Agenda

Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority (MPRWA)
Director's Meeting

7:00 PM, Thursday, August 10, 2017
Council Chambers
580 Pacific Street, Monterey
Monterey, California

CALL TO ORDER

ROLL CALL

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

REPORTS FROM BOARD DIRECTORS AND STAFF

PUBLIC COMMENTS
PUBLIC COMMENTS allows you, the public, to speak for a maximum of three minutes on any
subject which is within the jurisdiction of the MPRWA and which is not on the agenda. Any person
or group desiring to bring an item to the attention of the Authority may do so by addressing the
Authority during Public Comments or by addressing a letter of explanation to: MPRWA, Attn:
Monterey City Clerk, 580 Pacific St, Monterey, CA 93940. The appropriate staff person will contact
the sender concerning the details.

CONSENT AGENDA
CONSENT AGENDA consists of those items which are routine and for which a staff
recommendation has been prepared. A member of the public or MPRWA Director may request
that an item be placed on the regular agenda for further discussion

1. Approval of Minutes from June 8, 2017 - Romero

2. Approve and File Authority Checks Through July 31, 2017 - Romero/Cullem

3. Receive Report and Approve a Joint Meeting in September or October with the Monterey
Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD) - Cullem

4. Receive Report on the Statements of Issues Forwarded to the CPUC on June 30, 2017
and Comments Forwarded on July 11, 2017 - Cullem

5. Receive Status Report Water Authority Efforts to Facilitate a Settlement Agreement
between the City of Marina/ Marina Coast Water District and Cal Am on the Monterey
Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP) - Cullem

6. Receive Report on a Electrical Resistivity Tomography Survey (AEM/ERT) of Groundwater
Salinity Levels along the Marina Portion of the Monterey Bay Coastline - Cullem

***End of Consent Agenda***
Thursday, August 10, 2017
AGENDA ITEMS

7. Receive an Update on the Pure Water Monterey (PWM) / Groundwater Replenishment
(GWR) Project - McCullough/Scuito

8. Receive Report, Provide Staff Direction, and Conduct Conference Call with Authority
Special Counsel on Upcoming CPUC Hearings and Activities Involving Special Counsel -
Freeman

9. Receive and Discuss the Geosyntec Report on Groundwater and Hydrogeologic Impacts,
Including Modeling Issues, Raised by the Marina Coast Water District (MCWD) in its
Comments on the MPWSP DEIR/DEIS; Receive Comments from the Technical Advisory
Committee on the Report; and Provide Staff Direction - Cullem

10. Receive an Update on the Summary Project Schedule for the Monterey Peninsula Water
Supply Project (MPWSP) and the Status of Test Slant Well Operations - Cook

ADJOURNMENT

The City of Monterey is committed to including the disabled in all of its services, programs and
activities. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance
to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (831) 646-3935.
Notification 30 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements
to ensure accessibility to this meeting [28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II]. Later requests will
be accommodated to the extent feasible. For communication-related assistance, dial 711 to use
the California Relay Service (CRS) to speak to City offices. CRS offers free text-to-speech, speech-
to-speech, and Spanish-language services 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. If you require a hearing
amplification device to attend a meeting, dial 711 to use CRS to talk to the City Clerk's Office at
(831) 646-3935 to coordinate use of a device.

Agenda related writings or documents provided to the MPRWA are available for public
inspection during the meeting or may be requested from the Monterey City Clerk’s Office at 580
Pacific St, Room 6, Monterey, CA 93940. This agenda is posted in compliance with California
Government Code Section 54954.2(a) or Section 54956.

2
M I N U TE S
MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA)
Director's Meeting
7:00 PM, Thursday, June 8, 2017
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
580 PACIFIC STREET, MONTEREY
MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA

Directors Present: Director Carbone, Director Dallas, Director Edelen, Director Roberson,
Director Rubio, President Kampe
Directors Absent: None

Staff Present: Executive Director Cullem, Legal Counsel Don Freeman, Clerk Romero

CALL TO ORDER

President Kampe called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm.

ROLL CALL

Director Roberson arrived at 7:07pm. Don Freeman was present via speakerphone during the
meeting.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

REPORTS FROM BOARD DIRECTORS AND STAFF

Executive Director Cullem reported that California American Water’s (Cal Am) current schedule
has been distributed to the Directors and may be pulled from consent if more information is
requested, and that Chuck Chech provided a written public comment which was also distributed
to the Directors. President Kampe gave an update that MPRWA is currenlty in discussion with
Marina Coast Water District (MCWD) regarding a potential collaboration with water assets of
MCWD and the Peninsula being joined for mutual benefit as well as supplemental sources
which will help meet Cease and Desist Order (CDO) requirements. He added that collaboration
with MCWD in the long term is also being discussed, although MCWD has voiced concerns
about their basin being ignored. President Kampe said that the discussions have helped to
keep MCWD’s concerns in mind. He commented that 91 parties have commented on the draft
environmental impact report (DEIR). Executive Director Cullem reminded the public that Mr.
Van Der Maaten, MCWD General Manager, has been an active Technical Advisory Committee
(TAC) member for the past 2 years and has been providing input from MCWD. He also
requested that item #6 be moved ahead of item #5 due to a presentation.

PUBLIC COMMENTS:
• Tom Rowley, Monterey Peninsula Taxpayers Association (MPTA), spoke about
problems with water in Honolulu, Hawaii. He voiced concerns with the quality of the
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP) schedule on the video recording of
MPRWA meetings.

• Mr. Malik, requested that the Authority be flexible with their support of Cal Am and to
consider other water supply projects that may cost less, such as public ownership of
water.
MPRWA Minutes Thursday, June 8, 2017

CONSENT AGENDA

On a motion by Director Edelen, seconded by Director Rubio, and carried by the following vote,
the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority Approved the Consent Agenda:
AYES: 6 DIRECTORS: Carbone, Dallas, Edelen, Roberson, Rubio, Kampe
NOES: 0 DIRECTORS: None
ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: None
ABSTAIN: 0 DIRECTORS: None
RECUSED: 0 DIRECTORS: None

1. Approval of Minutes from May 11, 2017
Action: Approved

2. Approve and File Authority Checks through May 31, 2017
Action: Approved

3. Receive Update on SPI (Geosyntec) and Staff Review of Comments Received on the MPWSP
DEIR/DEIS
Action: Received report

4. Receive an Update on the Summary Project Schedule for the Monterey Peninsula Water
Supply Project (MPWSP) and the Status of Test Slant Well Operations
Action: Received update

***End of Consent Agenda***

AGENDA ITEMS

5. Receive Report on Current Water Authority Work Plan and Policy Statement, Discuss, and
Provide Staff Direction
Action: Received report and discussed; no changes made at this time

Executive Director Cullem said that the policy position statement (attachment B) should be
reviewed and discussed periodically by the Authority. Don Freeman, via conference call, said
that the Authority would have to obtain approval from all represented agencies before
amending the the JPA mission statement. Executive Director Cullem pointed out that the policy
position statement includes wording that says "should Deep Water Desal (DWD) or Peoples
Moss Landing (PML) project become viable...." so the public should be aware that the Authority
is open to other projects besides Cal Am.

President Kampe briefly summarized the MPRWA Workplan Priority Ranking Draft (attachment
A) saying that there are a number of completed tasks, and the rest are a reminder of what still
needs to be addressed. President Kampe asked Don what would need to be done to expand
the Authority’s role, and Don responded that it would need to be agendized at a future meeting
to discuss.

Director Rubio requested that any policy position mission statement amendments be continued
because the Directors have enough to focus on at this time, and should not get involved in
mission creep. Director Roberson voiced agreement with Rubio not to re-evaluate the mission

Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority
Director's Meeting Minutes - Thursday, June 8, 2017
2
MPRWA Minutes Thursday, June 8, 2017

statement at this time. He also pointed out that item #9 of the policy says "obtain various City
permits" which is not within the scope of the Authority and should not be considered a workplan
priority. President Kampe said that the intent of the workplan is to show which agencies are
involved in the various steps of the project, not necessarily what the Authority is responsible for.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

• Tom Rowley, MPTA, complimented the Authority on keeping its focus on the supplying
water to the public. He commented that the Authority.....get involved in water
management district. He also said that NOAA has approved two additional fees for
ratepayers? He said the price tag for ratepayers keeps going up.

• George Riley, commented that the Authority policy mission statement contains 8
requirements for the water supply project. He wanted to point out that the large
settlement agreement is a shell of what it was and circumstances have changed since
the 8 requirements were created.

• Jan Shriner, Marina resident, said the water management district has been doing
positive things for the community. She spoke about Cemex and sand mining which was
a recent topic in a Marina Council meeting. She appreciates that the Authority does
consider other projects besides Cal am.

President Kampe responded to Ms. Shriner’s comment by stating that earlier in the meeting he
reported that the Authority is already in collaboration with Marina Coast Water District. He also
reiterated that the Authority's mission is securing a water supply for the peninsula, not to ensure
public ownership of the water district.

Director Roberson responded to Ms. Shriner’s comment saying that the Monterey City Council
submitted a letter months ago to the Coastal Commission asking them to study and analyze
sand erosion by Cemex, and said that it's up to the individual jurisdictions to respond to this
problem with Cemex. He also said that the Herald article that accused the Mayors of not
supporting putting a stop to Cemex was misleading. Director Carbone said that the Sand City
also sent a letter to the Coastal Commission regarding Cemex and sand erosion.

President Kampe asked if the board would like to agendize re-evaluation of the mission
statement at a future meeting. Director Edelen and Carbone requested holding off on re-
evaluating the mission statement. Director Dallas said that there should be collaboration with
the Authoirty, Marina Coast Water District, and the Water Management District to come up with
a backup plan if the MPWSP fails. President Kampe summarized that the overall consensus of
the Authority is to not re-evaluate the mission statement at this time. No action taken at this
time.

6. Receive Update, Discuss, and Provide Staff Direction on the People's Moss Landing Desal
Project
Action: Received update and discussed; requested future updates from People’s Moss
Landing

Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority
Director's Meeting Minutes - Thursday, June 8, 2017
3
MPRWA Minutes Thursday, June 8, 2017

Paul Moncreef, representative from People's Moss Landing Project (PML), introduced David
Balch, who gave an update on the current status of the PML project:

Ø PML is working on extending leases between the Harbor District and the Moss Landing
Commercial Property for outfall pipeline.

Ø The PML EIR is reviewing different types of intake, however, Harbor water is probably
not feasible with the Coastal Commission, so they are still looking at other options such
as open ocean intake.

Ø Aspen, an environmental group, will peer review the PML DEIR. The DEIR is estimated
to be ready by December 2017, and approved by summer, 2018.

Ø The project permit process will take about 1 year, with some overlap during the time that
the DEIR is approved.

Ø Estimated February 2021 for delivery of water. The schedule is about 1 year behind due
to waiting to find out what type of intake technology the Coastal Commission will deem
feasible.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

• Jan Shriner, resident of Marina, said that the State of California is telling the public that
aquifers will never be needed and Marina is building a desal plant. She voiced concern
about this spread of misinformation and said she hopes the Authority will help set the
record straight.

Director Rubio asked Mr. Balch if there are any conflicts of interest between Aspen and PML
and Mr. Balch responded that Aspen has already been involved in the PML DEIR process,
vetted, and found to not have any conflicts with the project.

Mr. Balch said that Poseidon has already been working on getting approval for open ocean
intake, and the hope is that if the Coastal Commission will approve this technology so that PML
will be able to move forward. He added that the PML DEIR hinges on what type of intake
technology is approved by the Coastal Commission.

Director Rubio asked about the overall schedule for PML, and Mr. Balch responded that they
are looking at alternative intake strategies which has pushed back their water delivery date to
2021.

Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority
Director's Meeting Minutes - Thursday, June 8, 2017
4
MPRWA Minutes Thursday, June 8, 2017

Director Rubio asked about the financial cost of the Peoples Moss Landing project. Mr. Balch
responded that it will cost an estimated $2100 per acre foot of water delivered, and total project
cost is $240 million using conservative estimates. He said that although PML cost is lower
overall than Cal Am’s project, the project that will ultimately move forward is the one which has
the ability to deliver water the soonest.

Director Edelen commented that PML is making progress, however Cal Am's project is
scheduled to be completed 1 year sooner than Peoples Moss Landing, and he would like more
information next time to convince the Authority of why the PML project is better and should be
considered. Mr. Balch responded that according to the Coastal Commission, Moss Landing's
project has the preferred location for a desal plant in Monterey County, and added that it
remains to be seen if the Coastal Commission will approve slant well and subsurface
technology.

Director Rubio made a statement that the Authority has consistently made an effort to look at
the feasibility of all of the different water supply projects in the area, and not only Cal Am’s
project.

Director Dallas commented that up until now PML hasn't provided a substantial update on the
project in the past year and going forward would like more updates for the Authority on the
status. Mr. Balch agreed and said he would like to be able to bring more information to future
meetings. President Kampe thanked Mr. Balch for coming in with an update and questioned
what the public ownership plan is for PML. Mr. Balch responded that the ownership model will
be a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) of stakeholders and public ownership; however, the potential
stakeholders want to see the PML EIR first. Mr. Balch stated that he appreciates the Authority's
interest in PML project and their continuous consideration and evaluation of their project.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

• Tom Rowley, MPTA, commented that there are different intake technologies being
pursued by the various desal projects as they wait for the Coastal Commission to make
a decision on what they will deem feasible.

• Mr. Malik reminded the Directors that PML is self funded, and although they have had
some setbacks Cal Am’s project has also had several delays and should be held
accountable as well.

No action was taken on this item; received update and discussed.

7. Elect Water Authority Board Officers for FY 2017-2018
Action: Elected Kampe as President, Rubio as Vice President, Edelen as Treasurer, and
Carbone as Secretary for FY 2017-2018

Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority
Director's Meeting Minutes - Thursday, June 8, 2017
5
MPRWA Minutes Thursday, June 8, 2017

On a motion by Director Dallas, seconded by Director Rubio, and carried by the following vote,
the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority elected Director Kampe as Authority
President for FY 2017-2018:
AYES: 6 DIRECTORS: Carbone, Dallas, Edelen, Roberson, Rubio, Kampe
NOES: 0 DIRECTORS: None
ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: None
ABSTAIN: 0 DIRECTORS: None
RECUSED: 0 DIRECTORS: None

On a motion by Director Edelen, seconded by Director Dallas, and carried by the following vote,
the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority elected Director Rubio as Authority Vice
President for FY 2017-2018:
AYES: 6 DIRECTORS: Carbone, Dallas, Edelen, Roberson, Rubio, Kampe
NOES: 0 DIRECTORS: None
ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: None
ABSTAIN: 0 DIRECTORS: None
RECUSED: 0 DIRECTORS: None

On a motion by Director Rubio, seconded by Director Roberson, and carried by the following
vote, the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority elected Director Edelen as Authority
Treasurer for FY 2017-2018:
AYES: 6 DIRECTORS: Carbone, Dallas, Edelen, Roberson, Rubio, Kampe
NOES: 0 DIRECTORS: None
ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: None
ABSTAIN: 0 DIRECTORS: None
RECUSED: 0 DIRECTORS: None

On a motion by Director Kampe, seconded by Director Roberson, and carried by the following
vote, the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority elected Director Carbone as Authority
Secretary for FY 2017-2018:
AYES: 6 DIRECTORS: Carbone, Dallas, Edelen, Roberson, Rubio, Kampe
NOES: 0 DIRECTORS: None
ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: None
ABSTAIN: 0 DIRECTORS: None
RECUSED: 0 DIRECTORS: None

ADJOURNMENT

President Kampe adjourned the meeting at 8:25pm.

ATTEST:

Nova Romero, Clerk of the Authority MPRWA President

Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority
Director's Meeting Minutes - Thursday, June 8, 2017
6
Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority Date: August 10, 2017
Agenda Report Item No: 2.

FROM: Executive Director Cullem

SUBJECT: Approve and File Authority Checks Through July 31, 2017

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the Authority approve and file the accounts payable payments
made during the period July 1 through July 31, 2017, with total payments for the above
referenced period of $20,115.00 from the general fund account and authorize the
Directors to sign for such checks.

DISCUSSION:

At its meeting on September 12, 2013, the Authority Board approved a staff
recommendation to provide the Directors a listing of financial obligations since the last
report for inspection and confirmation. Each invoiced expense has been reviewed and
approved by the Executive Director and Finance personnel, as well as by the Water
Authority Treasurer and/or President as appropriate, prior to payment to insure that it
conforms to the approved budget.
The following checks are hereby submitted to the Authority for inspection and
confirmation:
• $2,500 – Don Freeman July retainer
• $4680 – Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck
• $8750 – City of Monterey, Clerk and Finance Services
• $3,705 -- Cullem Management Services, LLC, for June
• $480 – AMP Media, May and June
The bank balances as July 31, 2017, is sufficient cover the above checks, therefore
staff is recommending approval.

BUDGET UPDATE:
None

ATTACHMENTS:
None
Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority Date: August 10, 2017
Agenda Report Item No: 3.

FROM: Executive Director Cullem

SUBJECT: Receive Report and Approve a Joint Meeting in September or October
with the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD)

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the Authority Board approve a joint meeting with the MPWMD to
receive an update on the total water supply issue, on the status of compliance with CDO
2016-0060, and to discuss actions that might be appropriate in advance of possible
future public ownership of the community water system.

DISCUSSION:

Staff recommends that in light of pending action by the CPUC with respect to the
EIR/EIS and a decision on ALJ hearings, the Board of the Water Authority and the
Board of the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD) should conduct
a joint meeting in lieu of the regular September or October Water Authority Board
meeting.

A joint meeting could provide a comprehensive update on water issues of common
interest, including the status of compliance with CDO 2016-0060.

Finally, recognizing strong public interest in possible eventual public ownership of the
community's water system, both Boards could discuss public agency actions that might
be appropriate at this time.

ATTACHMENTS:
None
Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority Date: August 10, 2017
Agenda Report Item No: 4.

FROM: Executive Director Cullem

SUBJECT: Receive Report on the Statements of Issues Forwarded to the CPUC on
June 30, 2017 and Comments Forwarded on July 11, 2017

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff requests the Authority Board receive a copy of the issues submitted to the CPUC
by intervening parties as directed by the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) and comments
thereto.

DISCUSSION:

On June 9, 2017 (Attachment A), the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC)
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruled that parties (MPWSP interveners) should provide
a joint statement of issues, other than those already identified in the DEIR/DEIS
process, for further evidentiary hearings.

At the Water Authority meeting of June 22, 2017, the Board was provided with the
related ALJ Rulings concerning the above requirements, as well as a memo from
Authority Special Counsel Russ McGlothlin on recommended MPRWA issues for
submission. The Board authorized the President and/or Vice-President to represent the
Authority in all future discussions and/or negotiations on the Joint Statement of Issues.

The Joint Statement of Issues (82 entries) was submitted by intervening parties on June
30. It can be found in the Resources section of the Authority web page as "Statement
of Issues Exhibit A Draft June 28.pdf" or Exhibit A to Issues submission at
http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Efile/G000/M191/K784/191784831.PDF

Comments were not to argue the or pros/cons of the issues. They could, however,
address whether a commentator believed the issue was a legal question, covered by
CEQA, or previously decided. Consolidated comments were submitted by the MPRWA
and 6 other interveners on July 11 ( Attachment A). The details, Exhibit B to the
submission, can be found in the Resources section of the Authority web page or at
http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Efile/G000/M191/K912/191912152.PDF

ATTACHMENTS:
A- Joint Comments on Joint Statement of Issues date July 11, 2017
FILED
7-11-17
04:59 PM

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Application of California-American Water
Company (U210W) for Approval of the Application 12-04-019
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and (Filed April 23, 2012)
Authorization to Recover All Present and
Future Costs in Rates.

JOINT COMMENTS ON JOINT STATEMENT OF ISSUES

Sarah E. Leeper Bob McKenzie
Cathy Hongola-Baptista Water Issues Consultant
California American Water Coalition of Peninsula Businesses
555 Montgomery Street, Suite 816 P.O. Box 223542
San Francisco, CA 94111 Carmel, CA 93922
For: California-American Water Company For: Coalition of Peninsula Businesses
sarah.leeper@amwater.com jrbobmck@gmail.com
(415) 863-2960 (831) 596-4206

Norman C. Groot Russell M. McGlothlin
Monterey County Farm Bureau Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP
P.O. Box 1449 21 East Carrillo Street
1140 Abbott Street, Suite C Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Salinas, CA 93902-1449 For: Monterey Peninsula Regional Water
For: Monterey County Farm Bureau Authority
norm@montereycfb.com rmcglothlin@bhfs.com
(831) 751-3100 (805) 963-7000

[ADDITIONAL COUNSEL LISTED BELOW]

Dated: July 11, 2017
David C. Laredo Nancy Isakson
De Lay & Laredo President
606 Forest Avenue Salinas Valley Water Coalition
Pacific Grove, CA 93950-4221 3203 Playa Court
For: Both Monterey Peninsula Water Marina, CA 93933
Management District & City of Pacific Grove For: Salinas Valley Water Coalition
dave@laredolaw.net nisakson@mbay.net
(831) 646-1502 (831) 224-2879
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Application of California-American Water Application 12-04-019
Company (U210W) for Approval of the (Filed April 23, 2012)
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and
Authorization to Recover All Present and
Future Costs in Rates.

JOINT COMMENTS ON JOINT STATEMENT OF ISSUES

Pursuant to the Administrative Law Judge’s Ruling Requesting Parties to Identify
Issues for Further Evidentiary Hearings issued June 9, 2017 (“Ruling”), California-
American Water Company, Coalition of Peninsula Businesses, City of Pacific Grove,
Monterey County Farm Bureau, Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority,
Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, and Salinas Valley Water Coalition,
submit these comments on the Joint Statement of Issues and Exhibit A thereto
(“Statement of Issues”) filed on June 30, 2017. The parties to the Statement of Issues
reserved their right to identify their respective objections, or agreements, to the issues
identified in Exhibit A in the comments to be filed on July 11, 2017. (Statement of
Issues, p. 2.)
Attached as Exhibit B is a table in which disputes to the appropriateness for
evidentiary hearing of some of the issues raised in Exhibit A are stated. The following
parties join in all or part of the disputes stated in this table: California-American Water
Company, Coalition of Peninsula Businesses, City of Pacific Grove, Monterey County
Farm Bureau, Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority, Monterey Peninsula Water
Management District, and Salinas Valley Water Coalition.
To the extent a party does not join in all of the disputes, its name and the issues it

1
does join are stated by number below.
Monterey County Farm Bureau joins in the following line items: 8, 9, 16, 17, 19,
20, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 61, 32, 69, and 80.
Respectfully submitted,

Dated: July 11, 2017
By: /s/ Sarah E. Leeper
Sarah E. Leeper, Attorney
California-American Water Company
555 Montgomery Street, Suite 816
San Francisco, CA 94111
For: California-American Water Company

Dated: July 11, 2017
By: /s/ Bob McKenzie
Bob McKenzie
Water Issues Consultant
Coalition of Peninsula Businesses
P.O. Box 223542
Carmel, CA 93922
For: Coalition of Peninsula Businesses

Dated: July 11, 2017
By: /s/ Norman C. Groot
Norman C. Groot
Monterey County Farm Bureau
P.O. Box 1449
1140 Abbott Street, Suite C
Salinas, CA 93902-1449
For: Monterey County Farm Bureau

2
Dated: July 11, 2017
By: /s/ Russell M. McGlothlin
Russell M. McGlothlin, Attorney
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP
21 East Carrillo Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
For: Monterey Peninsula Regional Water
Authority

Dated: July 11, 2017
By: /s/ David C. Laredo
David C. Laredo, Attorney
De Lay & Laredo
606 Forest Avenue
Pacific Grove, CA 93950-4221
For: Both the Monterey Peninsula Water
Management District and the City of Pacific
Grove

Dated: July 11, 2017
By: /s/ Nancy Isakson
Nancy Isakson
Salinas Valley Water Coalition
3203 Playa Court
Marina, CA 93933
For: Salinas Valley Water Coalition

3
Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority Date: August 10, 2017
Agenda Report Item No: 5.

FROM: Executive Director Cullem

SUBJECT: Receive Status Report Water Authority Efforts to Facilitate a Settlement
Agreement between the City of Marina/ Marina Coast Water District and
Cal Am on the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP)

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the Water Authority Board receive a report on our efforts to
address the concerns of the City of Marina and the Marina Coast Water District as they
relate to the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP) and to facilitate a
settlement agreement between them and Cal Am.

DISCUSSION:

At its meeting of June 20, 2016, the Technical Advisory Committee initiated a
discussion on the concerns of the Marina Coast Water District with TAC member Keith
Van der Maaten, the General Manager of the MCWD. Since that time, the TAC, as well
as the Authority Board, has sought to remain informed on the concerns of the MCWD.

On June 8, 2017 the Board was informed that the Board Executive Group (President,
Vice President, Executive Director, Authority Attorneys) had been participating in
preliminary discussions with MCWD, the City of Marina, and other public agencies in an
effort to resolve issues related to the Cal Am desal facility, especially as noted in their
responses to the DEIR/DEIS. The intent was to include Cal Am by the end of June with
a goal of facilitating an eventual settlement agreement between Cal Am and MCWD.

On June 22, 2017, the Board formally authorized the President and Vice-President to
represent the Authority in all future discussions. Although the President and staff have
met with City of Marina and MCWD representatives, as well as with Cal Am, it appears
that the parties are not yet ready to talk directly about a settlement agreement. We will
continue to pursue the effort and hope to see some progress once the CPUC ALJ has
indicated which issues will get included in the up-coming hearings at the CPUC.

ATTACHMENTS:

None

№06/12
Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority Date: August 10, 2017
Agenda Report Item No: 6.

FROM: Executive Director Cullem

SUBJECT: Receive Report on a Electrical Resistivity Tomography Survey (AEM/ERT)
of Groundwater Salinity Levels along the Marina Portion of the Monterey
Bay Coastline

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the Water Authority Board receive a report on Marina Coast
Water District's recently completed Airborne Electromagnetic (AEM/ERT) groundwater
scans in light of the possibility that they will be referenced during the review and
comment period for the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP) EIR/EIS.

DISCUSSION:

Marina Coast Water gave a presentation on August 7 on its recent airborne
electromagnetic AEM groundwater scans. These are follow-ups to previous Electrical
Resistivity Tomography(ERT) scans that were conducted on the ground. The purpose of
the presentation was to reveal its recent May 2017 helicopter ("long offset method" )
mapping of the underground freshwater resources and any possible saltwater intrusions
into the aquifers beneath Marina. The MCWD is arguing that all findings must be
included in Cal Am's DEIR and be used to update the Cal Am slant well analysis and
data. MCWD further argues that the CPUC should evaluate this new AEM/ERT data
before moving on to agreements for a possible new and smaller slant well project in
place of the planned wells at the CEMEX location.

At the time this agenda was prepared, the AEM report was not available. When it is,
staff intends to have it be reviewed by Geosyntec under SPI's current contract change
order #6 and a report presented to the Board at a later date.

ATTACHMENTS:

None (AEM Report to be provided at the meeting if available by August 10)

№06/12
Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority Date: August 10, 2017
Agenda Report Item No: 7.

FROM: Executive Director Cullem

SUBJECT: Receive Update Presentation on PWM/GWR Status and Schedule.

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the Board of the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority
(MPRWA) receive an update on the Pure Water Monterey/Groundwater Replenishment
(PWM/GWR) project.

DISCUSSION:

The Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency (MRWPCA) has finalized its
selection of a contractor for the Pure Water Monterey (PWM)/Groundwater
Replenishment Project. MRWPCA representatives have offered to update the Water
Authority Board on the implications for the schedule and impacts on the CDO
milestones.

In addition the PCA representatives would like to further address questions as to how it
will insure the safety of recycled water that will be injected into the Seaside aquifer.

ATTACHMENTS:

None

№06/12
Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority Date: August 10, 2017
Agenda Report Item No: 8.

FROM: Executive Director Cullem

SUBJECT: Receive Report, Provide Staff Direction, and Conduct
Conference Call with Authority Special Counsel on Upcoming
CPUC Hearings and Activities Involving Special Counsel

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority
(MPRWA) conduct a conference call with our Special Counsel with respect
to participation in up-coming hearings at the California Public Utilities
Commission, with expected requirements of other State and Federal
Regulatory agencies, with respect to the updating of the existing settlement
agreements, and with respect to Water Authority efforts to facilitate a
settlement between Marina/Marina Coast Water District and Cal Am. The
Board could also provide additional staff direction if appropriate.

DISCUSSION:

Special Counsel involvement is needed on short notice in response to
actions by others who are participating in the Cal Am application process.
Other than those tasks that specifically require an attorney (eg: motions,
briefs and hearings with the CPUC and SWRCB), the Special Counsel is
involved with settling party conference calls, review of Authority
correspondence with state officials, and review of the DEIR and other
related documents.

The CPUC process, in particular hearings related to the EIR/EIS and
issuance of Cal Am's Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity
(CPCN), as well as expected future negotiations on the Settlement
Agreements will require a substantial amount of specialized legal work in
2017 and 2018.

№06/12
At attachment A is the March 30, 2017 letter from the Special Counsel
identifying what specific tasks he understands the Authority will need during
FY 2017-2018. At its meeting of April 13, 2017 the Authority Board
reviewed the tasks in order to insure that counsel is utilized where
appropriate and not tasked with work that can be completed by staff or by
less costly resources. Following discussion, the Authority extended the
contract with Brownstein through June 30, 2018 at a total fee not to exceed
$100,000.

As the new fiscal year opens, the Board should receive a conference call
update from Russ McGlothlin as to what he anticipates will be up-coming
requirements for Special Counsel services, and provide additional direction
to counsel and to staff if appropriate.

BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS:

Budgeted funds are expected to be sufficient for these legal services in the
current fiscal year. However, should legal requirements become more
demanding than currently envisioned, the Executive Director will return to
the Board for consideration of budget revisions as appropriate.

ATTACHMENTS:

A- Brownstein Letter of March 30, 2017
ATTACHMENT A

Memorandum

DATE: March 30, 2017

TO: Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority

FROM: Russell M. McGlothlin

RE: Estimated 2017-2018 Budget for Legal Services from Brownstein Hyatt Farber
Schreck

You have requested that we estimate the budget for legal services from our firm for fiscal year 2017-
2018. The attached table estimates the 2017-2018 budget for our anticipated representation of the
Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority (“Authority”) with respect to the pending application by
California American Water for issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity from the
California Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC Proceeding”) for the proposed Monterey Peninsula
Water Project (Application 12.04.012) and related matters and other Monterey Peninsula water matters
on which we may requested to assist.

Our efforts during the following fiscal year will be focused on the completion of Phase I of the CPUC
Proceeding (i.e., CPUC approval of the desalination project). The significant issues/work with respect to
this effort include amendment of the Large Settlement Agreement, review of the final DEIR/DEIS,
Phase I briefing, likely supplemental hearings, and comments on the proposed decision prior to action
by the Commission. The current schedule for the CPUC Proceeding anticipates the release of a
proposed decision on Phase I in the first half of 2018, which would fall within next year’s legal budget.

The table below estimates the budget for the principal categories of work that we anticipate in 2017-
2018 and is segregated by quarter. Estimated work may move between quarters depending on
schedule of the CPUC Proceeding and other developments. Additional work beyond the matters listed
may necessitate expenditures beyond those estimated below. The variance between the low and high
estimates reflects the inherent uncertainty concerning the scope of necessary work. Where possible
and appropriate, we will seek to coordinate with other entities (e.g., Cal-Am and MPWMD) to ensure
efficient and cost-effective representation.

015621\0002\15569400.1
Estimated Budget for CPUC A.12.04.019 and SWRCB CDO (July 2017-June 2018)

Task/Matter Quarter Low High

Prepare for and Attend Calls/Meetings with Settling Parties 3 $3,000 $5,000
General Case/Matter Management Issues 3 $7,000 $10,000

Subtotal Q3 2017 $10,000 $15,000

Prepare for and Attend Calls/Meetings with Settling Parties 4 $3,000 $5,000
Review, Correspondence, and Comments re Final DEIR/DEIS 4 $4,000 $7,000
General Case/Matter Management Issues 4 $7,000 $10,000
Subtotal Q4 2017 $14,000 $22,000

Prepare for and Attend Calls/Meetings with Settling Parties 1 $3,000 $5,000
Prepare for and Attend Possible (Not Certain) Supplemental
2 $17,000 $30,000
Hearings
Opening Brief 1 $7,000 $12,000
Reply Brief 1 $5,000 $10,000
General Case/Matter Management Issues 1 $7,000 $10,000
Subtotal Q1 2018 $39,000 $67,000

Prepare for and Attend Calls/Meetings with Settling Parties 2 $3,000 $5,000
Review and Prepare Comments on Proposed Decision 2 $7,000 $12,000
General Case/Matter Management Issues 2 $7,000 $10,000
Subtotal Q1 2018 $17,000 $27,000

Total 2017-2018 $80,000 $131,000

2
015621\0002\15569400.1
Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority Date: August 10, 2017
Agenda Report Item No: 9.

FROM: Executive Director Cullem

SUBJECT: Receive and Discuss the Geosyntec Report on Groundwater and
Hydrogeologic Impacts, Including Modeling Issues, Raised by the Marina
Coast Water District (MCWD) in its Comments on the MPWSP
DEIR/DEIS; Receive Comments from the Technical Advisory
Committee on the Report; and Provide Staff Direction

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the Water Authority receive and discuss the attached report
from Geosyntec, including comments from the TAC, on issues raised by MCWD with
respect to the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project MPWSP DEIR/DEIS, and
provide staff direction.

DISCUSSION:

Interested parties were required to provide comments on the MPWSP DEIR/DEIS to
the CPUC by March 29, 2017. Accordingly, the Water Authority Board approved a
contract change order with Separation Processes, Inc.(SPI) and its sub-consultant
Geosyntec to review the DEIR/DEIS and provide an independent analysis of the intake
structures and brine disposal in advance of MPRWA comments on the documents.

In April 2017 a review of the submissions to the CPUC identified a number of issues
raised by the MCWD and the City of Marina that suggested an independent analysis
would better inform the Board and the public. Accordingly, at its meeting of May 13,
2017, the Board approved change order #6 to the SPI contract to have Geosyntec
expand its analysis to conduct a "high-level review of the MCWD comments reference
groundwater/hydrogeologic impacts from the MPWMD source water wells", in particular:

1) MCWD letter pgs 1-4, 7-8, sections C.1 (pg 50-54) and C.2 pgs 55 -64

2) HGC Comments on pgs 1-8, and comments #23-28, #31, #35, #38, & #39

3) GeoHydros Comments- all

4) EKI Comments- parag #5

№06/12
Geosyntec was also tasked to review and comment on the California Unions For
Reliable Energy’s Comments concerning the vertical infiltration rates to the source wells
at pages 38-41 of their comment letter and the supporting technical memoranda.

In addition, Geosyntec was to consider any other issues raised by the MCWD with
respect to the groundwater models.

For each comment on a groundwater/hydrogeologic impact or issue, Geosyntec was
tasked to explain whether:

1) it agreed with the comment/reasoning,

2) disagreed with the comment/reasoning and why, or

3) are uncertain as to the accuracy of the comment/reasoning and how greater
certainty concerning the subject could be obtained (e.g., how the issue would be further
tested for determination).

On August 7, the Water Authority Technical Advisory Committee considered the
Geosyntec draft report (Attachment A) in detail, and formulated comments and
suggestions for Authority Board consideration. Since these were not available at the
time the Authority agenda packet was posted, they will be provided verbally at the
Board meeting.

ATTACHMENTS:

A- Geosyntec draft Technical Report
ATTACHMENT A

595 Market Street, Suite 610
San Francisco, California 94105
PH 510.836.3034
www.geosyntec.com

DRAFT Technical Memorandum

Date: DRAFT 1 August 2017
To: Jim Cullem, Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority
From: Gordon Thrupp, PhD, PG, CHG, Principal Hydrogeologist
Subject: Review of MCWD Comments on RDEIR
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project
Subsurface Intakes and Groundwater Modeling

Geosyntec Consultants (Geosyntec) was engaged by SPI Membrane Technology Consultants, to
review comments prepared on behalf of the Marina Coast Water District (MCWD) on the Revised
Draft Enviromental Impact Report (RDEIR, ESA, January 2017) prepared for the CalAm
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP).

The goal of the review was to specifically address the following comments that relate to
groundwater/hydrogeologic conditions and potential impacts of the MPWSP to the groundwater
resources:

1) MCWD 29 March 2017 letter pgs 1-4, 7-8, Sections C.1 (pg 50-54) and C.2 pgs 55 -64

2) HGC Comments on pgs 1-8, and comments #23-28, #30, #31, #32, #35, #36, #38, & #39

3) GeoHydros Comments- all

4) EKI Comments- parag #5

5) California Unions for Reliable Energy’s (CURE) Comments concerning the vertical
infiltration rates to the source wells at pages 38-41 of their comment letter and the supporting
technical memoranda.

A brief summary of my response to the comments is followed specific responses and discussion
for each of the comment letters.

DRAFT Aug 2017 Review of MCWD Comments on RDEIR.docx
ATTACHMENT A

Review of MCWD Comments on RDEIR
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project RDEIR
DRAFT 1 August 2017
Page 2

SUMMARY

The comment letters submitted on behalf of MCWD claim the analysis of the potential impacts of
the proposed project pumping based on the updated model (NMGWM2016, RDEIR, ESA 2017) is
not valid because of problems with the model calibration, reliability, and uncertainty.

Updates to the NMGWM (NMGWM2016) include refinement of hydrostratigraphy and aquifer
properties that better represent conditions near the proposed project. The detailed CEMEX model
was calibrated to the test slant well pumping monitoring data, and resulting changes in aquifer
parameter values in the re-calibrated CEMEX model were incorporated in the updated NWGWM.

The model extent and properties of the Fort Ord - Salinas Valley Aquitard (FO-SVA) were refined
in the NMGWM2016, which was a key recommendation by the Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory review of the NGWMM2015. The FO-SVA, which hydraulically separates the Dune
Sand and 180-foot-equivalent (180-FTE), was added south of the Salinas River in the
NMGWM2016 and a transition zone was added where the FO-SVA thins toward the coast
(HydroFocus, 2016). The ocean boundary conditions were changed to represent more physically
realistic conditions.

We agree that groundwater quality (salinity) is locally variable, but detailed characterization of
groundwater quality and quantity in the Dune Sand Aquifer is not relevant to the evaluation of
feasibility and potential impacts of the project. Moreover, both quality and quantity of
groundwater in the Dune Sand varies temporally with rainfall, particularly at local occurrences of
perched groundwater.

MCWD is correct that the model does not evaluate groundwater quality, but return flow will be
based on data (salinity of the pumped water), not modeling.

Note however, that a recent geophysical survey along the Monterey Bay Coastline using electrical
resistivity tomography (ERT) indicates that while the distribution of saltwater intrusion is variable
and complex in portions of the 180-ft and 400-ft Aquifers, the saltwater intrusion is relatively
ubiquitous and uniform along the coastal margin within the Upper Alluvium including the Dune
Sand Aquifer. The only exception appears to be a prominent area of shallow fresh water within
the Fort Ord Dunes approximately 6.3 miles south of the CEMEX Plant that is attributed to
recharge from water diverted from storm water ponds (Goebel et al, 2017).
ATTACHMENT A

Review of MCWD Comments on RDEIR
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project RDEIR
DRAFT 1 August 2017
Page 3

Including water level data for areas of perched groundwater in the shallow aquifers (Dune Sand
and A-Aquifer) is a key reason for the alleged “poor calibration” of the NMGWM2016. Local
occurrences of perched groundwater are isolated hydraulically from the regional water table by
intervening unsaturated intervals, and MODFLOW does not simulate the flow of groundwater for
unsaturated conditions. Some of the groundwater elevations for the A-Aquifer (Dune Sand) near
Fort Ord and the County Landfill are associated with perched groundwater that are not
hydraulically connected to the regional water table and should not be included in the MODFLOW
model. This does not influence the reliability of the model simulations of the proposed project
pumping.

The comment letters for MCWD include numerous claims that the simplified superposition
modeling approach that was used to evaluate potential project impacts is not appropriate and the
results are not reliable. However, superposition modeling is a commonly used valid approach that
directly estimates the lowering of the groundwater levels associated with proposed pumping. For
example, the Arizona Department of Water Resources requires all stresses other than the proposed
pumping to be removed from models to evaluate potential impact for permitting of proposed
pumping wells. Also, routinely used type-curve analysis of aquifer testing data is superposition
modeling.

Some of the comments address differences in hydostratigraphy represented in regional Salinas
Groundwater Basin model and the NMGWM, and calibration problems associated with assigned
initial groundwater levels based the regional model. However, the inaccurate initial heads based
on the regional model has no influence on the equilibrium (steady-state) simulations of the
proposed project pumping, which apparently was recognized by GeoHydros when they used the
calibrated version of the NMGWM2016 to independently run simulations of the proposed project
pumping instead of the simplified version used by HydroFocus for the superposition modeling
presented in the RDEIR.

The claims are incorrect that the model results are not reliable because they do not include the
influence of salinity and density on groundwater flow. As is documented in the RDEIR,
accounting for variable density as a function of salinity would have negligible influence on the
model calculations of potential impacts of the proposed project pumping.

Although the NMGWM2016 was not used to evaluate portions of source water that the proposed
slant wells would pump, modeling simulations conducted by GeoHydros indicate that the total
groundwater portion would decrease to 11% after one year and remain at approximately 10% from
ATTACHMENT A

Review of MCWD Comments on RDEIR
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project RDEIR
DRAFT 1 August 2017
Page 4

2 to 32 years. This is generally consistent with previous groundwater modeling with the
NMGWM2015 reported in the DEIR, and is within the range of assumed replenishment obligations
addressed with the NGWM2016 modeling presented in the RDEIR (0 to 12%). Moreover, the
determination of the quantity of return water from the project for the groundwater replenishment
obligation will be calculated based on the salinity of the water pumped by the project wells using
a formula to calculate the portion of Ocean Water and Inland Fresh Water that was based on a
water purchase agreement between MCWD, MCWRA and Cal Am (2010). The replenishment
formula is provided in Appendix E2 to the DEIR.

As part of the review of the NMGWM2015, LBNL did their own simulations using the model files
provided by the CPUC, and compared results of their model results with those presented in
Appendix E2 of the DEIR (ESA, 2015). LBNL reported that their model runs closely replicated
the results for both the CMEX and Northern Marina Groundwater Model (NMGWM2015) that were
presented in Appendix E2 of the Draft E2 of the DEIR.

As part of the review of NMGWM2016 GeoHydros obtained the model files and ran their own
simulations of the proposed project pumping using the calibrated model boundary conditions
instead of the simplified version of the model used by HydroFocus for the superposition modeling
approach. The modeled drawdown calculated using the two different modeling approaches are
nearly identical (see Attachment 1 to this memorandum). Moreover, the difference between the
extent of drawdown calculated using the two approaches are well within the uncertainty considered
in the analysis and findings by the RDEIR based on the sensitivity analyses on the model results.

Claims that the proposed project pumping would interfere with recharge operations planned at
Armstrong Ranch are inconsistent with data and analysis.

Claims submitted on behalf of CURE that the RDIER fails to adequately analyze the vertical
infiltration rate of ocean water into the sea floor that would be induced by the pumping from
proposed slant wells are incorrect. Section 4.5.5.2 (pages 4.5-51 to 53) of the RDEIR presents
analysis of the vertical infiltration rate of water into the sea floor. The findings presented by the
RDIER are reasonable that the potential for impingement of marine organisms and organic
material on the sea floor due to the proposed project pumping is less than significant. The claims
on behalf of CURE challenging these finding are technically flawed and unsubstantiated.
ATTACHMENT A

Review of MCWD Comments on RDEIR
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project RDEIR
DRAFT 1 August 2017
Page 5

REVIEW OF SECTIONS C.1 AND C.2 OF THE MCWD LETTER

Sections C.1 and C.2 of the MCWD letter (29 March 2017) address groundwater analysis and
discussion of potential impacts. The MCWD letter indicates that the analysis and characterization
of existing groundwater conditions, and evaluation and discussion of potential impacts to
groundwater by the proposed project presented by the RDEIR, including the North Marina
Groundwater Model (NMGWM) is inadequate.

I disagree.

The RDEIR and the associated groundwater modeling to evaluate feasibility and potential impacts
of the proposed project utilizes many available sources of regional hydrogeologic data,
groundwater conditions, and environmental status. In addition to numerous reports by private
consultants that are also cited in in the RDEIR, the following public sources of information and
data were used to establish baseline conditions:

 California Coastal Commission, California Department of Conservation,
 California Department of Water Resources (DWR),
 California Department of Fish and Game,
 California Department of Fish and Wildlife,
 California Division of Mines & Geology,
 California State Mining and Geology Board,
 California Geological Survey,
 California Resources Agency, Fort Ord Reuse Authority,
 Marina Coast Water District,
 Monterey County Planning Department,
 Monterey County Regional Water Agency,
 Monterey Peninsula Water Management District,
 Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency,
 Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute,
 Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary,
 National Oceanographic AtmosphEIRc Administration (NOAA),
 National Research Council,
 National Marine FishEIRes Service,
 Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency,
ATTACHMENT A

Review of MCWD Comments on RDEIR
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project RDEIR
DRAFT 1 August 2017
Page 6

 Seaside Groundwater Basin Watermaster,
 Regional Water Quality Control Board,
 State Water Resources Control Board,
 United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and
 United States Geological Survey.

Geology and groundwater conditions along the coastal margin of the Salinas Valley Groundwater
Basin, as well as in communities of Marina Coast, Fort Ord, Seaside, Sand City, and Monterey
have been studied for many decades.

The conceptual hydrogeology on which the Northern Marina Groundwater Model (NMGWM) is
based is presented Section 2 of Appendix E2 to the RDEIR. The framework of the NMGWM is
based on the regional Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin models with refinements based on local
hydrogeologic data along the coastal margin and near the proposed site at the CEMEX facility.
These data and the NMGWM include estimated extent of the Dune Sand Aquifer, extent and
thickness of the Salinas Valley Aquitard, and extent of the 180-foot Aquifer.

Six exploratory borings were drilled along the coastal margin near the CEMEX Facility to
investigate hydrostratigraphy and make site-specific measurements of hydraulic properties.
Testing at the borings included

 water quality samples in 15 aquifer zone locations,
 grain-size analysis and calculations of hydraulic conductivity (K),
 laboratory testing of horizontal hydraulic conductivity (Kh) and vertical
hydraulic conductivity (Kv) on core samples, and
 geophysical logs

Detailed reporting on the CEMEX borings and testing is provided in Appendix C3 of both the
DEIR and RDEIR.

A long-term pumping test of the test slant well at 2000 gpm began 22 April 2015. Water levels
and electrical conductivity is recorded with transducers and data loggers in six monitoring wells
and reports are available from the project web-site1. The CEMEX model was used to simulate the
test slant well pumping and re-calibrated to the long-term data (Geoscience, 2016). The resulting

1
http://www.watersupplyproject.org/testwellmonitoring
ATTACHMENT A

Review of MCWD Comments on RDEIR
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project RDEIR
DRAFT 1 August 2017
Page 7

changes in aquifer parameter vales in the re-calibrated CEMEX model were incorporated in the
updated NWGWM for the RDEIR (HydroFocus, 2016).

Revisions to the updated NMGWM included refinement of the model extent and properties of the
Fort Ord - Salinas Valley Aquitard (FO-SVA), which was a key recommendation by the Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory review of the NGWMM2015 (LBNL, 2016, included as Appendix E1
of RDEIR). The FO-SVA hydraulically separates the Dune Sand and 180-foot-equivalent (180-
FTE). The FO-SVA was added south of the Salinas River in the NMGWM2016 and a transition zone
was added where the FO-SVA thins toward the coast (HydroFocus, 2016).

Note that as part of the review of the NMGWM2015, LBNL re-ran models using files provided by
the CPUC, and compared results of their model results with those presented in Appendix E2 of the
DEIR. LBNL reported that their model runs closely replicated the results for both the CMEX and
Northern Marina Groundwater Model (NMGWM2015) that were presented in Appendix E2 of the
Draft E2 of the DEIR.

The RDEIR shows 500 mg/l chloride threshold for the regional scale characterization of extent of
sea water intrusion (SWI) as defined by the MCWRA (every two years). 500 mg/l chloride is the
California secondary maximum contaminant level (MCL) recommended upper limit for consumer
acceptance level for potable water. Development of new water supply with water greater than 500
mg/l would require blending or treatment.

We agree that groundwater quality (salinity) is locally variable, but detailed characterization of
groundwater quality and quantity in the Dune Sand Aquifer is not relevant to the evaluation of
feasibility and potential impacts of the project. Moreover, both quality and quantity of
groundwater in the Dune Sand varies temporally with rainfall, particularly at local occurrences
of perched groundwater.

Note however, that a recent geophysical survey along the Monterey Bay Coastline using electrical
resistivity tomography (ERT) indicates that while the distribution of saltwater intrusion is variable
and complex in portions of the 180-ft and 400-ft Aquifers, the saltwater intrusion is relatively
ubiquitous and uniform within the Upper Alluvium including the Dune Sand Aquifer. The only
exception appears to be a prominent area of shallow fresh water within the Fort Ord Dunes
approximately 6.3 miles south of the CEMEX Plant that is attributed to recharge from water
diverted from storm water ponds (Goebel et al, 2017).
ATTACHMENT A

Review of MCWD Comments on RDEIR
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project RDEIR
DRAFT 1 August 2017
Page 8

Comments on the model properties, design and calibration.
Model layering, boundary conditions and properties were improved based on additional data and
comments (including peer reviews). Calibration of the NMGWM2016 model is generally improved
compared to the NMGWM2015.

The model does not simulate unsaturated flow and does not represent perched groundwater.
Shallow perched groundwater occurs locally in the Dune Sands including highland areas of Fort
Ord.

Groundwater elevation contour maps such as Hopkins Fig 6, that include elevations of perched
groundwater in the landfill and Fort Ord areas are incorrect. The areas of perched groundwater
are not hydraulically connected to the regional water table and should not be included in regional
water table elevation contour maps.

As documented in the RDEIR (Appendix E2), incorporating the influence of variable density on
groundwater flow has negligible influence on model results.

Comments that the superposition modeling is not appropriate.
The MCWD letter includes numerous claims that the superposition modeling is not appropriate.
The RDEIR explains the limitations of the modeling in general and specifically the superposition
modeling.

 Superposition modeling is a common method to evaluate impact of pumping (e.g. Arizona
Department of Water Resources requires all stresses other than the proposed pumping to
be removed from models to evaluate potential impact for permitting of proposed pumping
wells).
 Standard aquifer testing analysis is superposition modeling.
 The superposition modeling approach directly estimates the lowering of the groundwater
levels associated with proposed project pumping.
 It does not preclude prediction of changes in groundwater elevation associated with the
project.
 MCWD is correct that the model does not evaluate groundwater quality, but return flow
will be based on data (salinity of the pumped water), not modeling.
ATTACHMENT A

Review of MCWD Comments on RDEIR
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project RDEIR
DRAFT 1 August 2017
Page 9

Monitoring and Mitigation Measures
My understanding is that MCWRA is planning a monitoring program. Mitigation would include
greater portion of return water

Comments on depletion of groundwater in the Dune Sand Aquifer and resulting decrease in
recharge to 180-FTE Aquifer

 If groundwater in the Dune Sand was a significant resource there would be wells in it.
There are no irrigation wells in the Dune Sand because of the sporadic unreliable
presence of water.
 Recharge to the 180-FTE Aquifer from water in the Dune Sand clearly has not prevented
SWI in the 180 FTE aquifer.
 Lowering of water levels in the 180 FTE could enhance leakage into the 180-FTE from
Dune Sand in areas where they are hydraulically connected, but separated by a semi-
confining layer (leaky aquitard).
ATTACHMENT A

Review of MCWD Comments on RDEIR
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project RDEIR
DRAFT 1 August 2017
Page 10

REVIEW OF HGC COMMENTS
(pgs 1-8, and comments #23-28, #30, #31, #32, #35, #36, #38, & #39)

Comments and claims by Hopkins Groundwater Consultants (HGC) in his 29 March 2017 letter
are provided followed by my opinion and discussion in blue italics.

Pages 1-8

HGC claims that the RDEIR and associated updated North Marina Groundwater Model
(NMGWM2016) “mischaracterizes the project and the complex hydrogeological conditions in the
project area by incorrectly suggesting, without any supporting evidence in many cases, that:”

1. “The intake system will induce flow vertically through the ocean floor… “
This is not mischaracterization. It is true the a large portion of the source water would be drawn
vertically through the ocean floor.

2. “The shallow aquifers along the coastline around the CMEX site are fully intruded by
seawater … “
The RDEIR makes no such claim.

3. “The groundwater gradient (flow) in all aquifer zones produced by the project is onshore
(inland or away from the coast) in the entire area …”
The RDEIR makes no such claim. In fact Figures 5.6 and 5.7 of Appendix E2 (HydroFocus, 2016)
present model results that show local flow directions from inland toward the proposed project
wells.

4. “Historical studies are sufficiently complete and comprehensive in nature to document
conditions in the vicinity of the project…”
The RDEIR makes no such claim. In fact the updates to the NMGWM presented in the RDEIR
utilize newly acquired data from the slant well testing program. However, sufficient information
exists to provide the framework for a hydrogeologic conceptual model on which the numerical
models are based.

5. “The limited exploration and testing to date sufficiently validates assumptions in the
DEIR/EIS’s groundwater models…”
The RDEIR makes no such claim. Many of the assumptions made for the groundwater modeling
analyses have nothing to do with exploration and testing, but on physical principles of
ATTACHMENT A

Review of MCWD Comments on RDEIR
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project RDEIR
DRAFT 1 August 2017
Page 11

groundwater flow. Moreover, the updates to the groundwater modeling presented in the RDEIR
do utilize results of additional testing and data compilation.

6. “The DEIR/EIS’s superposition model is reliable and demonstrates that the project’s
potential impacts on groundwater levels and groundwater quality in the Marina Subarea will
be less than significant.”
Estimates of the project’s impacts on groundwater levels based on the superposition model are
reasonably reliable. The superposition model does not simulate changes in groundwater quality.

7. “Mitigation of the project’s impacts can be accomplished through multiple methods and
means.”
This comment is vague. Mitigation measures depend on specific potential project impacts.

HGC claims the calibrated NGWM2016 model was abandoned and replaced with the inferior
superposition model.
Superposition modeling is a common method to evaluate impact of pumping. For example, e.g.
Arizona Department of Water Resources requires all stresses other than the proposed pumping to
be removed from models to evaluate potential impact for permitting of proposed pumping wells.
Type-curve analysis of aquifer testing is superposition modeling.

I agree that the superposition modeling has limitations. For example, it can’t be used directly for
evaluation of capture zone of the project wells. HydroFocus superimposed the regional hydrologic
gradient on the superposition model results to evaluate capture zones. Note also that GeoHydros
(discussed below) ran project pumping simulations with the NGWM2016 calibrated model and
obtained very similar results for drawdown of groundwater to HydroFocus with the simplified
superposition modeling approach.

HGC claims the perched groundwater in portions of the Dune Sand Aquifer and -2-Foot-Aquifer
beneath the County Landfill, which are not addressed by the NGWM2016, are important for
evaluating potential impacts of project pumping.
I disagree. The proposed project pumping cannot impact the local occurrences of perched
groundwater in the Dune Sands because they are not hydraulically connected to the regional water
table. Moreover, the -2-foot Aquifer, which occurs beneath the County Landfill is underlain by the
Salinas Aquiclude, which is s competent and widespread barrier that separates the shallow
perched zones from water supply aquifers including the 180-foot, 400-foot aquifers (California
Regional Water Quality Control Board, 2006).
ATTACHMENT A

Review of MCWD Comments on RDEIR
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project RDEIR
DRAFT 1 August 2017
Page 12

HGC claims the DEIR/EIS fails to evaluate the project impacts on a perched groundwater in
portions of the Dune Sand Aquifer, which are not addressed by the NGWM2016, are important for
evaluating potential impacts of project pumping.
I disagree. The proposed project pumping cannot impact the local occurrences of perched
groundwater in the Dune Sands because they are not hydraulically connected to the regional water
table.

HGC claims the DEIR/EIS incorrectly estimates capture zones of the project pumping.
This is incorrect. HydroFocus superimposed the regional hydrologic gradient on the
superposition model results to evaluate capture zones.

HGC claims that a dual density model should be used evaluate the proposed project pumping and
water quality changes.
Presumably HGC means variable density not dual density. But accounting for the influence of
density on groundwater flow due to variation in salinity is not important to evaluate the proposed
impacts of project pumping because the influence of density variation is negligible compared to
slant well pumping and uncertainties in hydraulic conductivity. This is discussed and
demonstrated by (HydroFocus, 2016, Appendix E2 to the RDEIR). Seawater is only 2.5% more
dense than freshwater.

HGC Comment 23

HGC claims the slant well screens are not beyond the jurisdictional boundaries of the County.
Apparently this pertains to the relationship between the location of the wells screens and the
coastline. Presumably it also depends on the location of the source water pumped by the wells.

I defer to legal counsel on this issue.

However, please note that the freshwater/seawater interface is not a distinct boundary beneath the
coastline and in many settings, the fresh groundwater/sea water transition beneath the ocean floor
is well beyond the coastline. The distinction between fresh groundwater and sea water is based
on salinity, not location.

HGC claims the updated model (NMGWM2016) presented in the RDEIR relies on the CEMEX
Model Update (Geoscience, 2016), which HGC says makes unsupported assumptions.
ATTACHMENT A

Review of MCWD Comments on RDEIR
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project RDEIR
DRAFT 1 August 2017
Page 13

The CEMEX model was used to simulated the test slant well pumping and re-calibrated to the
long-term data (Geoscience, 2016). The resulting changes in aquifer parameter vales in the re-
calibrated CEMEX model were incorporated in the updated NWGWM2016 as presented in the
RDEIR (HydroFocus, 2016). The NWGWM2016 incorporates results of updates to the CEMEX
model, but does not rely on the CEMEX model. Not possible to address the “unsupported
assumptions” claimed by HGC because HGC does not describe them.

HGC Comment 24

HGC claims that baseline water levels were not established prior to the testing of the slant well.
HGC also claims there was no information regarding tidal, seasonal, or climatic variations, and
that it was unclear what was considered as pre-pumping conditions.

I disagree. Baseline monitoring of water levels and water quality were recorded for seven weeks
prior to the initiation of the test well pumping. Moreover, monitoring was continued when the test
well pumping stopped for regulatory review or maintenance, including approximately four months
in 2015 and several weeks in 2016. The hydrographs presenting monitoring data recorded for
prior and during test well pumping program clearly illustrate baseline conditions and tidal
influence. Rainfall data are also included to facilitate assessment of influence on groundwater
levels.

Monitoring reports are prepared on a weekly basis for the California Coastal Commission and
monthly monitoring reports are prepared for Cal Am. The monitoring reports are available from
the project web site: https://www.watersupplyproject.org/test-well

HGC expresses concern that project impact in terms of drawdown of groundwater levels assessed
during pumping in drought conditions when groundwater levels were low are not representative
of typical conditions when groundwater levels are higher.

Higher water level conditions after the drought increases transmissivity, which results in less
drawdown impact of the test well pumping in the unconfined surficial aquifers. Assessing influence
of test well pumping on groundwater levels for drought conditions provides a conservative
assessment of project impact.
ATTACHMENT A

Review of MCWD Comments on RDEIR
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project RDEIR
DRAFT 1 August 2017
Page 14

HGC claims the degree of uncertainty in the groundwater modeling is intolerable.

I disagree. The degree of uncertainty is typical and acceptable. Results of sensitivity analyses are
presented to illustrate the uncertainty.

The modeling is intended to evaluate the potential impacts of the proposed project pumping, not
other potential future changes in pumping.

HGC Comment 25

In Comment 25, HGC again claims the degree of uncertainty in the groundwater modeling is
intolerable. HGC also states the superposition modeling used to evaluate potential drawdown of
groundwater levels by the proposed project pumping cannot be used to evaluate potential impacts
to groundwater quality or water budget (different sources of water).

I disagree that the degree of uncertainty in the groundwater modeling is intolerable. The degree
of uncertainty is typical and acceptable. Results of sensitivity analyses are presented to illustrate
the uncertainty.

The superposition model was not used to evaluate potential impacts to groundwater quality. Nor
was it used to estimate portions of sources of water pumped by the proposed project.

I agree that the model does not simulate changes to local occurrences of perched groundwater in
the dune sands. This is nothing to do with superposition. MODFLOW only simulates saturated
flow conditions, and unsaturated conditions exist below perched groundwater. Perched
groundwater is not hydraulically connected to the aquifers that would be pumped by the project
wells, and therefore cannot be impacted by the project pumping.

HGC also again claims the assessment of potential impacts of the project pumping are based on
inadequately defined baseline conditions and that the modeling is fatally flawed.

I disagree.
ATTACHMENT A

Review of MCWD Comments on RDEIR
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project RDEIR
DRAFT 1 August 2017
Page 15

HGC Comment 26

In Comment 26, HGC again claims baseline conditions are not investigated, the modeling is
flawed, does not utilize best available information, and that potential interference with
groundwater recharge is not evaluated.

I disagree with all these claims. Note also that the model updates use most current information
on groundwater conditions including ongoing monitoring data for the test slant well pumping.

HGC Comment 27

In Comment 27, HGC claims the that Figure 4.4-13 of the RDEIR is simplistic and somehow
erroneous?

Figure 4.4.-13 shows the modeled “worst-case” drop in groundwater levels (drawdown) in the
180-FTE aquifer caused by continuous project pumping for 63 years with no delivery of return
water to replenish the inland aquifers. The superposition model provides the estimated impact
on groundwater levels only of the project pumping, which is the objective of the analysis. Other
unknown potential changes in pumping are not included.

Based on the analysis, which includes the groundwater modeling, the project pumping would have
less than significant impact on water quality, depletion of storage, and on groundwater dependent
ecosystems.

The analysis for the RDEIR also includes assessment of influence of projected rise in sea level,
because this is expected to occur. Higher sea level will result in a slightly greater portion of sea
water flowing to the slant wells and thus a decrease the portion of inland groundwater. Figures
4.4-14 – 16 of the RDEIR show the range of the extent of greater than 1-foot-drawdown in the
Dune Sand, 180-FTE, and 400-ft Aquifers for current sea level and with sea level rise after 63
years and with a return water range of 0 to 12%.

In Comment 27, HGC again claims baseline conditions are not investigated, the modeling is
flawed, and does not utilize best available information.

I disagree.
ATTACHMENT A

Review of MCWD Comments on RDEIR
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project RDEIR
DRAFT 1 August 2017
Page 16

HGC Comment 28

In Comment 28, HGC comments that the superposition model cannot quantify the amount of
seawater and fresh groundwater that the project wells would pump.

Although the superposition is not used to quantify portions of seawater and groundwater from
inland aquifers pumped by the proposed wells, it could be.

In Comment 28, HGC again claims baseline conditions are not investigated, the modeling is
flawed, and does not utilize best available information. HGC also claims the hydraulic
conductivity values assigned to the superposition model are not reliable.

I disagree.

In Comment 28, HGC claims that the proposed slant wells would be within the jurisdictional
boundary of County Ordinance 3709.

I defer to legal counsel on this issue. However, my understanding is this is correct and is the
reason that the portion of fresh groundwater pumped by the project will be returned to the
groundwater basin. My understanding is the plan to return water from the project to the
groundwater basin is conditionally acceptable to the State Water Board (2013, included as
Appendix B2 of RDEIR).

HGC Comment 30

In Comment 30, HGC refers to additional modeling of the project pumping conducted by
GeoHydros using the re-calibrated NMGWM2016, and points out that the model indicates that the
initial portion of groundwater pumped by the project wells would be 30%.
The same modeling indicates that the total groundwater portion would decrease to 11% in one
year and remains at approximately 10% from 2 to 32 years. This is generally consistent with
previous groundwater modeling with the NMGWM2015 reported in the DEIR and is within the
range of assumed replenishment obligations addressed with the NGWM2016 modeling presented in
the RDEIR (0 to 12%). Note that a greater groundwater replenishment obligation lessens potential
inland impacts of the project pumping.
ATTACHMENT A

Review of MCWD Comments on RDEIR
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project RDEIR
DRAFT 1 August 2017
Page 17

HGC also claims that the project would reduce groundwater storage.
I agree. The modeled drawdown of the water table, which is addressed in the RDEIR, shows this

HGC claims that the amount of return water needs to be indicated and analyzed.
The RDEIR evaluates potential project impacts for a range of return water (0, 3, 6, and 12%)
based on groundwater replenishment obligations estimated by previous modeling. The updated
modeling for the RDEIR does not re-evaluate the portions of ocean water and inland groundwater
water pumped by the project wells. However, as discussed above, the additional modeling
presented with comments by GeoHydros indicates that the groundwater portion would be
approximately 10% (Ocean Water 90%) after approximately 2 years of pumping. The portion of
fresh groundwater would be less than 10% because most of groundwater in the coastal margin
aquifers has been impacted by sea water intrusion.

More importantly, based on a water purchase agreement between MCWD, MCWRA and Cal Am
(2010), the determination of the quantity of return water from the project for the groundwater
replenishment obligation will be calculated based on the salinity of the water pumped by the
project wells using the following formula to calculate the portion of Ocean Water and Inland
Fresh Water that was provided in Appendix E2 to the DEIR:

(X)(OWS) + (1-X) (IS) = FS
(X)(OWS) + IS – (X)(IS) = FS
(X)(OWS) – (X)(IS) = FS- IS
X(OWS-IS) = FS – IS
X = (FS-IS)/(OWS-IS)
Where,
X is Proportion of Ocean Water in Intake Water,
(1-X) is Proportion of Fresh Water,
OWS is Ocean Water Salinity = 33,500 mg/L TDS
IS is Intake Salinity, and
FS is Fresh Water Salinity = 440 mg/L TDS, which is based on inland
Salinas Basin groundwater that is not impacted by sea water intrusion.

For example, Intake Water with salinity of 32,000 mg/L consists of 95% Ocean Water and 5%
Inland Fresh Groundwater. Based on the NMGWM pumping simulations presented in the DEIR,
over the long term, the average intake water consists of 94.5% ocean water, and 5.5% inland fresh
ATTACHMENT A

Review of MCWD Comments on RDEIR
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project RDEIR
DRAFT 1 August 2017
Page 18

groundwater, which require replenishment of 1,458 AFY (1.3 mgd) for the proposed project
pumping of 24 mgd.

The RDEIR states that a mathematical formula will be used to calculate the quantity of water to
be retuned the groundwater basin each year (pg 4.4-49), but does not seem to provide the formula.

Note that based on the salinity of water pumped by the test slant well, the calculated portion of
ocean water using the above formula was initially approximately 75%, but approached the
estimated range of 93 to 96% based on NMGWM2015 modeling, after a few months of pumping.
However, the last several months the salinity has been generally decreasing and based on salinity
reported for a sample collected 21 June 2017 (Geoscience, 2017), the Ocean Water Portion has
decreased to 84%. Presumably the change is due to dilution of salinity in the shallow coastal
aquifers associated with recharge of fresh water associated with the abundant rainfall this year.

In Comment 30, HGC comments that groundwater that is degraded by seawater intrusion is useable
because it can be treated.

I agree that brackish or saline water can be treated to potable water standards. Indeed, this is the
plan of the proposed project. HGC is correct that the State’s TDS threshold is 3,000 mg/L for
designation as potentially suitable for municipal or domestic water supply.2 However, the State
Water Resources Board secondary maximum contaminant levels for TDS in drinking water are
500 mg/L TDS (recommended) and 1000 mg/L TDS (upper limit)3.

In Comment 30, HGC claims the modeling needs to consider cumulative drawdown.
I disagree. The purpose of the analysis for EIR is to assess potential impacts of the project
pumping, not unknown other possible future pumping.

I agree that drawdown of groundwater levels in the range of 1 to 5 feet is less than significant
impact to existing production wells. Typical seasonal variations of groundwater levels are
greater.

2
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/board_decisions/adopted_orders/resolutions/2006/rs2006_0008_rev_rs88_63.pdf

3
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/gama/docs/coc_salinity.pdf.
ATTACHMENT A

Review of MCWD Comments on RDEIR
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project RDEIR
DRAFT 1 August 2017
Page 19

HGC Comment 31

In Comment 31, HGC again claims the modeling needs to consider cumulative drawdown.
I disagree. The purpose of the analysis for the EIR is to assess potential impacts of the project
pumping, not unknown other possible future pumping.

In Comment 31, HGC states that the reported findings regarding potential project impacts to
Tembladero and Elkhorn Sloughs are inconsistent in Sections 4 and 5 of RDEIR.
I disagree. As explained by the excerpts from the RDEIR included in HGC’s Comment 31, the
alternative project, which would be pumping from slant wells at Potrero Road, would have greater
potential impact on Elkhorn Slough because of the proximity of the slant wells to the Slough.

HGC Comment 32
In Comment 32, HGC states again that the reported findings regarding potential project impacts to
Tembladero and Elkhorn Sloughs are inconsistent in Sections 4 and 5 of RDEIR.
I disagree. As explained above for HGC Comment 31.

In Comment 32, HGC states that the evaluation of the slant well pumping with surface water at
the CEMEX facility is inadequate, and the therefore the modeling presented in the RDEIR is
subject to intolerable uncertainty.
I disagree. Moreover, the CEMEX dredge pond is hydraulically connected to the ocean and is
simply a window into the water table beneath the sand. The Pacific Ocean is the source of water
to the CEMEX dredge pond. I agree that the potential impact of the project pumping on recharge
to the Dune Sand Aquifer and sand mining operations is less than significant.

HGC Comment 35

In Comment 35, HGC states again that the evaluation of potential impacts to groundwater
resources reported in the RDEIR and the proposed measure 4.4-3 for groundwater monitoring are
inadequate.
I disagree. Moreover, my understanding is that MCWRA will oversee developing a groundwater
monitoring program to evaluate if the project pumping impacts the performance of local
production wells.
ATTACHMENT A

Review of MCWD Comments on RDEIR
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project RDEIR
DRAFT 1 August 2017
Page 20

HGC Comment 36
In Comment 36, HGC expresses concern that the project could result in fresh and brackish
groundwater becoming “hypersaline”, and that the RDEIR fails to address this possibility. Also,
HGC states again that the modeling must be updated to address project impacts to water quality.
It is not possible that project would cause groundwater to become hypersaline as HGC claims.
Hypersaline means salinity greater than ocean water.

Local temporal and spatial variations in salinity of groundwater along the coastal margin where
there are no production wells are not relevant to evaluation of potential impact of the project
pumping.

Model calculations (particle tracking presented by Figure 4.4-17 of the RDEIR) show that the
project has insignificant influence on the inland extent of sea water intrusion.

The determination of the quantity of return water from the project for the groundwater
replenishment obligation will be calculated based on the salinity of the water pumped by the
project well. My understanding is the plan to return fresh water from the project to the
groundwater basin is conditionally acceptable to the State Water Board (2013, included as
Appendix B2 of RDEIR).

HGC Comment 38

In Comment 38, HGC expresses concern that additional evaluation is needed of potential influence
of the proposed project pumping on contamination beneath the Fort Ord remediation site using a
“revised and calibrated or a new dual density model”.
I disagree. The RDEIR adequately address potential impact of the proposed project pumping on
contaminated groundwater including the plumes at Fort Ord. The main plume of contaminated
groundwater is called the Operable Unit Carbon Tetrachloride Plume (OUCTP), although it also
includes trichloroethene (TCE) (Mactec, 2006). The larger extent of contamination is within the
A-Aquifer, which is within recent dune sands. The A-Aquifer is separated from the 180-FTE
Aquifer by the regional Fort Ord – Salinas Valley Aquitard (FO-SVA).

As stated by the RDEIR the A-Aquifer is a shallow inland aquifer above the 180-Foot Aquifer and
is not known to be hydraulically connected to the Dune Sand Aquifer at the proposed slant well
locations. Stability in groundwater elevations in the A-Aquifer (Plate 12, Mactec, 2006) support
ATTACHMENT A

Review of MCWD Comments on RDEIR
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project RDEIR
DRAFT 1 August 2017
Page 21

that this aquifer is hydraulically isolated from pumping from irrigation wells in the underlying
180-foot and 400-foot aquifers to the east in Salinas Valley (pg 12, Mactec, 2006). Moreover,
hydrographs for monitoring wells in the upper and lower portions of the 180-ft aquifer beneath
Fort Ord show seasonal variation in groundwater levels of greater than 5 and 10 feet, respectively
(Plates 13 and 14, Mactec, 2006), which is likely due to variable influence of pumping from
irrigation wells. The potential influence of the project pumping at Fort Ord in the 180-FT aquifer
would be much less.

Moreover, accounting for variable density based on salinity (not “dual density”) would have
negligible influence on the model calculations in the vicinity of the Fort Ord plumes.

HGC Comment 39

In Comment 39, HGC expresses concern that the evaluation presented in the RDEIR only
addresses potential impacts of the project pumping.

Indeed, the intent is to evaluate potential impact of the proposed project pumping. There is no
basis to simulate future potential changes in pumping associated with unknown other projects.
Sensitivity analyses were conducted that provide a range of estimated project impacts, and the
potential impacts with compensation for projected sea level rise.
ATTACHMENT A

Review of MCWD Comments on RDEIR
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project RDEIR
DRAFT 1 August 2017
Page 22

REVIEW OF GEOHYDROS COMMENTS

Claims and comments by GeoHydros (GH) in their 27 March 2017 letter are followed by my
opinion and discussion in blue italics.

Section 2. NMGWM

GH (page 1) says updates to the NMGWM2016 include “structural changes that favored the
conceptualized flow from the Pacific Ocean into the aquifers.”
GH’s statement implies that the updates were intended to result in a larger portion of ocean water
flow to the model slant wells. But the changes by HydroFocus to the offshore boundary conditions
and initial conditions were improvements to the model. These changes are listed below:
 Changed Layer 1 (ocean specified head) to represent actual thickness. 2015 used uniform
1-ft thickness.
 Activated all cells in ocean with specified heads. In the NMGWM2015 version, the offshore
cells were inactive resulting in offshore no-flow boundaries, which inappropriately
lessened connection to the sea—particularly for steady-state model runs.
 Added equivalent fresh-water heads used for offshore boundary conditions. The water
levels represent hydraulic potential, or hydraulic head, and are corrected for density
differences between the high saline, denser ocean water relative to the less saline, less
dense inland groundwater. These corrected water levels are referred to as “equivalent
freshwater heads.”

GH (page 2): “The model boundaries are arbitrary and do not represent natural hydrologic divides
therefore the model simulates flow across the external boundaries that cannot be verified from
data.”
Presumably GH means the model extent is arbitrary. The model extent is not arbitrary, but is
based on the geography and hydrogeology of the project vicinity and utilizes information from
more regional models. The NMGWM covers nearly 150 square miles; the boundary conditions
are acceptably far-removed from the location of proposed project pumping. The model would
need to cover the entire Salinas Valley and portions of adjacent highlands for the inland
boundaries to represent physical hydrologic divides. The extent of the model domain is
appropriate for the purposes of the analysis and consistent with standard practice.

GH (page 2): GH criticizes the use of equivalent freshwater heads for the ocean boundary
conditions, but no use of equivalent freshwater heads for inland groundwater with elevated salinity
ATTACHMENT A

Review of MCWD Comments on RDEIR
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project RDEIR
DRAFT 1 August 2017
Page 23

due to saltwater intrusion. They claim that a dual-density model such as SEAWAT or FEFLOW
would be the appropriate way to simulate saltwater intrusion.
The use of equivalent freshwater heads for ocean boundary conditions is common practice and
reasonable. We agree that a variable density (not dual-density) model such as SEAWAT could be
used to simulate variable salinity distribution and potential change in salinity distribution due to
the project pumping. However, the objective of the modeling was not to specifically simulate sea
water intrusion and salinity distribution.

Moreover, as reported in the RDEIR (pg 26 of Appendix E2), model simulations were conducted
using SEAWAT to evaluate the error associated with neglecting to account variable density in the
NMGWM2016. The results demonstrated that accounting for the influence of density on
groundwater flow due to variation in salinity is not important to evaluate the proposed impacts of
project pumping because the influence of density variation is negligible compared to slant well
pumping and uncertainties in hydraulic conductivity. This is discussed and demonstrated by
(HydroFocus, 2016, Appendix E2 to the RDEIR). Seawater is only 2.5% more dense than
freshwater.

GH (page 2-3): GH comments that interconnectivity between the regional Salinas Valley Model
(SVIGSM) and the NMGWM model are problematic.
I agree. But, the regional Salinas Basin model and NMGWM model are not intended to be
“interconnected”. They are of different scales and detail. As discussed in the RDEIR (Appendix
E2, HydroFocus, 2016), the differences between the models influence the large calibration errors.
Note however, that much of the calibration error is a consequence of inaccurate initial heads
particularly in the Dune Sand aquifer. The 180-FT aquifer is the uppermost aquifer system in
which horizontal groundwater is simulated by SVIGSM. SVIGSM was not designed to simulate
horizontal groundwater flow in the shallow Perched A or Dune Sand Aquifer. So, it is not
surprising that the boundary conditions and initial heads derived from SVIGSM for the Dune Sand
Aquifers were not accurate.

It seems that GeoHydros recognizes that the inaccurate initial heads based on the SVIGSM have
little influence on the equilibrium (steady-state) simulations of the proposed project pumping,
which is why they used the calibrated version of the NMGWM2016 to independently run simulations
of the proposed project pumping instead of the simplified version used for the superposition
modeling.
ATTACHMENT A

Review of MCWD Comments on RDEIR
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project RDEIR
DRAFT 1 August 2017
Page 24

Another key factor regarding the “poor calibration” is that the groundwater within the Dune Sand
locally is perched—hydraulically not connected to the regional water table. MODLOW does not
simulate unsaturated flow of groundwater.

GH (page 3): GH Figures 8 and 9 show contours of groundwater levels for their 32 transient runs
of the calibrated version of NMGWM2016 for the 400-ft and 900-ft aquifers. GH claims the model
overestimates the inland directed hydraulic gradient in these aquifers.
Apparently GH Figures 8 and 9 are for model runs without the proposed project pumping. Seems
to me the differences between the initial time step and result at 32 years is simply a consequence
of equilibration groundwater levels between the assigned initial heads and the solved heads, which
are mainly controlled by the boundary conditions. Inaccuracy of initial heads assigned to the
model for starting conditions has no relevance to the reliability of steady-state simulations of the
project pumping. Evidence of extensive sea water intrusion into the 400-ft aquifer indicates that
inland from the ocean has and is occurring. Moreover, the low groundwater elevation in the 400-
ft aquifer near the northeast extent of the model are based on measured water levels.

I agree that the model results depicted for the 900-ft aquifer by GH Figure 9 may overestimate
inland flow of groundwater from the ocean, but this would have little if any influence on the
reliability of the model simulations of the project pumping in the shallow aquifers.

GH (page 3-4): GH discusses the model calibration and points out the model fails the stated
calibration test in the Dune Sand Aquifer.
Some of the groundwater elevations for the A-Aquifer (Dune Sand) are for occurrences of perched
groundwater that are not hydraulically connected to the regional water table and should not be
included in the MODFLOW model, which cannot simulate flow of perched groundwater. This
does not influence the reliability of the model simulations of the proposed project pumping.

In most respects, the NMGWM2016 model is improved compare to the NMGWM2015, particularly
with respect to aquifer properties and geometry near the project.

GH (page 4): GH claims the sensitivity analyses conducted by HydroFocus on the NMGWM2016
(Figures 6.1 & 6.2, Appendix E2) show a five-fold increase in horizontal hydraulic conductivity
(Kh) coupled with five-fold decrease in vertical hydraulic conductivity (Kv) nearly doubles the
size of the modeled cone of depression in the Dune Sand Aquifer.
ATTACHMENT A

Review of MCWD Comments on RDEIR
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project RDEIR
DRAFT 1 August 2017
Page 25

GH is incorrect. Hydrofocus Figure 6.2 shows that the sensitivity with maximum anisotropy (five-
fold increase in Kh coupled with five-fold decrease in Kv) decreases the modeled extent of
groundwater drawdown due to the proposed pumping. But, minimum anisotropy (five-fold
decrease in Kh coupled with five-fold increase in Kv) increases the modeled extent of groundwater
drawdown. I agree that improvement of model calibration is possible, but the range of potential
drawdown based on the sensitivity analyses is considered in the evaluation of potential impacts of
project pumping presented in the RDEIR.

Section 3. Superposition Model

GH (page 5) discuss the simplified superposition modeling approach that HydroFocus used to
evaluate potential drawdown of groundwater levels due to the proposed project pumping. GH
states that “though superposition modeling is a valid technique, it isn’t necessary or appropriate
for these evaluations…”.

I agree that the simplified superposition modeling approach isn’t necessary. But it is appropriate
for evaluating potential impacts of the proposed project pumping.

GH claims that “superposition modeling precludes evaluation of impacts to the water budget
associated with the proposed pumping…”, and that “superposition modeling precludes prediction
of measurable changes associated with the proposed pumping (i.e. predicted groundwater
elevations and gradients)”.

I disagree. Water budget information from superposition modeling can be used to estimate
portions of source water associated with the proposed project pumping. It also can be used to
predict changes in groundwater elevations and hydraulic gradient.

GH obtained the model files and independently ran simulations of the proposed project pumping
with the calibrated (unsimplified) version of NMGWM2016. GH claims that comparison of the
results of the model runs they did with the calibrated (unsimplified) version of NMGWM2016 show
that the superposition model approach used by HydroFocus underestimates the extent of
groundwater drawdown by the proposed project pumping (GH Figures 10-13).

GH Figures 10-13, which are included as Attachment 1 to this memo, provide a comparison of the
results of the two modeling approaches. The modeled drawdown calculated using the two
ATTACHMENT A

Review of MCWD Comments on RDEIR
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project RDEIR
DRAFT 1 August 2017
Page 26

different modeling approaches are nearly identical. Moreover, the difference between the extent
of drawdown calculated using the two approaches are well within the uncertainty considered in
the analysis and findings by the RDEIR based on the sensitivity analyses on the model results.

Section 4. Evaluation of Potential Impacts

GH (page 5-6) states that “the calibration and boundary condition problems … render predictions
dEIRved from the NMGWM unreliable particularly with respect to the Dune Sand Aquifer…”
I disagree. In fact, as discussed in the previous comment above, the additional modeling runs
conducted by GH support that the results of the simplified superposition model presented in the
RDEIR are reasonable, and that the superposition modeling approach is valid.

GH (page 7-8) report and discuss water budget calculations of source water to the slant wells based
on their model simulations of the project pumping.

The model runs by GH and their presentation of source water calculations are helpful. The model
results by GH indicate that source water is approximately 30% inland groundwater after one
month of pumping, but groundwater contribution decreases to 11% in one year and remains at
approximately 10% from 2 to 32 years. The portion of fresh groundwater would be less than 10%
because most of groundwater in the coastal margin aquifers has been impacted by sea water
intrusion

The results of the water budget calculations based on the model runs by GH are generally
consistent with previous groundwater modeling with the NMGWM2015 reported in the DEIR and
are within the range of assumed replenishment obligations addressed with the NGWM2016
modeling presented in the RDEIR (0 to 12%). Note that a greater groundwater replenishment
obligation lessens potential inland impacts of the project pumping.
ATTACHMENT A

Review of MCWD Comments on RDEIR
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project RDEIR
DRAFT 1 August 2017
Page 27

Section 5. Conclusions

GH (page 8) concludes that the NMGWM2016 is poorly calibrated in the Dune Sand Aquifer, the
quality of model calibration of the NMGWM2016 is not as good as for the NMGWM2015, and the
reliability of predicted impact of the project pumping is undermined by the poor calibration.

The “poor calibration” is a consequence of including data for areas of perched groundwater in
the shallow aquifers (Dune Sand and A-Aquifer). Local occurrences of perched groundwater are
isolated hydraulically from the regional water table by intervening unsaturated intervals and
MODFLOW does not simulate the flow of groundwater for unsaturated conditions.

I agree that data are limited for calibration of model properties for the shallow aquifer (Dune
Sand Aquifer), however, the hydraulic conductivity properties assigned for the Dune Sand are
reasonable, and the variation in hydraulic conductivity for the sensitivity analyses provides a
conservative assessment of potential impact of the proposed project pumping.

GH (page 9) states that the model results indicate that 2.8% or 756 acre-feet per year is predicted
to come from the 400-ft and 900-ft aquifers, which will contribute to overdraft in those aquifers.
GH Table 3 indicates 1.9% and 0.9% from the 400-ft and 900-ft aquifers, respectively. The
potential impacts to the 400-ft and 900-ft aquifers of the proposed project pumping are evaluated
by the RDEIR and found to be less than significant.

GH (page 10) states that “The sensitivity analyses performed by HydroFocus with respect to
hydraulic conductivity indicate that the predicted impacts could be substantially understated,
which demonstrates the importance of achieving better calibration.”
This statement is misleading. The sensitivity analyses show a range of potential impacts of the
project. The range of potential impacts is considered by the RDEIR. The level of uncertainty is
acceptable for the purpose of evaluating the potential project impacts as presented by the RDEIR.

GH (page 10) states that “Based on the findings presented in this report, we believe that the Draft
EIR/EIS’s conclusions regarding the MPWSP’s groundwater impacts are not scientifically
supportable and that they conflict with available information.”

I disagree. The model findings are scientifically supportable are consistent with abundant
information. The model approximates subsurface conditions and is not intended replicate complex
heterogeneity of subsurface properties. The model is a reasonable screening tool designed to
evaluate potential project impacts.

The other bullet points by GH in their conclusion section are addressed above.
ATTACHMENT A

Review of MCWD Comments on RDEIR
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project RDEIR
DRAFT 1 August 2017
Page 28

REVIEW OF COMMENTS BY EKI

Nearly all the comments and concerns by EKI (29 March 2017) are essentially the same as by
Hopkins and GeoHydros, which are addressed above.

EKI states that “the Project will preclude MCWD from utilizing the Dune Sand Aquifer for storage
and/or augmentation of groundwater supplies through surface water recharge at Armstrong
Ranch”, and that the RDEIR needs to address this.

I disagree that the project would preclude the MCWD from utilizing the Dune Sand Aquifer for
storage and/or augmentation of groundwater supply by recharge at Armstrong Ranch. Moreover,
the RDEIR does address potential impacts of project pumping including estimated drawdown of
groundwater levels in the vicinity including Armstrong Ranch.

Armstrong Ranch is thousands of feet beyond the estimated extent of groundwater capture by the
proposed project pumping. The capture zone envelopes for the proposed project pumping of 24.1
mgd were calculated by HydroFocus for the Dune Sand and 180-FTE Aquifers (Figure 5.6
Appendix E2, RDEIR) for a range of hydraulic gradients. These capture zones are also shown on
EKI Figures 11 and 12.

Figure 137 of Appendix E2 from the DEIR, which is included as Attachment 2 to this memo, also
shows the capture zone in the 180-FTE Aquifer associated with the project pumping, based on the
NMGWM2015 for the proposed pumping of 24.1 mgd. Figure 137 (see Attachment 2 to this memo),
also shows groundwater flow pathlines both with and without the project pumping. The pathlines
on the attached figure help to show that with the project pumping would reverse the groundwater
flow direction inland of the capture zone, so groundwater would flow towards the coast instead of
inland.

As is recognized and addressed by the RDIER, the proposed project pumping may increase salinity
in the Dune Sand and 180-FTE Aquifers within the extent of hydraulic capture by the project wells.
However, further inland, beyond the capture zone in locations such as Armstrong Ranch, the
proposed project pumping should result in a long-term decrease in salinity the Dune Sand and
180-FTE Aquifers due the reversal of groundwater flow direction (flow toward the coast instead
of away from the coast). Note, however, that any change in flow direction and water quality, due
the project pumping, that could occur thousands of feet away from the extent of hydraulic capture
would be minor and take many decades if not centuries.

The model simulations of the proposed project pumping show that the potential extent of 1-foot
drawdown of groundwater levels in the Dune Sand and 180-FTE Aquifers (Figures 4.4-14 and
4.4-15, RDEIR; Figures 9 and 10, EKI) reaches the vicinity of Armstrong Ranch. However, these
ATTACHMENT A

Review of MCWD Comments on RDEIR
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project RDEIR
DRAFT 1 August 2017
Page 29

small changes in groundwater elevation would not influence water quality or feasibility of
enhanced recharge projects. Moreover, seasonal variation in groundwater elevation and
hydraulic gradients due to variation in pumping and rainfall are much more significant, as
discussed above in response to HGC Comment 38.

Note also, that the Fort Ord-Salinas Valley Aquitard (FO-SVA), which hydraulically separates the
Dune Sand and 180-foot equivalent (180-FTE) aquifers from greater than about 2 km east of the
proposed MPWSP project site, limits recharge benefit from Dune Sand to 180-FTE Aquifer at
Armstrong Ranch.
ATTACHMENT A

Review of MCWD Comments on RDEIR
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project RDEIR
DRAFT 1 August 2017
Page 30

REVIEW OF COMMENTS ON BEHALF OF CALIFORNIA UNIONS FOR RELIABLE
ENERGY’S

On behalf of California Unions for Reliable Energy (CURE) Linda Sobczynski with the law firm
of Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo submitted a letter dated 28 March 2017 (the CURE letter)
to the CPUC and MBNMS with comments on the DEIR/EIS for the proposed MPWSP. I was
asked to specifically review pages 38-41 of the CURE concerning the vertical infiltration rates to
the source wells.

Page 38 of the CURE letter states: “The DEIR/EIS fails to adequately analyze and mitigate
potential significant impacts related to marine resources, particularly as those impacts are caused
by the subsurface slant well technology.” More specifically, the letter claims that factors
influencing vertical infiltration rates are not adequately analyzed including:

 location of the submersible pump in the slant wells;
 sediment profile for the existing 19o slant wells and proposed 14o slant wells;
 packers in the slant wells; and
 clogging in the seabed.

I disagree that the RDIER fails to adequately analyze the vertical infiltration rate of ocean water
into the sea floor that would be induced by the pumping from proposed slant wells. Section 4.5.5.2
(pages 4.5-51 to 53) of the RDEIR presents analysis of the vertical infiltration rate of water into
the sea floor, and potential resulting impingement of marine organisms and organic material on
the sea floor.

The basis for the calculated vertical infiltration rate of ocean water into the seafloor is provided
on page 4.5-52 of the RDIER. The calculation assumes that infiltration of ocean water would
occur within a 1,000,000 sq ft. area of the seafloor: 2000 ft long along the coast, by 500 ft long
perpendicular to the coast (offshore distance). If all 24.1 mgd (3,221,925 ft3/d) flows into the
seafloor within this area, the average infiltration velocity of ocean water into the sea floor would
be 3.22 ft/d, which equates to velocity of 0.011 mm/sec.

As discussed in the RDIER, this calculated ocean water velocity into the seafloor is much lower
than swimming speeds of marine organisms, and much lower than currents associated with waves
and thus potential impingement of organisms and organic material on the sea floor due to the
proposed project pumping is less than significant.

I suggest that the infiltration velocity calculations should also include effective porosity of the sea
floor sediment. Because water only flows through the connected void space (effective porosity)
within the sediment, the velocity of water flowing within the sediment is faster. The lower the
ATTACHMENT A

Review of MCWD Comments on RDEIR
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project RDEIR
DRAFT 1 August 2017
Page 31

effective porosity, the higher the velocity. Assuming an effective porosity of 0.25 (25 percent) for
the sea floor sediment, the velocity in the sediment would be four times higher: (0.011mm/sec
divided by 0.25 = 0.0455 mm/sec). However, this more conservative velocity is still much lower
than swimming speeds of marine organisms, and much lower than currents associated with waves
and thus potential impingement of organisms and organic material on the sea floor due to the
proposed project pumping is less than significant.

Moreover, the calculated velocity of ocean water infiltration into the sea floor is conservative
because not all the water pumped by the project wells would infiltrate through the assumed 2000
by 500 ft area of seafloor. A portion of the source water would come from inland groundwater
and the area of seafloor through which ocean water would infiltrate would be larger than 2000 by
500 ft.

I disagree that the location of the submersible pump is an important factor in the vertical
infiltration velocity of ocean water through the sea floor. The location of the pump within the well
will have little influence on the flow profile and negligible influence on vertical infiltration rate of
ocean water into the sea floor. Note the that the depth of the slant wells where they would
approach the coastline would be a couple hundred feet, and consequently the ocean water drawn
into the slant wells would come from a large area.

The detailed stratigraphy (sediment profile) for the existing test slant well, which is based on the
boring log is depicted Figure 4c in Appendix E2 of the DEIR (ESA, 2015). The sediment profile
for the proposed shallower angle slant wells (14 degrees instead of 19 degrees) will be similar and
can be estimated from the stratigraphy shown by Figure 4c in Appendix E2 of the DEIR (ESA,
2015). Moreover, the hydrostratigraphy is approximated by the NMGWM2016, which includes
updates based on specific information from borings logs in the project site vicinity. The
distribution of inflow to the slant wells may influence salinity, but will have negligible influence
on vertical infiltration rate of ocean water into the sea floor because of the large distance between
the well screens and the sea floor and anisotropy of hydraulic conductivity within the sediments
(Kh > Kv).

I am not aware of any packers in the test slant well, or plans for packers in the proposed slant
wells. Packers, which could be used to focus flow from portions of the well, could influence
salinity, but would have negligible influence on vertical infiltration rate of ocean water into the
sea floor for the same reasons discussed above.

As discussed above and presented in the Section 4.5.5.2 of the RDEIR, the vertical velocity of
ocean water entering the sea floor would be too low relative to the cleaning effects of the water
energy to cause clogging.
ATTACHMENT A

Review of MCWD Comments on RDEIR
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project RDEIR
DRAFT 1 August 2017
Page 32

REFERENCES
EKI, 28 March 2017, Comments Regarding California America Water Monterey Peninsula Water
Supply Project Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement,
Released 13 January 2017, Memorandum to Marina Coast Water District.

ESA, April 2015, Cal Am Monterey Water Supply Project, Draft Environmental Impact Report,
prepared for California Public Utilities Commission.

ESA, January 2017, Cal Am Monterey Water Supply Project, Draft Environmental Impact Report,
prepared for California Public Utilities Commission.

GeoHydros, 27 March 2017, Review of the 2016 North Marina Groundwater Model, prepared
for Marina Coast Water District.

Goebel M, A Pidlisecky, R Knight, 2017, Resistivity imaging reveals complex pattern of saltwater
intrusion along Monterey coast, Journal of Hydrology, vol. 551, pp 746-755.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022169417301154?via%3Dihub

Geoscience, 8 July 2014, Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Results of Test Slant Well
Predictive Scenarios Using CEMEX Area Model, DRAFT, prepared for Cal Am Water,
Appendix E1 of DEIR.

Geoscience, 8 July 2014, Technical Memorandum (TM1) Summary of Results – Exploratory
Boreholes, Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Hydrogeologic Investigation,
DRAFT, prepared for Cal Am Water and RBF Consulting, Appendix C3 of DEIR

Geoscience, 17 April 2014, Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Groundwater Modeling and
Analysis, prepared for Cal Am Water, Appendix E2 of DEIR.

Geoscience, 20 April 2014, Technical Memorandum, Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project
Baseline Water and Total Dissolved Solids Levels, Test Slant Well Area, submitted to the
Hydrogeologic Working Group.

Geoscience, 16 June 2015, Test Slant Well Long Term Pumping Monitoring Report No. 7, 3
June 15 to 10 June 15, prepared for Cal Am Water
http://www.watersupplyproject.org/testwellmonitoring
ATTACHMENT A

Review of MCWD Comments on RDEIR
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project RDEIR
DRAFT 1 August 2017
Page 33

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 Cal Am Water, 15 July 2016.

Geoscience Support Services Inc., 2017, Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Test Slant
Well Long Term Pumping Monitoring Report No. 114 5-July-17 – 12-July-17, prepared
for Cal Am Water, 18 July 2017. https://www.watersupplyproject.org/test-well

Guo, W. and C.D. Langevin, 2002. “User’s Guide to SEAWAT: A Computer Program for
Simulation of Three-Dimensional Variable-Density Ground-Water Flow.” U.S. Geological
Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations 6-A7.

Harbaugh, A.W., 2005, MODFLOW-2005, The U.S. Geological Survey modular ground-water
model – the Ground-Water Flow Process (TM 6-A16) (see also
http://water.usgs.gov/ogw/modflow/).

Hopkins, 29 March 2017, letter to Marina Coast Water District, re: CalAm Monterey Peninsula
Water Supply Project, Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact
Statement, Prepared for California Public Utilities Commission and Monterey Bay National
Marine Sanctuary, January 2017

HydroFocus, 2016, North Marina Groundwater Model Review, Revision, and Implementation for
Slant Well Pumping Scenarios, 23 Nov 2016, Appendix E2 of RDEIR.

LBNL, 2016, Peer Review of Groundwater Modeling for the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply
Project (MPWSP) April 2015 Draft EIR, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, LBNL-
1006421, 31 Oct 2016, included as Appendix E1 in the RDEIR.

Marina Coast Water District (MCWD), Monterey County Water Resources Agency (MCWRA),
and California-American Water Company (Cal-Am), 2010. Water Purchase Agreement.
Dated April 6, 2010.

Mactec, 2006, Final Operable Unit Carbon Tetrachloride Plume Groundwater Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study, Former Fort Ord, California, Volume 1 – Remedial
Investigaiton, prepared for the US Army Corps of Engineers, May 19.
http://fortordcleanup.com/reference-documents/ouctp/
ATTACHMENT A

Review of MCWD Comments on RDEIR
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project RDEIR
DRAFT 1 August 2017
Page 34

Montgomery Watson, 1994, Salinas River Basin Water Resources Management Plan task 1.09,
Salinas Valley Ground Water Flow and Quality Model Report, prepared for MCWRA.

Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Coast Region, State Water Resources Control
Board, California Environmental Protection Agency, (RWQCB, 2011), Water Quality
Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin, Dated June.

Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Coast Region, Revised Waste Discharge
Requirements Order No. R3-2006-0017, Waste Discharger ID No. 3 270303001 for
Monterey Regional Waste Management District, Monterey Peninsula Class III Landfill
Monterey County.

Sobczynski, L., 2017, Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report/Draft Environmental
Impact Statement for the Proposed Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project, letter from
the law firm of Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo on behalf of California Unions for
Reliable Energy (CURE) to the California Public Utilities Commission and Monterey Bay
National Marine Sanctuary. March 28.

State Water Resources Control Board, 2013, Final Review of California American Water
Company’s Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project, 31 July, included as Appendix B2
to RDEIR.
ATTACHMENT 1 page 1 ATTACHMENT A
Review of the NMGWM – 2016 Version

Figure 10.
Comparison of simulated drawdown in in the Dune Sand Aquifer (Layer 2) derived from the calibrated version of the
2016 version of the NMGWM (top) and the Superposition model (bottom).

GeoHydros 21 | P a g e
ATTACHMENT 1 page 2 ATTACHMENT A
Review of the NMGWM – 2016 Version

Figure 11.
Comparison of simulated drawdown in in the 180-FT Aquifer (Layer 4) derived from the calibrated version of the
NMGWM-2016 (top) and the Superposition model (bottom).

GeoHydros 22 | P a g e
ATTACHMENT 1 page 3 ATTACHMENT A
Review of the NMGWM – 2016 Version

Figure 12.
Comparison of simulated drawdown in in the 400-FT Aquifer (Layer 6) derived from the calibrated version of the
NMGWM-2016 (top) and the Superposition model (bottom).

GeoHydros 23 | P a g e
ATTACHMENT A

ATTACHMENT 2 

Armstrong Ranch location, flow arrows, and notes added to DRAFT Figure 137 from Appendix E2 of DEIR 
 

With project
pumping. Local
reversal of flow
direction toward
the coast.

Existing conditions. Inland flow
direction in coastal aquifers.
Armstrong Ranch

Armstrong Ranch is well beyond
extent of capture by the proposed
project pumping.
Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority Date: August 10, 2017
Agenda Report Item No: 10.

FROM: Executive Director Cullem

SUBJECT: Receive an Update on the Summary Project Schedule for the Monterey
Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP) and Status of Test Slant Well
Operations

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the Water Authority Board receive a report from Cal Am on the
latest "Summary" MPWSP schedule and the status of the test well operation. Cal Am
might specifically address what effect CEMEX operations have on monitoring well
results.

DISCUSSION:

Cal Am will provide the most recent Summary MPWSP schedule, and discuss the
status of the test slant well including monitoring well results that may be affected by
CEMEX or other non-slant well influences.

Of particular interest is the current salinity of the source water and the explanation for
any significant changes from the previous report.

Note that regular updates on the MPWSP are available at Cal Am's project web site:
www.watersupplyproject.org .

ATTACHMENTS:

None

№06/12