimate
Unit Water Demand (AFY) 0.27 0.18 Estimated Demand (AFY) 7.83 1.8 9.63 0.72 10.35 1.83 12.18

Water Use Market Rate Homes Multi-family Units Potable Water Demand

No. of Units 29 10

System Losses (7% of total potable demand) Total Required Potable Supply RO Treatment System Losses (up to 15 % of total demand) Total Water Demand

According to the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD), about 60 percent of the water use in the Monterey area occurs during the dry season (May – October) and the remaining 40 percent during the other half of the year (November - April). Accordingly, the overall water demand estimate (12.18 AFY) equates to average daily water use of about 0.040 acre-feet per day during May-October and about 0.027 acre-feet per day during the rest of the year. Thus, during the dry season the sustained water use will amount to about 13,000 gpd (0.040 x 325,851 gal/acre-ft). Based on MPWMD criteria and water monitoring data for the Monterra Ranch project, during the peak month (typically July), the demand may be may be as much 50% higher than the average rate for the dry season, or roughly 19,500 gpd (1.5 x 13,000). This translates to a total well pumping capacity of approximately 13.5 gallons per minute (gpm) continuously, or 27 gpm if the well(s) are limited to 12 hours per day operation.

Questa Engineering Corporation


260149_VillageParkWaterPlan / 11-27-2006

WATER SUPPLY WELLS The water for the project will be supplied from onsite wells that will draw from the fractured shale aquifer beneath the project site. The wells will be installed in the western half of the project site. Well Production Requirements. The required production capacity of individual water wells is determined differently by Monterey County and the MPWMD. The following summarize the key criteria that will need to be satisfied for documentation of an adequate supply of water for the project. • Monterey County. Based on “Source Capacity Test Procedures” issued by Monterey County Department of Heath in May 2006, the following requirements apply to the water supply wells for the project: 1. Source Capacity. Required source capacity for >15 connections with non-alluvial wells = 1 gpm per connection. For the project, this will require documented well production capacity credit of at least 39 gpm. 2. Well Production Credit. Well production capacity credit for non-alluvial wells is limited to 25% of the sustained well yield documented through a 72-hour pumping test, or 50% of sustained yield through a 10-day pumping test. Therefore, for the proposed project the pumping tests must document total well yield of 156 gpm (39 gpm/0.25) or 78 gpm (38 gpm/0.50), respectively, depending upon the length of the pumping tests. 3. Two Sources of Supply. Water systems with >20 connections must have two sources of supply. This is interpreted to mean at least two wells. 4. Maximum Day Demand w/Largest Source Off Line. Water systems with >20 connections must have pumping capacity to meet maximum day demand with the highest producing source off line. For the proposed project, maximum day demand is determined, per MPWMD criteria and the preceding analysis, to be approximately 19,500 gpd. Per Monterey County criteria, this would be met with 13.5 gpm pumping capacity credit, which would be figured as 25% of the demonstrated 72-hour pumping test yield, or 54 gpm. Alternatively, for 10-day pumping tests, the yield for non-alluvial wells is credited as 50% of 10-day test results; this would require documented total well yield of 27 gpm. In either case this would have to exclude the largest producing well. Based on the above, it appears that the key (most restrictive) Monterey County criterion applicable to the project is item (2), the demonstrated total well yield of 156 gpm, based on 25% credit for 72-hour pumping tests, or 78 gpm, based on 50% credit for 10-day pumping tests.

Questa Engineering Corporation


260149_VillageParkWaterPlan / 11-27-2006

MPWMD. The MPWMD issued “Procedures for Preparation of Well Source and Pumping Impact Assessments” in September 2005. The procedures and criteria vary according to the hydrogeologic setting of the project. The proposed project is located in Setting #2, which covers the Carmel Valley Uplands and Other Fractured/Consolidated Bedrock Formations. Following is a review of key items from this document apply to determination of source capacity for the proposed project. 1. Source Capacity. The standard required source capacity for single family residential water supplies is 3 gpm per connection; the MPWMD may consider variation from this requirement on a case-by-case basis. For the proposed project, compliance with the 3 gpm standard would require documented well yields (from 72-hr pumping tests) totaling 117 gpm. 2. Maximum Day Demand. The maximum day demand is defined as 1.5 times the average dry season demand, which is estimated to be 19,500 gpd for the proposed project. The MPWMD requires that the demand be satisfied based on pumping capacity, assuming only 12 hours operation per day. Therefore, this would require documented total well yield of 27 gpm, as calculated previously. 3. Drawdown Impacts. The MPWMD requires estimation and evaluation of potential drawdown impacts on nearby wells within an approximate 1,000-ft radius of the project wells. The evaluation is required to verify that the proposed project wells will not adversely affect the supply to other existing wells. Based on the above, the key (most restrictive) MPWMD criterion applicable to the project appears to be item (1), minimum documented source capacity requirement of 117 gpm well yield. This is less than the 156 gpm and more than the 78 gpm required by Monterey County for non-alluvial wells. However, the basis for determining well yield (from pumping test data) differs between the County and the MPWMD procedures. Therefore, the final determinant of well production requirements will rely upon the completion of the pumping tests.

Water Well Design and Operation The design, construction and operation of the new water wells will be in accordance with the following recommendations: • • • • Steel or PVC (DR 17) well casing; Proper aperture size selection sized for the correct aquifer or sand pack dimensions; Thorough well development; Utilization of only one-third of the available drawdown for 12-hour pumping cycles (per MPWMD criteria).

Questa Engineering Corporation


260149_VillageParkWaterPlan / 11-27-2006

Water Treatment Facilities A reverse osmosis (RO) and/or electrodialysis reversal (EDR) water treatment system will be required for the domestic water supply to reduce the concentration of total dissolved solids for compliance with drinking water standards. Permit issuance for the water treatment plant will be subject to review and approval by the County of Monterey. Waste by-products (reject) from the RO treatment process will be disposed by hauling and disposal to an approved wastewater treatment plant ocean outfall system. Typical treatment efficiency is 85% (15% losses); however, with multiple stage systems the reject water may be further concentrated (at additional cost), improving the overall efficiency to around 95% (5% losses). The reject water will be hauled to the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Plant. According to one of the plant engineers (Greg Antosz), the Monterey facility currently receives similar RO reject water from the Monterra Ranch Mutual Water Company and Culligan, and would have capacity and provisions to take similar waste from the Village Park project. The City of Watsonville Treatment Plant also currently receives and discharges RO reject water through their ocean outfall. Following is a brief review of the RO and EDR treatment processes. Reverse Osmosis (RO). Reverse Osmosis has been in commercial use for demineralization of water supplies since about 1970. It is a pressure-driven process that forces water through a semipermeable membrane, separating the salts (TDS) from the water. Osmosis is a natural phenomenon in which water molecules of a lower salt concentration tend to move through a membrane to the side with the higher concentration, producing equal TDS concentrations on either side of the membrane. In RO, pressure is applied to increase the water pressure on the high TDS side of the membrane, causing the water to flow instead from the high TDS side to the low TDS side, i.e., reversing the natural osmosis process. The semi-permeable membrane allows the passage of water molecules, but prevents the passage of ions such as sodium and chloride, which are left behind on the high TDS side, and must eventually be removed as “reject” water. The reject water from an RO system is commonly estimated at approximately 15% of the total raw water supply; this is consistent with eight years of monitoring data for the RO treatment system operated by the Monterrra Ranch Mutual Water Company. Electrodialysis Reversal (EDR). Electrodialysis is an electrically driven process that uses voltage (rather than pressure) to drive charged ions through a semi-permeable membrane to reduce the TDS concentration in the source water. In the process, the high TDS raw water flows between alternating cation-permeable and anion-permeable membranes, which are driven by a direct electric current (DC). The cations and anions accumulate on the “reject” side of the membranes, leaving low TDS water as the product. The electrodialysis reversal system periodically reverses the polarity of the electric field to drive salt scale off the membranes, simplifying the operation and maintenance of the system. In general, the EDR process is more efficient (produces less reject water) than an RO system, but the initial construction costs and ongoing operation and maintenance costs tend to be higher.

Questa Engineering Corporation


260149_VillageParkWaterPlan / 11-27-2006

Additional water quality testing will be required to determine the appropriate type of treatment system for the Village Park project and to better estimate the efficiency and reject water quantities. WATER SYSTEM OPERATIONS The water system for the Village Park project will be operated under contract with a properly qualified and licensed water treatment operator. Preliminary contacts and discussions have been made with Cal Am. Cal Am has indicated their interest and availability to provide contract water system operations for the Village Park project or, potentially, to incorporate the water system into their operations. NON-POTABLE WATER Non-potable water demand will include landscape irrigation for common areas of the project site. Water for non-potable uses will be supplied by treated wastewater, and applied by means of subsurface drip irrigation tubing, such as Geoflow. The common landscaped areas of the site are the landscaped median areas, which total approximately 1.0 to 1.25 acres. The landscaped areas will include a mix of turfgrass, shrubbery and trees. The estimated irrigation water demand for drip irrigation is approximately 24 inches per year, occurring primarily during the 8-month period of April through October. The peak irrigation demand is in the summer months of June-August, when the monthly evapotranspiration requirements may be as high as 6 inches per month. The treated wastewater flow available for irrigation during the summer months is projected to be about 6,000 to 6,500 gallons per day, average daily flow. This would be able to supply sufficient irrigation water for approximately 1.0 to 1.25 aces of landscaped area, as needed for the project.

Questa Engineering Corporation


260149_VillageParkWaterPlan / 11-27-2006

SECTION 3: WATER BALANCE ANALYSIS OVERVIEW The proposed project will alter the hydrology of the project site through: (a) conversion of the landscape to a mixture of residential development and open space; (b) extraction of groundwater for domestic water supply; (c) onsite disposal/recharge of the groundwater with treated wastewater via leachfields and subsurface drip irrigation; and (d) infiltration drainage/recharge of rainfall runoff from onsite and offsite sources. The estimated changes in the hydrology are addressed here through the completion of a water balance analysis that compares existing conditions and future, post-development conditions. A water balance analysis is an accounting model that tracks flows of water into and out of the particular hydrologic system of interest. For the proposed project, the analysis focuses on changes in the groundwater system in the project vicinity. The change is evaluated by comparing the estimated amount of recharge, before and after, along with the amount of groundwater that will be extracted for project uses. The project site lies in the upland areas of the Carmel Valley, more than 1,000 feet from the limits of the defined Carmel Valley Alluvial Aquifer (see Appendix B). In this region groundwater may be extracted for beneficial uses (e.g., water supply) and is not subject to the water right limitations that apply to the Carmel River system. Therefore, the water balance analysis presented here (along with water well exploration and testing) is a key tool needed to evaluate the availability of water to meet the project needs, as well as to quantify and assess the potential level of impact on the overall Carmel Valley watershed that may occur as a result of the project. EXISTING CONDITIONS The project site is the former Carmel Valley Airport. The site encompasses a total 29.37 acres, including the decommissioned runway, a few unoccupied metal buildings, and surrounding grassland. The former runways are compacted, semi-impermeable surfaces covering about 3 acres of the site; the remaining area is covered with grassy vegetation on moderately to highly permeable soils. The site is level to gently sloping and is surrounded on all sides by developed residential parcels. The elevation of the site is approximately 450 feet above mean sea level. There are minimal existing storm drainage facilities for the project site; runoff tends to percolate readily on site or flow in a dispersed sheet-flow pattern toward adjacent downslope areas. Runoff from the runway and other hard surfaces sheet flows onto the adjacent grassy areas. However, the site also receives runoff from offsite (upslope) areas to the north, which includes some natural open space and residential development. A portion of this offsite runoff is routed through the project site in storm drains that discharge on the southern side of the property near the east end of Via Contenta. Additionally, the runoff from approximately 55 acres of offsite areas drain onto the property. There is no storm drainage system to convey this runoff through
Questa Engineering Corporation 8 260149_VillageParkWaterPlan / 11-27-2006

the project site; this runoff generally collects along the north side of the property and percolates into the gravelly soils in this area. For the existing conditions, there are two wells on the property, and groundwater recharge consists of two items: (1) percolation of direct rainfall received by the site; and (2) infiltration of runoff from about 55 acres of offsite drainage areas that collects, ponds and percolates on the northern edges of the site. The estimate of existing groundwater recharge, for average conditions, is presented in Table 2. A discussion of the key assumptions is provided below. • • Rainfall. The average annual rainfall in the project area is approximately 17.5 inches per year (see Appendix B). Evapotranspiration (ET). The actual evapotranspiration for the project area is estimated to be approximately 13.63 inches per, based on data from the California Irrigation Management Information System (CIMIS) for Zone 6 and local rainfall data (see Appendix B). The effctive ET rate for the site under existing conditions is adjusted downward about 5% to 13 inches per year (averaged over the site), based on the fact that roughly 5% of the site is hard surfaces (former runway), which provide very limited ET. Onsite Rainfall-Runnoff/Percoaltion. Based on permeable, gravelly soil conditions, the flat topography and vegetative cover, no more than about 5 to 10 percent of incident rainfall is estimated to run off the site. A runoff rate of 10 percent is used in our calculations, including both the 26 acres of grassland and the 3 acres of compacted road and runway surfaces. Offsite Runoff/Percolation. The 55 acres of offsite area that drain onto the project site are estimated to have a peak storm runoff coefficient of about 0.45. The area is moderately sloping land developed with single family residences. The annual volume of runoff from this area is estimated to be approximately 25 percent of annual rainfall. Although there is presently no system for infiltration-percolation of offsite runoff that collects on the site, observations and experience indicate that virtually all of this runoff remains on the site for eventual percolation or evaporation. During heavy storms, some portion of the runoff, estimated at about 10 percent, leaves the site and the remainder percolates.

Using the above assumptions, the basic water balance equation for existing conditions is as follows: Recharge = (29.37 ac)(Rainfall-RO-ET) + (55 ac)(Rainfall*0.25)(1.0-0.10) The total estimated groundwater recharge under existing conditions is approximately 24.78 AFY.

Questa Engineering Corporation


260149_VillageParkWaterPlan / 11-27-2006

Table 2 Estimated Annual Groundwater Recharge – Existing Conditions
Assumptions/Calculations Average Annual Recharge (AFY) 6.73 18.05 24.78


Onsite Rainfall Infiltration (29.37 ac)(17.5”-1.75”-13”)(1ft/12”) Offsite Runoff Infiltration (55 ac)(17.5”(0.25)(0.90)(1 ft/12”)

Total Annual Recharge

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS Under the proposed development the water will be extracted from the groundwater for domestic supply, wastewater and irrigation seepage will percolate back into the groundwater, runoff from the site will be collected and directed into infiltration areas to mimic existing conditions, and offsite runoff currently dispersed to the site will continue to be collected and will be directed and managed for infiltration and percolation. Table 3 presents the water balance for the proposed development conditions. The key assumptions are discussed below. • • Rainfall. Rainfall will remain the same under the proposed development conditions. Evapotranspiration. While the basic evapotranspiration rates will not change with the proposed development, the conversion of the existing grassy areas to impervious surfaces will reduce the amount of area for evapotranspiration and, thus, reduce the overall evapotranspiration losses. This will impact about 25% of the site, reducing the effective ET rate from 13.63 inches to about 10.35 inches per year (averaged over the site). Onsite Rainfall Runoff/Percolation. Under developed conditions approximately 7.3 acres of the site will be converted to impervious surfaces; however, the runoff from these surfaces will be directed to engineered infiltrations trenches and percolation systems. This will have the effect of making onsite percolation of runoff more controlled and efficient, and decreasing the amount of runoff by a small amount, e.g., from 10% to 5%. Offsite Runoff/Percolation. Runoff from offsite areas will continue to be collected and absorbed on the site; engineered infiltration facilities will be constructed to provide better control and management of this runoff water. This is estimated to increase the infiltration efficiency from 90% to 95% of the runoff water reaching the site. Wastewater Percolation. The treated wastewater will be disposed entirely to subsurface dispersal systems, including the use of a community leachfield-percolation system for about 4 months of the year, and subsurface drip irrigation of landscaped median areas for the other 8 months. The total average wastewater flow is estimated to be about 160 gpd per residence or about 6,240 gpd. During disposal to the leachfield, the entire flow will
10 260149_VillageParkWaterPlan / 11-27-2006

Questa Engineering Corporation

result in percolation to the groundwater system. When the treated water is used for subsurface drip irrigation, it is estimated that about 20 percent of the water will percolate below the root zone and contribute to groundwater recharge. • Residential Landscape Irrigation Percolation Losses. Similar to the wastewater irrigation system, there will be percolation losses from residential landscape irrigation systems. A factor of 20 percent is also assumed for these losses. The total amount of residential landscape irrigation is estimated to be about 75 gpd/residential connection, or roughly 2,175 gpd on average for the 29 market rate units; this equates to about 2.44 AFY. At 20%, the seepage losses amount to about 0.49 AFY. Landscaping irrigation losses for the affordable multi-family housing units is assumed to be negligible. Groundwater Extraction. As presented in the Water Supply section, the estimated total annual water demand for the project is 12.18 AFY.

Based on the above assumptions and analysis the estimated annual recharge to the groundwater system under the proposed development conditions is 25.98 AFY. This represents a small increase in recharge of about 1.20 AFY over existing conditions. Table 3 Estimated Annual Groundwater Recharge – Developed Conditions Factor
Onsite Rainfall Infiltration Offsite Runoff Infiltration Wastewater Percolation • Winter Leachfield • Summer Dripfield Irrigation Seepage Losses Groundwater Extraction

Assumptions/ Calculations
(29.37 ac)(17.5”-0.875”-10.35”)(1ft/12”) (55 ac)(17.5”)(0.25)(0.95)(1 ft/12”) (4/12)(365)(6,250 gpd)/(325,851 gal/AF) (8/12)(365)(6,250 gpd)(0.20)/325,851 gal/AF) (2.44 AFY)(0.20) Per total water demand estimate Total Developed Conditions Recharge Total Existing Conditions Recharge Net Increase in Recharge

Average Annual Recharge (AFY)
15.36 19.05 2.33 0.93 0.49 (12.18) 25.98 24.78 1.20

Questa Engineering Corporation


260149_VillageParkWaterPlan / 11-27-2006

SECTION 4: NITRATE LOADING ASSESSMENT BACKGROUND One of the critical water quality concerns in the Carmel Valley, as well as throughout other areas of Monterey County, is the concentration of nitrate in groundwater. Nitrate in drinking water can have serious health effects; and it is addressed through primary drinking water standards; the limit is 45 mg/l, as NO3, and 10 mg/l, as N1. Since the Carmel Valley groundwater basin serves as a primary source of water supply for most of the Monterey Peninsula, nitrate effects from sewage disposal are of additional concern in the project area. Sewage disposal to land, along with livestock wastes and fertilizer applications on cropland and golf courses, are the principal sources of nitrate in the Carmel Valley affecting groundwater quality. In order to assure protection of groundwater resources against affects from sewage disposal, Monterey County authorized Montgomery Engineers to conduct the Carmel Valley Wastewater Study (“Wastewater Study” or “Montgomery Study”) in 1981. One of the outcomes of this study was the establishment of maximum wastewater loading rates (from septic systems) throughout the Carmel Valley to prevent groundwater nitrate concentrations from rising above a given level (30 mg/l, as NO3) that would threaten its use for drinking water. The recommendations of this study were subsequently adopted by the Monterey County Board of Supervisors, and incorporated as a policy of the Carmel Valley Master Plan. The Montgomery Study divided the Carmel Valley into 48 hydrologic sub-basins to simplify the accounting of nitrate loads and projected effects on water quality. Within each sub-basin geographical areas were defined based on soil, hydrologic and topographic factors; and recommended maximum wastewater loading rates, in terms of gallons per day (gpd) per acre, were assigned. The assigned loading rates vary from 80 to 300 gpd per acre. These are understood to represent the subsurface discharge of septic tank effluent, with a corresponding total nitrogen concentration averaging 40 mg/l (as N). The allowable daily discharge rate (in gpd) multiplied by the estimated total nitrogen concentration of the septic effluent (mg/l), thus, yields the allowable mass loading of nitrate in each geographical area and sub-basin. In applying these nitrate loading criteria two other assumptions embodied in the Montgomery Study should be noted: • • Average residential wastewater flow (estimated to be about 250 gpd), as opposed to maximum design flow, was assumed for the nitrate loading study. The nitrate loading rates assume exclusively rural residential land uses with a nominal amount of landscaping and domestic animals. They do not anticipate or account for agricultural operations or golf courses and their corresponding nitrate load associated


Note: 1.0 mg/l, as N is equal to 4.43 mg/l, as NO3.

Questa Engineering Corporation


260149_VillageParkWaterPlan / 11-27-2006

with fertilizer applications. Therefore, where golf course or agricultural uses occur along with residential development, these additional nitrate contributions should be determined and included for comparison with the nitrate loading allocation indicated in the Montgomery Study. This has been done for other projects in the Carmel Valley (e.g., Cañada Woods North). However, for the Village Park and Commons project there are no other proposed uses with significant nitrate contributions. In addition to Carmel Valley nitrate loading criteria, region-wide and site specific nitrate criteria of the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) must also be complied with for any new wastewater facilities. The RWQCB=s Basin Plan specifies a maximum nitrogen loading of 40 grams (g) per acre per day fro community wastewater facilities, which equates roughly to a density of one house per acre. In establishing final Waste Discharge Requirements, the RWQCB would also examine the localized nitrate impacts on groundwater quality from a central wastewater treatment-disposal facility, such as that which will serve the Village Park and Commons project, to assure against adverse impacts to drinking water supplies in the immediate vicinity of the project. Finally, in 1991 Monterey County adopted Code Chapter 15.23, which sets limits on the nitratenitrogen discharges from sewage treatment and wastewater reclamation facilities in the County. The code requires demonstration that the net impact on groundwater quality from wastewater disposal not exceed 6 mg/l nitrate-nitrogen. This requirement does not apply to septic disposal systems. The wastewater system for the proposed project would be classified as a community sewage treatment system and, therefore, would fall under the requirements of Code Chapter 15.23. CUMULATIVE GROUNDWATER NITRATE IMPACT The Village Park and Commons project spans two of the hydrologic sub-basins defined in the Carmel Valley Wastewater Study; these are sub-basins 6 and 9. In circumstances such as this, where the two sub-basins are hydrologically contiguous, the Monterey County Health Department has held that the nitrate loading “allocation”, as defined in the Wastewater Study, can be transferred between the two sub-basins for the specific development area under consideration. This policy is based upon correspondence from Montgomery Engineers, the authors of the Carmel Valley Wastewater Study. A copy of the correspondence indicating the applicability of this policy to sub-basins 6 and 9 is provided in Appendix A. Following is the analysis of nitrate loading to verify compliance with the limits specified in the Carmel Valley Wastewater Study and the Basin Plan. 1. Approach. The procedures for determining the nitrate loading from the proposed project and comparing them with the limitations as set forth in the Montgomery Study were as follows: • Determine the mass nitrate-nitrogen loading (in grams/day) for the entire property based on the acreage and assigned wastewater loading rates shown on the Carmel

Questa Engineering Corporation


260149_VillageParkWaterPlan / 11-27-2006

Valley Wastewater Study map adopted by Monterey County. The portion of the map covering the Village Park and Commons project is shown in Appendix C. • Determine the total mass loading of nitrate-nitrogen (also in grams/day) from wastewater dispersal. This has two components: (1) for approximately 4 months of the year the treated water will be directed to the community leachfield where minimal nitrogen removal (10%) will occur in the soils; (2) for approximately 8 months of the year the treated water will be used for subsurface drip irrigation of common landscaped areas, where significant (approximately 40%) nitrogen removal will occur through plant uptake and soil denitrification in the root zone. Compare the total estimated nitrate loading from wastewater disposal with the allowable loading as permitted by (a) the Carmel Valley Wastewater Study and (b) Basin Plan criteria.

2. Assumptions. The following assumptions were made in carrying out this nitrate loading analysis: • • Design daily wastewater flow is 12,000 gpd; Total nitrogen concentration in septic tank effluent (per Carmel Valley Wastewater Study assumptions) is estimated to be 40 mg/l; and this is expected to convert entirely to nitrate through percolation below leachfield systems; Total nitrogen concentration in effluent from the proposed tertiary treatment facility is 8 mg/l; Nitrate-nitrogen removal rate achieved through leachfield disposal is estimated to be 10% of the applied nitrate-nitrogen Nitrate-nitrogen removal rate achieved through subsurface drip irrigation-dispersal of tertiary treated water is estimated to be 40% of the applied nitrate-nitrogen.

• • •

3. Calculations. The calculations of the projected nitrate-nitrogen loading from the proposed project are included in Attachment B. In summary, they show the following: • Project Nitrate Loading: From leachfield usage: 4 months @ 327 gm/day = 39,243 gm From drip irrigation-disposal: 8 months @ 218 gm/day = 53,414 gm Total Annual Loading 92,657 gm Average Daily Loading 254 gm/day

Questa Engineering Corporation


260149_VillageParkWaterPlan / 11-27-2006

Project Loading as compared with Carmel Valley, Basin Plan and Monterey Code Chapter 15.23 Criteria: Carmel Valley Criteria: Basin Plan Criteria: 254/309 = 82% of the allowable loading 254/1,175 = 22% of the allowable loading

Projected net impact on nitrate-nitrogen concentration in groundwater due to onsite percolation of treated wastewater: Monterey County Code Chapter 15.23: (5.2 mg/L)/(6.0 mg/L) = 87% of limit

REFERENCES 1. Broadbent, F.E. and H.M. Reisenauer. "Fate of Wastewater Constituents in Soil and Groundwater: Nitrogen and Phosphorus, "Irrigation with Reclaimed Municipal Wastewater." G. Pettygrove and T. Asano, eds., California State Water Resources Control Board Report Number 84-1 wr, July 1984. California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Coast Region, Resolution 8312, Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, December 1983. Lance, J. C. July, Nitrogen Removal by Soil Mechanisms. Journal of Water Pollution Control Federation, Vol. 44, No. 7., 1972. Monterey County Health Department, Monterey County Code Chapter 15.20 - Sewage Disposal, 1985, and Chapter 15.23-Sewage Treatment and Reclamation Facilities, 1991. Montgomery Engineers, Inc., Carmel Valley Wastewater Study, February 1982. National Academy of Sciences. Nitrates: An Environmental Assessment: A report by Panel on Nitrates of the Coordinating Committee for Scientific and Technical Assessments of Environmental Pollutants. Washington, D.C., 1978. Planning Analysis Development. Subsequent Carmel Valley Master Plan - Draft Environmental Impact Report, Monterey County EIR No. 85-002, May 1986. U.S. EPA. October, 1980. Design Manual On-Site Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater, October 1977.

2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

7. 8. 9.

Questa Engineering Corporation


260149_VillageParkWaterPlan / 11-27-2006


Walker, W.G., et al. Nitrogen Transformation During Subsurface Disposal of Septic Tank Effluent in Sands: II. Ground Water Quality. J. Environmental Quality, Vol. 2, No. 4., 1973. Water Pollution Control Federation. Alternative Sewer Systems, Manual of Practice No. FD-12, Facilities Development, 1986.


Questa Engineering Corporation


260149_VillageParkWaterPlan / 11-27-2006

SECTION 5: GROUNDWATER MOUNDING ANALYSIS FOR COMMUNITY LEACHFIELD INTRODUCTION Groundwater mounding will occur to some degree under any large or concentrated group of leachfield systems. The analysis presented here is to demonstrate that mounding under the proposed disposal area for the community leachfield system will not reach a critical or unacceptable level that will interfere with either: (1) the normal drainage of water away from the disposal area; (2) the treatment effectiveness of the soil beneath the leaching trenches; or (3) significant rise in groundwater levels at neighboring properties downslope of the leachfield area. The groundwater mounding analysis is presented here for the community leachfield proposed to be located on the eastern end of the project site. The leachfield will be used primarily during the wet season (December-March), which corresponds with the period when groundwater levels are typically highest. During the dry season the treated water will be used for subsurface drip irrigation-disposal in common landscaped areas of the site. Groundwater mounding is not a concern for the drip dispersal operations, since the applied water will be lost primarily to vegetative uptake (evapotranspiration) and this will take place during the dry season when the water table is naturally at its lowest levels. METHODOLOGY The groundwater mounding calculations utilize Darcy’s Law (Q = KIA) for the case of lateral hillside groundwater flow (see Appendix D). This situation is considered most representative of the site conditions in the disposal areas as determined from field investigations. DATA AND ASSUMPTIONS The key data and assumptions utilized in this analysis are as follows: 1. Flow Rate (Q). For this analysis, the flow rate, Q, is assumed to be equal to the average sustained wastewater flow that will be discharged to the leachfield during the wet season. This is estimated to be about 160 gpd per residence, or about 6,250 gpd for the 39 proposed residences. This equates to 836 ft3/day. This flow rate is less than the system design flow rate for the treatment plant and leachfield sizing, which is assumed to be 12,000 gpd (see Wastewater Treatment and Disposal System Report by Allied Engineers, Inc.). The design wastewater flow rate of 12,000 gpd accounts for maximum daily flows which the facilities must accommodate, whereas the groundwater system responds much more slowly to the average percolating wastewater flow over a period of many days or weeks.

Questa Engineering Corporation


260149_VillageParkWaterPlan / 11-27-2006

2. Gradient (I). The water table gradient is assumed to be equal to the slope of the surface of the fractured shale formation beneath the site. This is the most likely area for localized saturation (and groundwater mounding) to occur. Based on the hydrogeologic crosssection prepared by Fugro West, Inc. (see Appendix D), the surface of the geologic contact between fractured shale and the overlying older alluvium at the project site is approximately 6% (0.06 ft/ft). 3. Hydraulic Conductivity (K). Horizontal hydraulic conductivity (i.e., permeability) is used in Darcy’s Law for estimation of lateral hillside flow. Ideally, values for K should be estimated from insitu bail tests. However, this requires the presence of saturated soil conditions (i.e., groundwater), which have not been observed in the proposed disposal area. The January 1999 wet weather soil/groundwater investigation found dry conditions in all test holes except two (#2 and #23) where seepage was noted at depths of 21.7’ and 13.7’, respectively. An alternative approximation of K is possible from percolation test data. The data for the 10-ft-deep percolation tests provides the most representative measure of permeability in the deeper soil zones where saturated groundwater flow will occur. The average percolation rate at these depths was 4 inches per hour, which corresponds roughly to a hydraulic conductivity of 8 feet per day for use in the Darcy equation See “Carmel Valley Vintage Airfield Sewage Disposal Study” by Environmental Concepts for percolation data. 4. Cross-Section Area (A). In the Darcy equation, the cross-section area (A) for groundwater flow is equal to the depth (D) of saturation times the length (L) across the slope through which the water can be expected to travel. For this analysis, the depth of flow is calculated from the assumed/estimated values for Q, I, K and L. The calculated value for D can then be compared with the available depth of “unsaturated” soil below the proposed subsurface drip irrigation trenches in order to determine if an adequate depth of unsaturated soil will be maintained below the leaching trenches. The crosssection flow length for the leachfield area is approximately 1,000 feet; this assumes that the leachfield system will be spread over the entire length of the available area set aside for wastewater disposal. 5. Relationship to Background Groundwater Conditions. The predicted groundwater rise (i.e., mounding) is in addition to any existing background groundwater condition observed through wet weather field investigations. For the project site, the January 1999 field investigation by Environmental Concepts revealed two isolated locations of groundwater “seepage” in test holes #2 (21.7’) and #23 (13.7’). Five other test holes spread throughout the proposed leachfield area showed dry soils to a depth of 22 feet. Therefore, it is assumed that the depth to groundwater during the wet season is 22 feet or greater. CALCULATIONS Using Darcy’s Law and the above-stated data and assumptions, the calculation of the groundwater mounding rise and predicted net separation to groundwater is summarized in Table 4 below. The analysis indicates a potential water table rise of about 2.0 feet beneath the

Questa Engineering Corporation


260149_VillageParkWaterPlan / 11-27-2006

community leachfield area. With the background water table at a depth of at least 22 feet and 5foot deep leaching trenches, the projected net separation to the mounded groundwater table is estimated to be 15 feet. This is 5 feet more than the required 10-ft separation per Monterey County regulations. Table 4 Summary of Groundwater Mounding Calculations
Parameter Design Flow, W • gpd • ft3/day Hydraulic Conductivity, K (ft/day) Leach Field Cross-Section Length, L (feet) Water Table Slope, I (ft/ft) Predicted Groundwater Rise, D feet Total Unsaturated Soil Depth (feet) Predicted Depth to Mounded Groundwater (feet) Trench Bottom Depth (feet) Predicted Net Separation to Groundwater (feet) Required Separation (feet) Safety Factor (feet)

Value 6,250 836 8.0 1,000 0.06

2.0 22.0 20.0 5.0 15.0 10.0 5.0

D = (Q)/(K*I*L) = (836)/(8.0)(0.06)(1,000) = 1.74’, say 2.0’

OFFSITE IMPLICATIONS Based on the preceding analysis, a projected water table depth of 20 feet below ground surface at the downslope (southerly) boundary of the community leachfield site would not pose a significant constraint for the existing or future use of onsite leachfield systems for properties bordering the project in the area of Poppy Road and Flight Road. In terms of overall effects on groundwater levels in the project area, the water balance analysis in Section 3 of this report estimates a potential increase in groundwater recharge of 1.2 acre-feet per year over the 29.37-acre project site. This equates to 0.04 feet (0.5 inches) averaged over the project site, or about 3 to 4 inches of water table rise (worst case), assuming a specific yield of 0.15. This is insignificant and would not cause any impact on water table conditions at neighboring properties.

Questa Engineering Corporation


260149_VillageParkWaterPlan / 11-27-2006





Table B-1 Rainfall-Evapotranspiration Data for Carmel Valley (inches)
Month January February March April May June July August September October November December Total ETo 1.86 2.24 3.41 4.80 5.58 6.30 6.51 6.20 4.80 3.72 2.40 1.85 49.67 Rainfall 3.46 3.04 2.65 1.43 0.32 0.11 0.03 0.07 0.17 0.70 2.20 3.30 17.48 Net ET 1.86 2.24 2.65 1.43 0.32 0.11 0.03 0.07 0.17 0.70 2.20 1.85 13.63



VILLAGE PARK AND COMMONS NITRATE LOADING CALCULATIONS NITRATE LOADING ASSUMPTIONS • • • • • • Total nitrogen in septic tank effluent: 40 mg/l Total nitrogen in tertiary treated effluent: 8 mg/l Nitrogen reduction through leachfield disposal: 10% Nitrogen reduction through subsurface drip irrigation-disposal: 40% Onsite wastewater recharge area = project site = 29.37 acres Average annual rainfall recharge: 17.5” rainfall – 5% runoff – 12” ET = 3.75 inches/yr

CARMEL VALLEY WASTEWATER STUDY CRITERIA • Nitrogen Allocation to Sub-basins 6 and 9 Wastewater Discharge via Leachfields: Sub-basin 6: 12 acres @ 170 gpd/ac = Sub-basin 9: 17 acres @ 0 gpd/ac = Total = 2,040 gpd 0 gpd 2,040 gpd


Implied Mass Nitrogen Loading: (2,040 gpd) (40 mg/l) (3.785 l/gal) / 1,000 mg/gm = 309 gm/d

REGIONAL BOARD BASIN PLAN NITRATE CRITERIA • • Limit: 40 gm/acre per day Allocation to Village Park and Commons property 29.37 acres @ 40 g/acre-day = 1,175 gm/day

NITRATE LOADING FOR PROPOSED PROJECT CONDITIONS • Leachfield disposal component: Leachfield disposal period: 120 days Daily wastewater volume: 12,000 gpd Total wastewater discharge during leachfield disposal period: 12,000 gpd * 120 days = 1,440,000 gal Nitrate-nitrogen concentration of percolating wastewater: (8 mg-N/L) (1-0.10) = 7.2 mg-N/L Mass Loading of Nitrate-Nitrogen: Total: (1,440,000 gal)(7.2 mg-N/L)(3.785 liters/gal/(1,000 mg/g) = 39,243 gm Average daily loading: 39,243/120 = 327 gm/day

Subsurface drip irrigation-disposal component: Drip irrigation-disposal period: 245 days Daily wastewater volume: 12,000 gpd Total wastewater discharge during drip irrigation-disposal period: 12,000 gpd * 245 days = 2,940,000 gal Nitrate-nitrogen concentration of percolating wastewater: (8 mg-N/L) (1-0.40) = 4.8 mg-N/L Mass Loading of nitrate-nitrogen: Total: (2,940,000 gal)(4.8 mg-N/L)(3.785 liters/gal/(1,000 mg/g) = 53,414 gm Average daily loading: 53,414/245 = 218 gm/day

Total Mass Loading of nitrate-nitrogen: Annual total: 39,243 + 53,414 = 92,657 gm Average daily loading: 92,657 gmd/365 days = 254 gm/day

Average daily loading rate per acre = 254 gm/29.37 acres = 8.6 gm acre/day • Percentage of Established Criteria: Carmel Valley Wastewater Study: Regional Water Board Criteria: 254 gm/309 gm 254 gm/1,175 gm = 82% = 22%

ESTIMATED NET NITRATE-NITROGEN IMPACT ON GROUNDWATER Net nitrate-nitrogen impact on groundwater is estimated from the following water-chemical mass balance equation: NC = [(NW)(WL)(1-DP)] + [(NW)(WD)(1-DDI)] +[(NB)(R)] (WL + WDI + R) Where: NC = Resultant concentration of nitrate-nitrogen in percolating water (mg-N/L) NW = Total nitrogen concentration in treated wastewater = 8.0 mg-N/L NB = Background nitrate-nitrogen concentration in percolating rainfall-recharge = 0.5 mgN/L (per water quality test results for onsite well) WL = Total annual wastewater percolation from discharge to community leachfield for 4 months of the year = 1,440,000 gallons = 4.4 acre-feet/year WD = Total annual wastewater discharge to subsurface drip irrigation field for 8 months of the year = 2,940,000 gallons = 9.0 acre-feet/year WDI = Total annual wastewater percolation below drip irrigation field at 20% seepage losses = (9.0 acre-feet)(0.20) = 1.8 acre-feet/year R = Average annual recharge from onsite percolation of rainfall on project site = (29.37 acre)(3.75 inches/year)(1”/12”) = 9.2 acre-feet/year DL = Denitrification rate for percolating wastewater below leachfield = 0.10 DI = Nitrate uptake/denitrification/rate for percolating wastewater in drip irrigation field = 0.40 Calculation: NC = [(8.0)(4.4)(1-0.10)] + [(8.0)(9.0)(1-0.40)] +[(0.5)(9.2)] = 5.2 mg/L (4.4 + 1.8 + 9.2)



Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful