mprwa agenda packet final 07-09-15

8/20/2019 Mprwa Agenda Packet Final 07-09-15

1/104

AgendaMonterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority (MPRWA)

Regular Meeting

7:00 PM, Thursday, July 9, 2015

COUNCIL CHAMBER580 Pacific Street

Monterey, California

ROLL CALL

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

REPORTS FROM BOARD DIRECTORS AND STAFF

PUBLIC COMMENTSPUBLIC COMMENTS allows you, the public, to speak for a maximum of three minutes on anysubject which is within the jurisdiction of the MPRWA and which is not on the agenda. Any personor group desiring to bring an item to the attention of the Authority may do so by addressing theAuthority 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 contactthe sender concerning the details.

CONSENT AGENDA

1. Approve Minutes from June 23, 2015 Joint Special Meeting - Milton-Rerig

2. Approve Minutes from August 14, 2014 Regular Meeting - Milton-Rerig

3. Approve and File Checks Through June 30, 2015 - Milton-Rerig

4. Receive , Discuss, Provide Direction as Necessary on Final Comment Letter to theCalifornia Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) on the Monterey Peninsula Water SupplyProject Draft Environmental Impact Report - Cullem

AGENDA ITEMS

5. Receive an Update on the Summary Project Schedule for the Monterey Peninsula WaterSupply Project (MPWSP) including Status of Slant Test Well Operations and Results -Crooks

6. Discuss Concerns of the City of Marina with Respect to the Monterey Peninsula WaterSupply Project (MPWSP) and the Pure Water Monterey/Ground Water Replenishment(GWR) Projects and Provide Direction - Cullem

7. Receive Report, Discuss, Provide Staff Direction, and Authorize the Water AuthorityExecutive Director and/or President to Co-sign or Send Letter in Support of the ProposedCease and Desist Order Extension Request - Cullem


2/104

Thursday, July 9, 2015

2

8. Discuss, Provide Direction and Authorize Sending of Comment letter to the PCA / WaterManagement District on the Pure Water Monterey/Ground Water Replenishment (GWR)Project - Cullem

9. Annual Appointment of Officers for Fiscal Year 2015-16 - Milton-Rerig

10. Water Authority board members authorize the president to represent the city's interest atthe governance committee for the pipeline RFP. - Cullem

ADJOURNMENT

The City of Monterey is committed to including the disabled in all of its services, programs andactivities. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistanceto 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 arrangementsto ensure accessibility to this meeting [28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II]. Later requests willbe accommodated to the extent feasible. For communication-related assistance, dial 711 to usethe 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 hearingamplification 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 publicinspection during the meeting or may be requested from the Monterey City Clerk’s Office at 580Pacific St, Room 6, Monterey, CA 93940. This agenda is posted in compliance with CaliforniaGovernment Code Section 54954.2(a) or Section 54956.


3/104

MINUTESMONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA)

DIRECTORS AND TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEEJoint Special Meeting

6:30 PM, Thursday, June 23, 2015COUNCIL CHAMBER

440 HARCOURT AVESEASIDE, CALIFORNIA

Directors Present:TAC Present:

Burnett, Kampe, Pendergrass, RobersonRiley, Scuito, Alternate Ottmar, Riley, Alternate Stone, Chair Cullem

Directors Absent:TAC Absent:

Edelen, RubioStoldt

Staff Present: Executive Director, Legal Counsel, Clerk

ROLL CALL

President Burnett called the meeting to order at 6:34 PM.



Chair Burnett invited comments from the Directors or the TAC and no reports were made.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

Chair Burnett invited comments from the Public

• Tom Rowley spoke to a previous TAC Meeting where he remarked to the dangers to

polluting an aquifer. He referenced an article from Hawaii that is using a similar process

and which is harming their basin. He reported he would provide a copy of the article to

the Executive Director.

CONSENT AGENDA

On motion by Director Pendergrass and seconded by Vice President Kampe and approved bythe following vote the Directors approve the Consent Calendar as presented.

AYES: 4 DIRECTORS:Burnett, Kampe, Pendergrass, Roberson

NOES: 0 DIRECTORS: NoneABSENT: 2 DIRECTORS: Edelen, RubioABSTAIN: 0 DIRECTORS: None


4/104

RECUSED: 0 DIRECTORS: None

1. Approve and File Authority Checks Through June 23, 2015

Action: Approved & Filed

2. Receive Report on Visit to the Monterey Peninsula by Tam Dudoc, P.E., Member of the

State Water Resources Control Board on May 29, 2015Action: Report Received

3. Receive Certificate of Appreciation for Keith Israel and Authorize Appointment of hisReplacement on the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)Action: Received

AGENDA ITEMS

4. Discuss Concerns of the City of Marina with Respect to the Monterey Peninsula WaterSupply Project (MPWSP) and the Pure Water Monterey/Ground Water Replenishment(GWR) Projects and Provide Direction

President Burnett reported that the City of Marina has two main concerns the first is concern

regarding the groundwater that the City relies on. They want to ensure that Marina’s interests

are protected as they do not have a representative on the Hydrogeological working group. The

Second issue of concern to the City is the level of disruption that the construction will cause to

the City. There will be pavement impacts and disruption to the Marina community which the

other Peninsula cities will not have as dramatically. Nothing necessarily needs to be

incorporated into the EIR comments but President Burnett encouraged helping facilitate

discussions with Cal Am and the City of Marina.

Paul Scuito, General Manager of the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency

reported that they did receive Marina’s comments on the GWR project, which will be addressed.He offered to provide copies to each of the Directors if requested.

President Burnett invited public comment on the item.

• Michael Baer pointed out that there will be disruption of some kind to all Cities from

Marina to Pacific Grove with the installation of the pipelines.

President Burnett agreed with Mr. Baer’s comments.

The update was received.

5. Receive Presentation, Discuss, Provide Direction and Authorize Sending of CommentLetter to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) on the Monterey PeninsulaWater Supply Project Draft Environmental Impact Report

Executive Director Cullem introduced the contracted consultants from Geosyntec that were

obtained to conduct a peer review analysis of the intake structures and the brine disposal

analysis for the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Monterey Peninsula Water

Supply Project (MPWSP)


5/104

Gordon Thrup, from Geosyntec provided a presentation including on overview of the project, the

review goals and a focused review determining if the DEIR addresses the main critical issues of

the water intake system and brine disposal.

Mr. Thrup explained in detail the different hydro static situations, the aquifer diagram, water

flows patterns as well as the salt water intrusion levels due to over-pumping of the aquifer for

agricultural use. He further explained the different site specific properties and testing done by

Cal Am for the project, the geological cross section of the CEMEX area and the groundwater

modeling

Mr. Thrup spoke to the conclusions made in the DEIR as it related to the intake and the salt

water intrusion and impacts of the intake systems and their recommendations as it relates to the

proposed DEIR. His resulting conclusions are that there are some assumptions made in the

DEIR regarding modeling which are too conservative and some that are not conservative

enough. He presented the following conclusions regarding the subsurface intake system:

• The models provide reasonable simulations of pumping from the subsurface intakes.

• The contribution of inland fresh groundwater to the proposed pumping beneath the

coastal margin is minor and can realistically be returned to the Salinas Basin.

• The potential impact to inland wells is not significant.

• The project pumping would decrease sea water intrusion to inland aquifers.

• Updates to the model predictions can be made based on the long-term pump testing

currently in progress at the slant well.

President Burnett invited comments from the Directors.

Director Pendergrass requested clarification on the perforated interval screen. He also

questioned if there was a possibility that the Marina wells will have sea water intrusion, to which

Mr. Thrup indicated that he thinks the wells are installed lower as to go underneath the seawater

intrusion so that it would take a long time for the Marina wells to flow downward.

Director Kampe spoke to the setback from the coastline either that the pipe has to go out further

or it has to be located to the shore line. What effect would it have to the result and particular the

% of seawater to freshwater if the intake was further out based on the proposed modeling?

Answer: there was a sensitivity analysis to the angle of the well as well as the depth. The angle

will dictate the depth of the well. The further you are out in the ocean the different depth will be

required. Mr. Thrup thinks the impact would be less than significant. Director Burnett indicated it

was going to be closer to the shore line but there was concern with coastal erosion. If you go

too far to the ocean, they can be exposed with coastal erosion and they had to account for sealevel rise.

Director Roberson requested clarification as to why salinity levels raise over time to which Mr.

Thrup responded some of the dunes sand is not very intruded with salt water, and that

influences the initial salinity but with time, the pumping will reach a connection with the ocean,

which would raise the salinity.


6/104

President Burnett questioned the hydraulic connectivity values and the assumptions made to

which the main method was based on the lythologic logs.

President Burnett invited questions from the TAC

TAC Member Riley questioned the conductivity pattern that exists in area 10.02 on the Fig 31

appendix E2 and it gets close to the Seaside Groundwater Basin and is there any data that

creates a picture of the Basin. He expressed concern that it could change flow pattern of

conductivity to the adjudicated basin. Mr. Riley further commented that due to the newness of

the slant well technology, and the time line, there may be some short cuts and expressed

concern that the data is fully collected so that the full implications are known.

The presentation continued with Al Preston, Geosyntech Consultant who discussed the brine

disposal system overview, provided an update on the critical issues, and the differences

between a near and far field approach. He discussed assumptions made in the modeling,

potential weaknesses, results and monitoring, mitigation and then their recommendations as it

related that should be included in the DEIR.

DEIR uses appropriate analyses to address most of the main critical issues related to the brine

disposal system

Include the following analyses provided by Geosyntec

Port merging

Coanda effect

Hypoxia

Address/discuss potential for buildup of PCBs in sediments surrounding intakes

Conduct additional near field analysis to estimate additional dilution achievable by

pulsing brine discharge

Consider retrofit of diffuser ports with inclined angles to achieve more dilution if

necessary

Add discussion of potential for diffuser structure to trap brine

Consider current directions (from ROM) and bathymetry slope with respect to

diffuser alignment and tidal reversals

Consider using 3D far field model

Will likely result in additional dilution

Will better address potential for brine trapping by diffuser structure

Add discussion of the effect of only tracking brine particles for 48 hours

Director Kampe thanked the consultant for the presentation in an easy to understandable

format. He questioned if it was possible to have a continuous buoyancy plume, that may happen

due to the lack of waste water available and asked if that was why the strategies of storage and

pulsing is important.


7/104

Director Roberson questioned the concentration of brine consistency and if it would be impacted

with the reduction of the waste water quantities through GWR to which Mr. Preston indicated

that the DEIR did consider scenarios where there was no waste water at all.

President Burnett questioned if pressurized diffusers were included in the analysis, to which Mr.

Preston affirmed if you pressurize the diffusers it will increase the velocity of the diffusion and it

would be a feasible solution.

President Burnett invited questions from TAC Members:

George Riley spoke to pulsing and gravity feed and questioned the difference in modeling that

would need to take place to change the dispersal patterns. Mr. Preston responded that when

the plume sinks because it is so close to the ground, if you pressurize it would aid in the

trajectory and would push it out further.

President Burnett indicated there are two longer term impacts that are listed as not judged to be

mitigatable to less than significant. The First is Green House Gas and the second is Land Use

associated with the size of the facility. He questioned if the Authority would consider requestinginclusion of the Authority’s desires to ensure there is water for lots of record. He also expressed

two options which could mitigate the above to make it less than significant which could be

included in the response comments. It would make it easier to certify the EIR if those were

reduced.

1) Ability to go out on the open market to purchase recs or carbon credits to reduce the

impacts to less than significant level. This may incur economic impacts

2) AB 32 which covers electric generating units in the public sector and some EIR’s point to

AB 32 as mitigation because the emissions are off site but at a different facility that feeds

into the PGE Distribution system.

President Burnett invited comments from the public.

• Tom Rolwey spoke representing the Monterey Peninsula Tax Payers association who

supports the adequate water for lots of record comment inclusion. He also thanked the

Directors for hiring the consultants and that it was money well spent.

• Michael Baer spoke to attending other meetings and is trying to understand from an

environmental impact position in a layman’s perspective. From a discharge side, waste

water discharge is dependent on seasonal rainfall, it is an unknown going forward. The

wave action on the surface can be significant, and thinks there may be some motion

during storms that may diffuse this stuff. He outlines the quantity of brine to be

discharged with fresh water and is not convinced that the brine will not build up over

time. The DDT is from the GWR project. All of this seems to be based on models, is

there anywhere else in the world with a desal plant that has similar situation with actual

data and what is happening to the ocean. Concerned it is based on speculation. Does

not think there is a baseline biology done in that mud below the pipe.

Public Comment was closed and President Burnett answered questions posed during public

comment.


8/104

President Burnett clarified the process going forward that there would be a cover letter signed

by the Authority and listed as an attachment would be the written technical report completed for

submission as an attachment.

The Authority discussed the content of the letter and agreed that the letter should outline

references and comments on mitigation measures as they pertain to the DEIR. The letter will

contain the general concern but also to include accurate cite references and requested

specification of the changes to make it easier to respond and show how it directly applies to the

DEIR. They agreed to the inclusion of a recommendation to explore the financial impact to the

rate payers for a power purchase arrangement for renewable energy as a mitigating option.

On motion by Vice President Kampe and seconded by Director Pendergrass and approved by

the following vote the Authority Directors approved Executive Director Cullem and President

Burnett to draft a transmittal letter outlining specific recommendations on both the intake and the

discharge elements of the Draft EIR and incorporate GHG mitigation suggestions and

confirming lots of record as part of the water supply project plan .


NOES: 0 DIRECTORS: NoneABSENT: 2 DIRECTORS: Edelen, RubioABSTAIN: 0 DIRECTORS: NoneRECUSED: 0 DIRECTORS: None

6. Discuss, Provide Direction and Authorize Sending of Comment Letter to the PCA / WaterManagement District on the Pure Water Monterey/Ground Water Replenishment (GWR)Project

Action: This item was continued to a future meeting.

The Authority requested a representative from the Water Management District be present a

report.

7. Receive an Update on the Summary Project Schedule for the Monterey Peninsula WaterSupply Project (MPWSP) Including Status of Slant Test Well Operations and Results.

Action: This item was continued to a future meeting.

8. Receive Report, Discuss, Provide Staff Direction, and Authorize the Water Authority

Executive Director and/or President to Co-sign or Send Letter in Support of the ProposedCease and Desist Order Extension Request

President Burnett spoke to the item and indicated that it is unlikely this item will be taken up by

the State Water Resources Control Board prior to the adoption of the EIR. He spoke in support

of the fact the request is a joint document between the Authority, Cal Am and the Water

Management District which proves the community has a unified voice and anticipates the Board

will be more receptive. President Burnett suggested the Authority authorize being a signatory to


9/104

the action itself. The Directors discussed the timing of the request, the amount of public input

prior to submission and other items for inclusion. President Burnett spoke in support of delaying

the submission of the request due to their distraction with new water regulations and

enforcement throughout the state. He clarified that the Authority is not a party to the action, and

would not lose any legal rights, but that by signing the document, it shows a collective

commitment.


• Tom Rowley expressed regret that the County of Monterey is not represented on the

authority.

• George Riley there should be wiggle room in the letter to comply with the conservation

target and find a solution to the economic improvements. Disappointed that the proposal

did not include his previous suggestions regarding fines.

On motion by Director Pendergrass and seconded by Vice President Kampe and passed by the

following vote the Directors approved the addition of the Authority as a signatory to the letter of

support of the Cease and Desist order extension request.


NOES: 0 DIRECTORS: NoneABSENT: 2 DIRECTORS: Edelen, RubioABSTAIN: 0 DIRECTORS: NoneRECUSED: 0 DIRECTORS: None

ADJOURNMENT

No longer having a quorum, the meeting was adjourned at 9:16 PM

ATTEST:

Lesley Milton-Rerig, Clerk of the Authority Jason Burnett, President


10/104


11/104

MINUTES

MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA)Regular Meeting

7:00 PM, Thursday, August 14, 2014COUNCIL CHAMBER580 PACIFIC STREET

MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA

Directors Present: Burnett, Della Sala, Edelen, Kampe, Pendergrass, Rubio

Directors Absent: None

Staff Present: Executive Director, Legal Counsel, Clerk

ROLL CALL



PUBLIC COMMENTS

CONSENT AGENDA

On motion by Director Rubio and seconded by Director Della Sala and passed by the followingvote the Directors approved items 1, 2 and 4 and tabled item 3 on the consent agenda.

AYES: 6 DIRECTORS:Burnett, Della Sala, Edelen, Kampe, Pendergrass,Rubio

NOES: 0 DIRECTORS: NoneABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: NoneABSTAIN: 0 DIRECTORS: None

RECUSED: 0 DIRECTORS: None

1. Approve July 10, 2014 Joint Special Meeting Minutes

Action: Approved

2. Approve July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting Minutes

Action: Approved

3. Adoption of a Resolution to Approving the Revised Member Allocation (%) Distributions toInclude the County of Monterey and Downward Revisions to the Annual Member Contributionsfor Fiscal Year 2014-15Action: Tabled

4. Approval of Checks from May to July 2014 and Adoption of a Resolution Approving the FinalBudget Reconciliation for Fiscal Year 2013-14Action: Approved

AGENDA ITEMS

5. Receive report, discuss, and provide direction with regards to expected changes to theCalifornia Public Utilities Commission(CPUC) schedule for the Monterey Peninsula WaterSupply Project (MPWSP)


12/104

MPRWA Minutes Thursday, August 14, 2014

Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority

Regular Meeting Minutes - Thursday, August 14, 20142

Executive Director Cullem spoke to the notice distributed from the Administrative Law Judgewhich indicates that the energy division of the of the CPUC EIR team is delayed in finishing theirsection of the DEIR and are postponing the release for 4 months. Subsequently received is thehearing schedule in December will be delayed until April 2015. He spoke to how it will impactthe work schedule for both the MPWSP and the GWR project. President Burnett indicated thatcomments on the proposed schedule are due Sept 15th, the proposal is to have a call with the

Settling Parties to determine if there is consensus decision as how to respond. It would behelpful if the Authority would provide general direction to Special Counsel McGlothlin. Herecommended that comments included changes to the GWR Schedule


• Dave Stoldt highlighted the scheduling issues as it related from GWR to the MPWSPproject.

• Mike McCullough submitted a letter from Keith Israel speaking in support of Mr. Stoldtand that many of the issues that need to be addressed in the GWR Project are the sameas the MPWSP project and it makes sense to coordinate the schedules.

• Norm Grut, representing Monterey County Farm Bureau spoke to the executive orderreleased the organization does not like the delay but will strengthen the DEIR as themodeling will be more complete and will provide adequate review. They don’t’ like it, butit’s a good indicator that the EIR will be stronger for source water and groundwaterissues. Also spoke to the 11043 permit required to be filed by July 1, was submitted asrequired by the deadline and not submitted to be controversial against the two projects.

• John Narigi expressed disappointment and questioned how much more time we allow forthe GWR Project, there has been no talk about a rationing plan or a modification of theCDO which is the largest concern for the Business community. He does not want theGWR Project to hold up the size determination of the plant.

• Tom Rowley, speaking for Monterey Peninsula Tax Payers Association spoke againstcirculating the DEIR without the test slant well results.

• George Riley, Public Water Now expressed concern to holding GWR to the existingschedule that is arbitrary in favor of a project that is further behind. GWR has thegreatest potential to influence the state water board to modify the CDO order.

• Nancy Isakson spoke in support of other comments made that the modeling is importantinformation. It will be a key component to determine if the project will work and shouldhave it before deciding to go forward.


13/104




Director Rubio moved that the Authority direct Special Legal Counsel to engage the settlingparties in talking about extending the schedule for the GWR, seconded by DirectorPendergrass.

Under Discussion, Director Edelen questioned if we are in contact with the State WaterResources Control Board regarding the delays and how to overcome them. President Burnettagreed to send a letter with the attached AJL Letter that indicates the project is outside of thecommunity's hands and will also request the CPUC to send a letter to the SWRCB to try toencourage engagement.

President Burnett indicated that unless there is an objection, a draft letter for consideration toboth CPUC and The SWRCB regarding this issue will be agendized for the September 11,2015 meeting for approval.

The motion was approved by the following vote:

AYES: 6 DIRECTORS:Burnett, Della Sala, Edelen, Kampe, Pendergrass,Rubio

NOES: 0 DIRECTORS: NoneABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: NoneABSTAIN: 0 DIRECTORS: NoneRECUSED: 0 DIRECTORS: None

6. Receive report, discuss, and provide direction with regards to the current status of sourcewater negotiations for the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency (MRWPCA)Ground Water Replenishment (GWR) Project

Executive Director Cullem indicate that the options listed in the staff report reflected adiscussion by the TAC but took place prior to the reports from the CPUC revising theschedules, so the staff report is outdated.

Dave Stoldt General Manager from the Water Management District reported that a large teamrepresenting many different interests has been meeting and has drafted a request for extensionof the Cease and Desist order. They expect to receive a response prior to the end of thesummer. He outlined the process for the extension, the realistic rationing plan strategy, andthat the cities are represented in these discussions. Those things are moving forward inparallel. With respect to the GWRO, there have been large stakeholder meeting about sourcewater agreements and there is a current proposal before the growers that is still pending. Onthe staff level, there is agreement, so it is a workable construct. He also spoke to progressmade with the County Water Resources Agency regarding water rights.

Director Rubio spoke to misconceptions in the public but that there are multiple livelihoods atstake with the agreements. He thanked Dave Stoldt for all his efforts.


14/104




Invited public comment on the item.

• Nelson Vega questioned why the Authority cannot take a position support both projectsdue to the need of water. Any water that is produced in addition to needs can be addedto the Seaside Aquifer.

• Kevin Stone, Monterey County Association of Realtors thanked the Water ManagementDistrict for their efforts to reach out the SWRCB for the CDO extension. He wassurprised more were not engaged as it impacts all of us, business owners, and propertyowners. He echoed Mr. Vega's comments regarding size of the plant and GWR andencouraged addressing the immediate needs and get both on line as soon as possible.

Director Rubio reiterated his support for the larger sized plant. He spoke to the value of theGWR project with or without the desal and that we should we not connect the two project.

7. Receive report, discuss, and vote on staff proposal to add the General Manager, or DistrictEngineer, of the Marina Coast Water District (MCWD) as a member of the Authority TechnicalAdvisory Committee (TAC) and to add a MCWD hydrologist to the Monterey Peninsula WaterSupply Project (MPWSP) Hydrogeologic Working Group

President Burnett indicated that the second part of the item title was not valid as it is not underthe purview of the Authority and will not be taken up. Executive Director Cullem spoke to therecommendation to appoint staff members from the Marina Coast Water District to the TAC andthe Hydrogeologic Working Group. He explained the need to understand concerns expressedby the MCWD, and the need to draw the MCWD into the earlier in the game, as was done withTAC Member Huss. He indicated the recommendation is to appoint Brian Lee, GeneralManager to the TAC.

President Burnett Invited comments from the public.

• Nancy Isackson spoke against appointment to the Hydrogeologic working gropu as it isa pure science committee and needs to be politically independent.

• Norm Grut spoke in support of the recommendation but did express concern that theywere not a signator to the Settlement Agreement. He agreed that communication andtrust needs to be built with the City of Marina but does not see these two linked.

• George Riley spoke to the purpose to be an objective group to bring different points ofview to the issues and that he thinks it would be an advantage to the TAC and for moresuccessful dialogue.

• John Narigi spoke in support if Ms. Isakson and Mr. Groot in that the MCWD does nothave an interest and is more political than to bring value to the table. He spoke againstthe appointment of Mr. Lee from MCWD.

• Nelson Vega spoke in support of Mr. Narigi's comments.• Tom Rowley indicated that it should not be an issue if the MCWD is on the TAC, but that

would be more appropriate to have someone from the County of Monterey or the City ofMarina.

The Directors discussed the recommendation. Director Pendergrass spoke against theappointment referencing his experience with the MCWD, the different interests of the MCWDand the Salinas growers. He expressed concern that it would cause issues on the TAC and thatthe MCWD as an entity is not solutions oriented and he expressed concern regarding theMCWD Filed lawsuit pending with Cal Am that may be conflicting.


15/104




Director Edelen disagreed and spoke to the healthy discussion and the value to bringingdifferent viewpoints into the group for a better final decision. Director Kampe spoke to thecomments made by the MCWD representative at a previous meeting and expressed concernthat the MCWD representative in the audience did not comment on the item. Director Della Salasaid that to improve a situation you have to make change and inviting them on the Board willmake change. If we continue the path we are currently on, we will continue to have conflict.

Director Rubio, spoke to changes on the Board at MCWD, spoke in support of Mr. Lee'scapabilities, but don't know the level of influence he has with the Board. He agreed with Mr.Kampe that affirmation is needed.

Director Della Sala moved the Authority Directors invite the MCWD participation on theTechnical Advisory Committee seconded by Director Edelen.

Director Kampe requested the motion be contingent based on the approval of the MCWD forappointment. Asked if the motion would be amended. Motion amendment approved, andseconded approved.

Motion was approved by the following vote.

AYES: 5 DIRECTORS:Burnett, Della Sala, Edelen, Kampe, Rubio

NOES: 1 DIRECTORS: PendergrassABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: NoneABSTAIN: 0 DIRECTORS: NoneRECUSED: 0 DIRECTORS: None

8. Receive report, discuss, and provide direction on the Value Engineering (VE) Final Report forthe Cal Am Desal facility, authorize forwarding of the VE report to the Governance Committeefor its action, and authorize payment to the consultant (VMS) from funding provided by Cal Am,not to-exceed the contract price of $109,035.70

President Burnett introduced the item indicating the purpose is to receive the report on the FinalValue Engineering Study of the MPWSP, to discuss any possible recommendations to be madeand forwarded to the Governance Committee. The report is quite technical and if it wouldbenefit the group to ask SPI to review the report. There are important tradeoffs to beconsidered and the potential changes to risk and schedule need to be taken into consideration.Cal Am has offered to reimburse the Authority for any expenses that have been incurred.

Executive Director Cullem spoke to the availability of the report and explained that since we areacting as a contracting agent, there is an opportunity to review and make suggestions andrecommendations. He indicated there are 33 suggested design alternatives. Mr. Cullemanswered questions from the Board.

Director Pendergrass questioned why the energy recover with the WMD was not included towhich Executive Director indicated that it was incorporated into the design build. Della Salaclarified the request by Mr. Pendergrass to request CDM to indicate the energy savings of theSand City Plant and that of the new plant so we can prove to the public we have the mostefficient plant available.

President Burnett requested Mr. Crooks to go through the 16 suggested changes for forwardingto the governance committee.


16/104




Mr. Crooks went through the options identified that warrant further investigation and effortscategorized into the following groups; electrical, treatment process or mechanical. He spoke tothe active engagement of review for these items and commented on scenarios of how some ofthe suggestions could impact others by adding cost or risk. Some could improve efficient atextra costs and those are being addressed. He closed by saying he thought the process wasvalue able even if no comments end up being incorporated because the process validated theproject.


• John Narigi requested an update to the financial cost to the rate payers and that thepublic should understand that this body is working to reduce the cost to the rate payers.He encouraged maintaining cost control.

• Tom Rowley spoke to the cost to the ratepayers and thanked the Directors keeping thepressure on for minimizing costs to the consumers.

Director Kampe spoke to the value of the document and appreciated the conservationmeasures in the design and the content of the report. He questioned if the value engineeringaddressing the issue of time in any way?

On motion by Director Kampe and seconded by Director Rubio and passed by the followingvote the City Council authorized payment for the not to exceed contract price and authorizedforwarding the VE report to the Governance Committ ee for action.

AYES: 5 DIRECTORS:Burnett, Edelen, Kampe, Pendergrass, Roberson ,Rubio


On motion by Director Rubio and seconded by Director Edelen and passed by the followingvote the Authority directed Executive Director Cullem to contract with SPI to conduct furtheranalysis on the Value Engineering study and present the results to the Authority on or beforethe September 11th meeting, for a cost not to exceed $5,000.

AYES: 5 DIRECTORS:Burnett, Edelen, Kampe, Pendergrass, Roberson ,Rubio


9. Receive report, discuss, and provide direction on the power purchase agreement between CalAm and the Monterey Regional Waste Management District (MRWMD)

Executive Director Cullem reported that Cal Am funded the initial power study and the costs onthe Monterey Regional Waste Management District side to make it happen. An RFP wasreleased requesting bids for renewable power, which was coordinated with Cal Am. The RFPwill cover 3-5 year period when the current contract would expire and when Cal Am could beginusing.


17/104




President Burnett invited public comment on the item and had no requests to speak.

10. Receive report, discuss, and provide direction on the City of Marina test slant well CoastalDevelopment Permit (CDP) and the current schedule for Coastal Commission CDP

Ian Crooks from Cal Am reported on the City of Marina test slant well Coastal Development

Permit process indicating the appeal to the City Council will be on September 3, 2014,considerably later than expected. He is working with Coastal Commission staff to keep it onschedule for the October deadline. All else is moving forward including the RFP for test welldrilling, and meetings with contractors next week.

President Burnett indicated that the Governance Committee did review and provide direction forthe slant well RFP. He then invited public comment on the item.

• George Riley questioned the schedule, the draft EIR release and asked since theNegative Declaration is declared, does the Coastal Commission need moreenvironmental information prior to the meeting.

• Tom Rowley indicated that this is a political situation and the City of Marina is Marina a

land use jurisdiction and should be part of solving the peninsula water problems.

Mr. Crooks responded that the research of a scientific test well is typically exempt from CEQA.The MND is a conservative approach to address the well and approval is not dependent on theEIR.

Direction was provided that President Burnett and Executive Director Cullem attend the City ofMarina City Council meeting on September 3rd and speak on behalf of the Authority.

ADJOURNMENT

ATTEST:

Lesley Milton, Clerk of the Authority Jason Burnett, President


18/104


19/104

Monterey Peninsula Regional Water AuthorityAgenda Report

Date: July 09, 2015

Item No: 3.

№06/12

FROM: Authority Clerk Milton-Rerig

SUBJECT: Approve and File Checks through June 30, 2015

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the Authority approve and file the accounts payable paymentsmade through the end of the fiscal year, June 30, 2015

DISCUSSION:

At its meeting on September 12, 2013, the Authority Board approved a staffrecommendation to provide the Directors a listing of financial obligations since the lastreport for inspection and confirmation. Each invoiced expense has been reviewed andapproved by the Executive Director and Finance personnel prior to payment to insure thatit conforms to the approved budget.

Invoices for final year end services are being gathered and the total dollar value forapproval will be provided prior to the meeting for your review.

ATTACHMENTS:

• None at this time. They will be provided prior to the meeting.


20/104


21/104

Monterey Peninsula Regional Water AuthorityAgenda Report

Date: July 09, 2015

Item No: 4.

№06/12

FROM: Executive Director Cullem

SUBJECT: Receive and Discuss, if Necessary, the Draft Final Comment

Letter to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) on

the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Draft

Environmental Impact Report

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the Water Authority Board receive a copy of the draft final

comment letter on the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP) Draft

Environmental Impact Report (DEIR).

DISCUSSION:

At the joint Water Authority/TAC meeting on June 23, 2015 the Authority Board

approved sending a comment letter to the CPUC on the MPWSP DEIR.

In addition to the inclusion of the two Technical Memoranda (TM) which wereprepared by Geosyntec, under a contract with Separation Processes Inc., the Board

approved the preparation of more extensive comments on the impact of greenhouse

gas (GHG) emissions and potential growth inducements with respect to land use.

The draft letter is at Exhibit A. Exhibits B and C are the Geosyntec Technical

Memoranda presented and submitted to the Water Authority and the TAC on June

23 and which are included in the letter to the CPUC.

EXHIBITS:

A- Water Authority Comments on the MPWSP DEIR

B- Geosyntec TM on Subsurface Intakes

C- Geosyntec TM on Brine Disposal System


22/104

580 PACIFIC ST, ROOM 6 · MONTEREY · CALIFORNIA · 93940 · www.mprwa.org·

MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY

July 10, 2015 DRAFT

Andrew BarnsdaleCalifornia Public Utilities Commissionc/o Environmental Science Associates550 Kearny Street, Suite 800San Francisco, CA 94108

Directors:Jason Burnett, President

Bill Kampe, Vice PresidentDavid Pendergrass,

SecretaryJerry Edelen, Treasurer

Ralph Rubio, DirectorClyde Roberson, Director

Executive Director:Jim Cullem, P.E.

RE: Water Authority Comments on the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project DEIR

Dear Mr. Barnsdale:

The Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority (Water Authority) is a joint powers authoritycomprised of the six cities of the Monterey Peninsula with a board of directors consisting of the sixrespective city mayors.

The Water Authority has conducted several public meetings to discuss the DEIR for the MontereyPeninsula Water Supply Project (Project), proposed by California American Water Company (Cal Am)

in Application 04-09-019. Although the Water Authority generally supports the Project, we ask that youconsider the recommendations set forth in this letter on the Project’s greenhouse gas emissions, landuse impacts, source water intake systems, and brine disposal.

I. Greenhouse Gases

The Water Authority recommends that the California Public Utility Commission (Commission)reconsider its determination that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions resulting from the Project are asignificant impact under CEQA. We do not believe that the 2,000 metric ton (MT) threshold fordetermining significant impacts of GHG emissions is appropriate for the Project, which is based uponGHG emissions thresholds proposed by the staff of the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution ControlDistrict (MBUAPCD). MBUAPCD staff recommends a threshold of 10,000 MT of CO2e per year for

stationary source projects and a threshold of 2,000 MT CO2e per year for land-use projects orcompliance with an adopted GHG Reduction Plan/Climate Action Plan. MBUAPCD is currentlyevaluating a percentage-based threshold option as well. MBUAPCD does not have a formal policyrecommending specific thresholds, and neither of these thresholds has been adopted by theMBUAPCD. While it is understandable that the DEIR might choose to utilize a proposed, thoughunadopted threshold of significance, the 2,000 MT threshold is inappropriate here. This threshold isproposed for residential or commercial land use projects, as noted in the DEIR at section 4.11.3.2.This Project, in contrast, is akin to a stationary source, and the 10,000 MT threshold is moreappropriate for the heavy industrial land use type associated with the Project’s desalination plant. The


23/104

2

likely source of primary power for the desalination plant is the Moss Landing Power Plant locatedwithin the MBUAPCD. The Project’s estimate of 6,181 MT of GHG emissions per year is well belowthe MBUAPCD staff recommended threshold of 10,000 MT per year for a stationary source.

Further, under CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(b)(3), the incremental contribution of GHG emissionsfrom the Project’s electricity demand would not have a significant impact because the Project’selectricity source would be covered by the California Air Resources Board cap and trade programestablished by Assembly Bill 32. The electricity supplying the Project will be supplied from sourcesunder the AB 32 cap. The Water Authority has not done a comprehensive review of GHG emission

thresholds used by other lead agencies. However, we do note several agencies have pointed to AB32 in determining that GHG emissions were not a significant impact under CEQA. See, for example,the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) document “CEQA Determinations ofSignificance for Projects Subject to ARB’s GHG Cap-and-Trade Regulation,” APR – 2025, at page 4(June 25, 2014).1 SJVAPCD policy states, “The District has determined that GHG emissions increasesthat are covered under ARB’s Cap-and-Trade regulation cannot constitute significant increases underCEQA, for two separate and distinct reasons.” The two reasons are that “cap-and-trade regulation isan approved GHG emission reduction plan,” and “cap-and-trade regulation requires mitigation of GHGincreases.” The South Coast Air Quality Management District has taken a similar position for emissionincreases covered by the cap-and-trade program.

If, despite the foregoing discussion, the Commission nonetheless determines that GHG emissions

from the Project would be a significant impact, the Water Authority recommends that the Commissionconsider options for Cal Am to mitigate any net increase of GHGs from the Project by purchasingcarbon credits, renewable energy credits or other such mechanisms. The Water Authority recognizesthis would add to the costs of the Project and may lead to rate increases. We do not at this point havea position as to whether such a rate increase may be justified.

II. Land Use

One purpose of the Project is to supply sufficient water to meet the needs of the currently un-servedlots of record in the Cal Am service area as discussed in sections 2.32 and 8.2 of the DEIR. Althoughthe Project will not be sized to produce water to satisfy build-out under approved general plans, therecord should be made clear that this objective is a necessary component of the Monterey Peninsula’s

land use policy and Cal Am’s duty to serve legal lot owners within its service area. Further, existinglots of record were either created prior to the passage of CEQA or were created following appropriateCEQA review or exemptions. Under CEQA, if the development is “expected” because it wasaccounted for in a general plan document that underwent CEQA review already, then any growth-inducing impacts need not be analyzed in the EIR. A project is not growth-inducing when, as here,growth was planned first, and is not a consequence of the project. (See Banning Ranch Conservancy,211 Cal.App.4th at 1230.) Established case law holds that an EIR need not re-analyze growth that theproject may facilitate if that growth was already reviewed under CEQA as part of a separate approvalprocess such as a land use agency’s adoption of a general plan. (See, e.g., Clover Valley Foundationv. City of Rocklin (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 200, 228 [“[G]rowth has already been analyzed in the City’sgeneral plan EIR and was contemplated in the general plan and the SPMUD Master Plan…CEQA didnot require the City to redo that analysis….”]; Sierra Club v. West Side Irrigation Dist. (2005) 128

Cal.App.4th 690, 701–03 [upholding negative declaration of water supply contracts because waterwould serve growth already planned in general plan and evaluated in general plan EIR].)

III. Source Water Intake Systems and Brine Discharge

To address “Source Water Intake Systems" and "Brine Discharge," which were identified in DEIRsection ES.8 "Issue to be Resolved and Areas of Controversy", the Water Authority contracted with

1 See http://www.valleyair.org/policies_per/Policies/APR-2025.pdf


24/104

3

Separation Processes, Inc. and its sub-consultant Geosyntec to conduct a technical review of theDEIR focused on the following two questions:

1. Does the DEIR address the main critical issues on source water intake systems?2. Does the DEIR address the main critical issues on brine disposal?

Geosyntec’s analysis and recommendations are attached to this letter as Exhibits A and B.Geosyntec’s analysis and recommendations support the analysis in the DEIR, provide additionalevidence in support of its conclusions, and should be made part of the record on this Project.

The source water intake systems are discussed in the DEIR at sections 4.4 and appendices E1, E2, andC3.The Geosyntec technical memorandum on the source water intake system (Exhibit A) determines thatthe NMGWM and CM models provide reasonable simulation of the slant well effects, that the slant wellswill only draw minor quantities of inland fresh groundwater, and that the potential impact to inland wells isnot significant, thus supporting the EIR’s conclusions (Exhibit A, p. 10.). Geosyntec’s analysis alsosubstantiates previous estimates that the Project’s slant well pumping will actually decrease seawaterintrusion to inland aquifers. This positive impact should be noted in the final EIR as a significant projectdesign feature that ameliorates any negative impacts of the slant wells.

Geosyntec recommends “that a sensitivity analysis be performed on influence on the model results of thelocation of the slant wells relative to the coastal margin.” (Exhibit A, p. 9). The Water Authority respectfully

requests that this sensitivity analysis be performed and that the results be incorporated into Appendix E1of the Final EIR.

Brine disposal is discussed in the DEIR at section 4.2 and appendices D1-D4. Geosyntec’s technicalmemorandum on brine discharge (Exhibit B) concluded that the brine disposal analysis in the DEIR atsection 4.2 and appendices D1-D4 was appropriate. Geosyntec concluded that the DEIR’s numerousconservative assumptions likely under-estimate the mixing and dilution that will actually occur. (ExhibitB, p.13.) Geosyntec also has a few recommendations and minor edits in section 4 of the technicalmemorandum, which the Water Authority respectfully requests be included in the Final EIR at Section4.3 and in Appendix D1 and D2 to further substantiate the EIR’s conclusions. In addition to minor edits(Exhibit B, p.14) noted by Geosyntec, the recommendations include the following:

1. Include the additional analyses developed by Geosyntec to assess the potential for plumemerging, Coanda attachment, and hypoxia;

2. Add discussion of the potential for build-up of PCBs in the sediments surrounding the sub-surfaceseawater;

3. Add discussion of potential of diffuser structure to trap brine plume, including consideration ofcurrent directions (from the ROM) and alignment of diffuser relative to the slope;

4. Add discussion of the effect of only tracking the brine particles for 48 hours;

5. If mitigation measures are necessary then perform additional analyses to estimate the additionalnear-field dilution achievable by pulsing the brine discharge, and whether the variation of theplume buoyancy (between sinking and rising) can be implemented to manage ammonia (and

other concentrations); and6. If mitigation measures are necessary then consider retrofitting the diffuser ports from a horizontal

discharge to a vertical angle of up to 60° to 65°.


25/104

4

The Water Authority hopes these comments will be helpful in preparing a thorough Final EIR for theProject. Should the Commission or ESA staff have any questions, feel free to contact GeosyntecConsultants directly, or you can contact me at [email protected], cell phone 831-238-0009, orthe Water Authority’s Executive Director, Jim Cullem, at [email protected], cell phone 831-241-8503.

Sincerely,

Jason Burnett, PresidentMonterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority


26/104

3415 South Sepulveda Blvd, Suite 500Los Angeles, California 90034

PH 310.957.6100

FAX 310.957.6101

www.geosyntec.com

Review of Brine Disposal System MPWSP DEIR.docx

M em o ra n d u m

Date: 23 June 2015

To: Jim Cullem, Monterey Peninsula Region Water Authority

From: Al Preston, Ph.D., P.E., Mark Hanna, Ph.D., P.E.

Subject: Review of Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project DEIR

Part 2: Brine Disposal System

Geosyntec Project Number: LA0342

Geosyntec Consultants, Inc. (Geosyntec) was engaged by SPI Membrane Technology Consultants

on behalf of the Monterey Peninsula Region Water Authority (MPRWA) to conduct a focused

review of the April 2015 Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) prepared for the CalAm

Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP). The goal of the review was to address two

specific questions related to the proposed desalination plant;

1. Does the DEIR address the main critical issues on source water intake system?

2.

Does the DEIR address the main critical issues on brine disposal system?

This summary memorandum addresses the critical issues pertaining to the brine disposal system.

A separate companion memorandum addresses the source water intake system.

In general the DEIR was found to make reasonable and conservative assumptions for the analyses

of the brine disposal system, and thus the results of the analyses are appropriate. The numerous

conservative assumptions made in the analyses imply that the predicted mixing and dilutions are

likely under-estimated, and as such actual salinities and constituent concentrations within the brine

plume are likely to be lower than indicated in the DEIR. Some potential weaknesses in the analyses

were identified, but these were either minor or able to be readily addressed by including additionalanalyses developed by Geosyntec (provided in Appendix A).

1. OVERVIEW OF BRINE DISPOSAL SYSTEM

The waste brine from the desalination plant will be discharged through the existing Monterey

Regional Water Pollution Control Agency (MRWPCA) diffuser that presently discharges treated

wastewater. The diffuser is located at a depth of 90 to 110 feet in Monterey Bay, approximately


27/104

Review of MPWSP DEIR Brine Disposal System

23 June 2015

Page 2


two miles north of Marina, CA. The diffuser structure is 1,100 feet long with 172 two-inch portson alternating sides. The alternating ports are spaced at 8 feet, resulting in a port spacing of 16

feet on the same side of the diffuser (Figure 1). Only 130 of the ports are open and these are fitted

with duckbill check valves1. The remaining 42 ports are blocked off. The ports discharge

horizontally, approximately 3.5 to 4 feet above the sea-floor.

Figure 1. Schematic of MRWPCA diffuser with brine discharge

(source: DEIR, Appendix D2)

The DEIR analyzes a variety of discharges through the diffuser, consisting primarily of blends of

fresh wastewater and hyper-saline brine, and with smaller amounts of hauled brine and

groundwater replenishment (GWR) concentrate. Depending upon the blend ratios of wastewater

to brine and the resulting salinity, the discharge plume may either rise (positively buoyant,

dominated by the fresh wastewater) or sink (negatively buoyant, dominated by the hyper-saline

brine). Rising plumes have high dilution capabilities, whereas the dilution of sinking plumes is

typically lower. Thus, most of the focus of this review is on the more critical sinking plumes.

1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duckbill_valve


28/104


23 June 2015

Page 3


2. CRITICAL ISSUES

The critical issues pertinent to the brine disposal system are generally related to the initial dilution

achieved in the near-field, and the subsequent movement and dispersion of the brine in the far-

field. The near-field refers to the region close to the diffuser ports where the flow and mixing is

dominated by the jets (Figure 2). It is characterized by time scales on the order of seconds to

minutes, and length scales on the order of feet to tens of feet. By contrast, in the far-field the

mixing is dominated by ocean processes, including large scale currents (particularly generating

shear flow near the sea floor) and wave action. It is characterized by time scales on the order of

hours to days, and length scales on the order of hundreds of feet to miles (Figure 3).

Figure 2. Image of flow from a multiport diffuser illustrating the near-field

(source: Abessi & Roberts, 2014)


29/104


23 June 2015

Page 4


Figure 3. Simulated dilution of brine discharge in the far-field

(source: Jenkins & Wasyl, 2009)

2.1 Near-field Issues

The critical issue in the near-field is to meet the target change in salinity of 2.0 ppt at the edge of

the brine mixing zone, as recommended by the SWRCB in May 2015 (SWRCB 2015). The brine

mixing zone is “based on the distance of 100 m (328 feet) or initial dilution, whichever is smaller”.

The zone within the initial dilution distance is customarily referred to as the zone of initial dilution

(ZID). For the critical case of a negatively buoyant (sinking) plume the ZID is considerably

smaller than 100 m, and as such the dilution at the edge of the ZID governs.

In addition to the salinity target, the California Ocean Plan (SWRCB 2012) specifies limits onconcentrations for numerous constituents that must be met at the edge of the ZID.

Thus, the fundamental issue in analyzing the near-field is to make sure appropriate assumptions,

models, and calculations are used to estimate the dilution at the edge of the ZID.


30/104


23 June 2015

Page 5


2.2

Far-field Issues

The critical issue in the far-field is primarily to ensure that the dense brine plume is able to mix

and disperse away from the diffuser, and not pool in any local depressions in the bathymetry or

around the diffuser structure. Thus, the analyses of the far-field requires appropriate methods that

are able to model the advection (due to ocean currents), dispersion and mixing of the brine plume,

while taking into account the effects of variations in bathymetry. Additionally, the potential for

hypoxia (low dissolved oxygen concentrations) to occur within the brine plume (due to oxygen

demand from the sediments and limited mixing) should be assessed.

3.

APPROACH USED IN THE DEIR

As is standard practice in the analyses of brine discharges the DEIR performed analyses of the

near-field to assess dilution at the edge of the ZID, and then used these results to provide

information to the far-field modeling.

3.1

Near-field Approach

The DEIR used the Visual Plumes2 model to analyze the near-field dilution for positively-buoyant

rising plumes. The DEIR used appropriate ambient temperature and salinity conditions for each

of the three different oceanic seasons, and also conservatively assumed zero ambient cross-flow

current. Visual Plumes is well accepted and has been used for several decades to analyze rising

plumes, and as such its use in the DEIR is entirely appropriate (for rising plumes).

By contrast, Visual Plumes has only more recently been adapted for use for negatively-buoyant

sinking plumes, and a systematic study has indicated that Visual Plumes (and other models

including CORMIX, CORJET and JetLag) substantially underestimate the dilution for negatively-

buoyant discharges in quiescent conditions (Palomar et al., 2012). Thus, the DEIR instead

developed and used a semi-empirical analysis to analyze the discharges of the sinking plumes.

It is noted that sinking plumes have substantially lower initial dilutions than rising plumes3 and as

such are a primary determining factor in the evaluation of the effects of the discharge. Thus, the

remainder of this review will focus on the analyses of the sinking plumes (i.e., those plumes

2 Visual Plumes is a Windows-based computer application that simulates single and merging submerged aquatic

plumes in arbitrarily stratified ambient flow.3 Modeling results in the DEIR indicate dilutions as low as 16 for sinking plumes, compared to ≥ 68 for rising plumes.


31/104


23 June 2015

Page 6


dominated by the brine), including the semi-empirical analysis of the near-field (Section 3.1.1)and the far-field analysis (Section 3.2).

3.1.1 Semi-Empirical Analysis

The semi-empirical analysis used in the DEIR was based on the work of Kikkert et al. (2007), who

derived expressions to characterize the trajectory, size, and dilution of sinking plumes. These

expressions were validated through comparison to comprehensive experiments over a range of

conditions (i.e., a range of vertical discharge angles and a range of densimetric Froude numbers4).

The analysis in the DEIR used these expressions to calculate the trajectory of the sinking plumes

for the horizontal (zero vertical angle) discharge from the ports of the MRWPCA diffuser for arange of different conditions (i.e., different discharge rates, different oceanic conditions, and

different ratios of brine, wastewater, GWR concentrate, and hauled brine). The calculated plume

trajectories had horizontal travel distances ranging from 10 to 12 feet, while falling 3.5 to 4 feet in

the vertical direction before impacting the sea-floor (e.g., Figure 4).

The DEIR assumed that the edge of the ZID was at the impact point, and thus an estimate of

dilution at this location was required to determine compliance with the California Ocean Plan (see

Section 2.1). Since the analysis of Kikkert et al. (2007) does not have a closed-form expression

for the dilution at this specific location, the well-established equations for dilution of a non-

buoyant jet (Fischer et al., 1979) were used to estimate the dilution. These equations required the path length of the plume, which was calculated from the plume trajectory. Using equations for a

non-buoyant plume (rather than for a negatively-buoyant sinking plume) to estimate dilutions is

reasonable in this application, due to the relatively flat trajectory of the plume (i.e., 3.5 feet is

substantially less than 12 feet in Figure 4) which implies that the jet behavior (i.e., horizontal

momentum) dominates buoyancy in this region.

Thus, the semi-empirical analysis used to estimate the near-field dilution is appropriate. However,

it is noted that the semi-empirical analysis discussed above strictly applies to a single plume with

the assumption that there is sufficient water surrounding the plume to enable maximum dilution

and entrainment. There are potential weaknesses in the analysis related to the effect of multiple

plumes and the proximity to the sea-floor. These are discussed and resolved in Section 3.1.3.

4 See Appendix D2 of DEIR for additional information and definition of densimetric Froude number.


32/104


23 June 2015

Page 7


Figure 4. Schematic of sinking plume trajectory (source: DEIR, Appendix D2)

3.1.2

Conservative Assumptions

Several conservative assumptions were made in the semi-empirical near-field analysis implying

that the predicted dilutions are likely under-estimated. Specifically, these assumptions were:

1. Dilution calculation assumed a circular port, whereas the duckbill valves are oval shaped.

The oval shape has a higher perimeter-to-area ratio than a circle, and will therefore result

in additional dilution since the entrainment of the diluting water occurs at the perimeter.

2. The minimum height above the sea-floor of 3.5 feet was assumed for all ports, whereas

only 19 ports are at this height with most ports having a height nearer to 4 feet. A larger

height would result in a slightly longer trajectory path and additional dilution.

3. The ZID was assumed to occur at the point that the plume impacts the sea-floor. However,

at the impact point mixing is still dominated by jet processes (i.e., there is still substantial

momentum and turbulence related to the discharge) and additional dilution occurs beyond

this point within the near-field. Thus, the ZID extends further from the diffuser than

assumed, which will result in additional dilution5.

5 It is noted that for inclined jets additional dilutions of approximately 60% (i.e., dilution increases by a factor of 1.6)

have been observed from the impact point to the edge of the near-field (Abessi & Roberts, 2014). It is difficult to

directly interpret these results for the present case of horizontal discharges, but since the horizontal jets have more


33/104


23 June 2015

Page 8


3.1.3

Potential Weaknesses

The semi-empirical analysis discussed in Section 3.1.1 strictly applies to a single plume with the

assumption that there is sufficient water surrounding the plume to enable maximum dilution and

entrainment. However, the diffuser consists of multiple ports and if these ports are spaced too

closely the plumes will merge and the achieved dilution will be reduced. Appendix D2 of the

DEIR provides some analysis of this, where the volume of water entrained in 10 seconds was

compared to the volume of water available surrounding each port. The analysis concluded that

there was sufficient water to provide for maximum dilution for each port.

However, the analysis was ad-hoc with limited rationale provided for the choice of time-scale and

size of the “box” surrounding each port, nor any consideration as to whether the water within the

“box” could be realistically be replaced within the time-scale.

Geosyntec performed additional port spacing analysis (Appendix A) based on the results of the

experiments of Abessi & Roberts (2014) to determine whether the jets will merge. The new

analysis indicated that the spacing of the ports was more than sufficient to prevent merging of the

jets and thereby allow for maximum dilution at each port. While the conclusions were the same

as made in the DEIR, the new methodology is more robust and defensible, and should be included

in the Final EIR.

Additionally, the DEIR did not consider the proximity of the jets to the sea-floor and the associatedCoanda effect, which is the tendency of a fluid jet to be attracted to a nearby surface. If the distance

of the port above the sea-floor is not large enough this can result in the jet deviating towards and

attaching to the sea-floor (Coanda attachment), resulting in decreased dilution.

To address this potential weakness, Geosyntec performed a Coanda analysis (Appendix A) based

upon the results of experiments of Shao & Law (2011). The analysis indicates that the diffuser

ports are located at a large enough distance above the sea-floor to prevent Coanda attachment.

This analysis and result should be included in the Final EIR.

3.2

Far-field Approach

The far-field modeling used time-series of horizontal velocity components at the diffuser location

that were obtained from the regional ocean model (ROM) to advect and diffuse the brine plume in

horizontal momentum at the impact point than the inclined jets it is likely that the additional dilution factor may be

greater for horizontal discharges than for inclined discharges.


34/104


23 June 2015

Page 9


two-dimensions from the edge of the near-field to and throughout the far-field. The approachassumed the velocity field was spatially homogeneous (i.e., was the same at all locations). This

assumption neglects the effects that local variations in the bathymetry have on the velocity field,

which is a reasonable approximation due to the bathymetry in the vicinity of the diffuser being

generally flat (i.e., no depressions or ridges) and sloping to sea. The effects of larger scale

bathymetric variations (e.g., those of the entire Monterey Bay) and different seasonal patterns (i.e.,

oceanic, Davidson, and upwelling) on the velocity are taken into account through the use of the

velocities extracted from the ROM.

3.2.1 Conservative Assumptions

Several conservative assumptions were made in the far-field analysis implying that the predicted

mixing and dilution beyond the near-field are likely under-estimated. Specifically, these

assumptions were:

1. The vertical mixing of the brine was neglected in the solution of the advection-diffusion

throughout the far-field. Stability analysis (via computing a Richardson number) indicated

that the diluted6 brine layer would tend to resist vertical mixing. However, during some

higher velocity events (e.g., storms and/or large swells) the brine layer may experience

vertical mixing that could substantially increase the dilution in the far-field.

2. The far-field analysis neglected the direct effects of wave actions on the mixing of the

brine. Currents at the ocean bottom induced by wave action would tend to increase boththe horizontal and vertical mixing, resulting in additional dilution in the far-field.

3. The far-field analysis did not directly include the effects of the gravity currents that would

tend to move brine away from the diffuser (downslope) resulting in additional dilution.

4. The far-field analysis used a constant horizontal lateral diffusion coefficient of 1.37 m2/s.

This is lower than the field measurements of ~2 m2/s by Ledwell et al. (1998). Using a

higher diffusion coefficient will result in additional horizontal mixing and increased

dilution.

3.2.2 Potential Weaknesses

The far-field analysis used in the DEIR is appropriate for the application and makes conservative

assumptions that will result in mixing and dilution being under-estimated. Nevertheless, there are

some potential weaknesses that may be raised, as discussed in the following.

6 Here the dilution is referring primarily to that occurring in the near-field.


35/104


23 June 2015

Page 10


The analysis in the DEIR used the velocity components from the ROM to “drive” a two

-dimensional solution to the advection-diffusion equation. The two-dimensional approach was

developed primarily in the 1970s and 1980s, when analysis efforts were limited by computational

power. A more modern and thorough approach would be to use the currents from the ROM to

specify boundary conditions for a fully three-dimensional model that would more accurately

simulate all the mixing processes (i.e., vertical mixing, wave action, local bathymetry, spatially

varying velocity fields, and gravity currents) in the far-field. As pointed out in the DEIR, and

summarized in Section 3.2.1, the two-dimensional approach made a number of conservative

assumptions, and a more comprehensive three-dimensional model would likely result in additional

dilution. Nonetheless, assessing the effects of some of the assumptions made is not always

straightforward and are worthy of additional discussion.

The neglect of gravity currents in the far-field modeling may preclude the prediction of the brine

pooling in local bathymetric depressions. However, since the bathymetry is flat in the region

where the brine plume has been shown to extend, this approach is entirely reasonable. It is noted

that Monterey Canyon is located approximately 3.5 miles to the north of the diffuser, and may

provide an opportunity for brine pooling and accumulation. However, the extent of the brine

plume has been shown by the modeling to be limited to approximately one to two miles from the

diffuser, and as such it will not reach the canyon. Furthermore, and as pointed out in the DEIR, if

the brine plume did reach the edge of the canyon the relatively steep slope of the canyon would

likely result in the acceleration of the gravity current down the canyon slope, which would enhance

the mixing and provide additional dilution.

While the local bathymetry in the vicinity of the diffuser is flat, the diffuser structure and the ballast

used to raise the diffuser approximately 4 feet above the sea-floor may potentially act to trap the

brine, and provide locally higher salinities and brine concentrations. However, this effect is

minimized by the diffuser alignment being perpendicular to the shore line, thereby allowing the

off-shore slope and gravity current to naturally carry the brine away from the diffuser. Additional

calculations could be developed to assess the rate at which the gravity current moves the brine

away from the diffuser, and included in the EIR. Furthermore, the ambient current directions

would likely provide additional brine transport and mixing, particularly if the currents reverse with

changes in the tides. The EIR could include additional and more detailed discussion of the diffuseralignment and effect of slope and tidal currents, including qualitative analyses using current

patterns obtained from the ROM, on preventing the accumulation of brine around the diffuser.

The DEIR did not address the potential for areas of hypoxia to form beneath the brine plume due

to sediment oxygen demand and the potentially limited mixing restricting oxygen supply. A

comprehensive approach to addressing this problem would be to include sediment oxygen demand


36/104


23 June 2015

Page 11


and oxygen cycling in the far-field modeling. However, this is likely unnecessary in this instanceand instead Geosyntec performed a simple mass balance analysis to demonstrate that hypoxia is

unlikely (Appendix A). Specifically, it was demonstrated that the amount of oxygen supplied to

the brine plume by the entrained ambient water is more than 30 times greater than that consumed

by the sediments. This analysis and result should be included in the Final EIR.

Finally, the far-field modeling used in the DIER tracked the brine particles for a 48-hour period

within a simulation period of 90 days. Additional discussion and explanation of the rationale

behind using a 48-hour period, as well as what happens to the particles after that period should be

provided in the EIR. If the particles are removed from the computation after 48 hours then the

effect of this on the results, and in particular whether the extent of the plume may be under-

predicted, should be discussed in the EIR.

3.3 Mitigation Measures

The near-field analysis predicted that there will be some exceedances of the Ocean Plan criteria at

the edge of the ZID for copper, ammonia, chlordane, DDT, PCBs, TCDD equivalents, and

toxaphene. Which of the above parameters is in exceedance depends upon the different discharge

blends considered, and as such any potential exceedances may vary with seasonal operations. This

variation should be considered when developing the monitoring plan.

Numerous conservative assumptions were made in the near-field analysis (Section 3.1.2) andtherefore the actual near-field dilution will likely be greater than predicted, and it is probable that

many of the potential exceedances will not occur. The exceptions are ammonia (primarily

originating in the wastewater) and PCBs (primarily originating in the source water) for which the

required additional dilution to avoid exceedance is too great.

The origin of the PCBs is the ocean water in Monterey Bay that is subsequently concentrated by

the desalination process and returned via the brine discharge. The DEIR points out that it is

possible that some of the PCBs may naturally be removed from the source water through the

filtering out of PCBs in colloidal and particulate form as the source water is drawn through the

sand of the subsurface sea intake. This statement may be true, but it also does raise the question

as to whether these PCBs may then accumulate in the sediments surrounding the intakes, in

potential violation of the Ocean Plan. The EIR should address this possibility.


37/104


23 June 2015

Page 12


If the monitoring plan implemented during operation indicates exceedances of the Ocean Plan,then there are three potential mitigation measures suggested in the DEIR 7. The first two measures

involve treatment of the source water (pre-treatment) and the discharge, respectively, to remove

the constituents of concern. These seem like feasible approaches, although treatment options were

not considered in this review of the DEIR.

The third option involves providing temporary storage and release of the brine from a 3 million

gallon brine storage basin. The idea here is two-fold: (1) increase initial dilution by discharging

at a high rate (thereby increasing jet velocity and mixing), and (2) alternate between rising plumes

(lots of dilution) and sinking plumes (lower ammonia concentrations due to less wastewater). This

approach seems plausible, but there was no analysis provided in the DEIR to demonstrate that it

could work, and that the three million gallon storage basin would be large enough. If this

mitigation strategy is deemed necessary, then it is recommended that additional analyses is

conducted to estimate the increased dilution due to pulsing, and that the switching between rising

and falling plumes can be achieved in such a way as to manage ammonia (and other) concentrations

at the ZID. It is also noted that this proposed approach would provide a potentially unique

opportunity to actively manage the brine and wastewater plume in real-time.

Another potential mitigation strategy not considered in the DEIR is to retrofit the diffuser ports to

incline them up at an angle (rather than horizontal). A vertical angle of 60° to 65° is optimal for

negatively-buoyant sinking plumes. However, it is noted that this will reduce the dilution for the

positively-buoyant rising plumes, so this retrofit would involve some trade-off. In addition, theretrofit would require the cooperation of the MRWPCA who owns and operate the diffuser.

7 Proposed Mitigation Measure 4.3-4.


38/104


23 June 2015

Page 13


4. SUMMARY

The analyses of the brine disposal system in the DEIR were appropriate and made reasonable and

conservative assumptions. The numerous conservative assumptions made in the analyses

(Sections 3.1.2 and 3.2.1) imply that the predicted mixing and dilutions are likely under-estimated,

and as such actual salinities and constituent concentrations within the brine plume are likely to be

lower than indicated in the DEIR.

4.1 Recommendations

During the course of the review some potential issues were identified that should be addressed in

the Final EIR. These recommendations are summarized here:

1. Include the additional analyses developed by Geosyntec to assess the potential for plume

merging, Coanda attachment, and hypoxia.

2. Add discussion of the potential for build-up of PCBs in the sediments surrounding the sub-

surface seawater intake.

3. Add discussion of potential of diffuser structure to trap brine plume, including

consideration of current directions (from the ROM) and alignment of diffuser relative to

the slope.

4. Add discussion of the effect of only tracking the brine particles for 48 hours.

5. If mitigation measures are necessary then perform additional analyses to estimate the

additional near-field dilution achievable by pulsing the brine discharge, and whether the

variation of the plume buoyancy (between sinking and rising) can be implemented to

manage ammonia (and other concentrations).

6. If mitigation measures are necessary then consider retrofitting the diffuser ports from a

horizontal discharge to a vertical angle of up to 60° to 65°.

4.2

Recommended Minor Edits

In addition to the recommendations described above there are a number of minor recommended

edits that should be made to clarify and/or strengthen the EIR. These are summarized in Table 1.


39/104


23 June 2015

Page 14


Table 1: Recommended Minor Edits

Issue Description Page Comments / Recommendations

Incorrect

interpretation

of SWRCB

2012a

SWRCB 2012a states that increase in

salinity should be limited to < 5% of

background, corresponding to 1.7 ppt

in California waters. The DEIR then

rounds this to 2.0 ppt, but this is an

incorrect interpretation of the 2012

document (i.e., it should be 1.7 ppt).

4.3-27 The phrase, “(rounded to 2.0 ppt)” should

be removed from the EIR. Note that

SWRCB 2015 refers directly to 2.0 ppt (it

does not refer to 5% or 1.7 ppt). That is, 2.0

ppt is the correct target per SWRCB 2015,

but not per SCWRCB 2012a.

Differentnumber of

ports

The correct number of open ports(130) is first mentioned in Section 4.3.

This is late in the report to mention

the change (from 120) and surprises

the reader.

4.3-72 The incorrect number of ports should bementioned earlier in the EIR, including in

the Executive Summary. It should also be

re-iterated that using 130 instead of 120

provides additional dilution (as

demonstrated in Addendum to Appendix

D4).

Misleading

statement

overstates the

extent of the

plume

The DEIR states, “where the plume

extended from near the Monterey

Submarine Canyon rim to the center

of the southern half of Monterey

Bay”. This statement overstates theextent of the plume, and is perhaps

mistakenly based on the inset figure.

4.3-88 Revise wording to better indicate that the

plume extent is several miles from the

Monterey Submarine Canyon rim.

Unnecessary

footnote in

table

See Comments / Recommendations Table

4.3-11

Footnote ‘a’ should be removed and the

colu

mprwa agenda packet final 07-09-15

Documents