|
EXHIBIT 16-A |
MPWMD
95-10 Project -DRAFT-
CDM
and ICF/Jones & Stokes
Scope
of Work – Phase 2 Field Program: Permitting
and Engineering Support
Date: November 19, 2008
In January 2008, the Monterey Peninsula Water Management
District (MPWMD) Board of Directors authorized staff and its consultants to
reinitiate a study of a desalination project in the former
In October 2008, ICF Jones & Stokes and Camp Dresser
& McKee (CDM) completed Phase 1 of the study, which included a constraints
analysis, and subsequent additional policy review. The constraints analysis and policy review indicated
that while there are several political and institutional issues associated with
project implementation, a project with an estimated production capacity of
2,800 AFY to 4,400 AFY (2.5 to 4.0 mgd) appears technically feasible. The analysis also indicated that a field
program should be structured not only to address the technical questions
related to project viability, but also to address the policy question of
potential impacts to the
Based on the Phase 1 findings, at its October 2008 meeting, the Board requested meeting that CDM and ICF Jones & Stokes prepare a scope of work for Phase 2 of the project. The Phase 2 scope of work includes a field program to demonstrate the feasibility of extraction from the Dune Sands aquifer, further evaluation of brine disposal using the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency’s (MRWPCA’s) outfall, and engineering analysis to finalize the project description of required project facilities that will be used in the environmental impacts evaluation that would be conducted in Phase 3 of the project. CDM will conduct the field program and prepare engineering evaluations. ICF Jones & Stokes will take the lead on permitting for the field program.
Scope of Work
Task 1 – Geologic Investigation of Former
The Task 1 geologic investigation activities present the
investigative measures and approach necessary to understand the viability of
extracting seawater from the Dune Sands for the 95-10 Project at former
n Assess
the presence and extent of low permeable geologic units separating the Dune
Sands from the underlying Paso Robles Formation and or/the 180-Foot Aquifer of
the
n Assess
the hydrogeologic effects that the 95-10 Project might have on the
n Refine/
develop aquifer numerical modeling to simulate what effects the 95-10 Project
might have on the
Conceptual Approach
Three potential sites were identified at former
If warranted, further hydrogeologic investigations consisting of aquifer pump testing, and groundwater monitoring will be conducted separately and sequentially starting with the Bunker Site, followed by the Stilwell site, and ending with the Range 8 site. Analytical groundwater modeling would be conducted using information from all of the sites investigated. Based upon soil boring information and sequential site investigations, it is possible that none or all of the sites could be evaluated further. For the purpose of understanding the potential costs for the field activities, CDM has assumed that all the above described activities will be conducted to investigate the Bunker site. The Bunker site was selected as the preferred location, based on its being the highest ranked location from the Phase 1 constraints analysis. Optional field studies are presented for both the Stillwell Hall and Range 8 sites, which also were identified in the constraints analysis, but not rated as highly as the Bunker site.
Task 1.1 - Drill Soil Borings
At each of the sites shown in the attached Figure 1, four soil borings will be drilled to approximately 150 to 200 feet below grade to understand the depth of the saturated Dune Sands and the presence of underlying low permeable clay and silt units separating the Dune Sands from the underlying Paso Robles Formation and/or the 180-Foot Aquifer. Tentative soil boring locations are shown on Figure 1. Soil borings will be installed during a single field event to determine the general geologic viability of each site.
Soil borings will be advanced with a hollow-stem auger drill rig with samples collected at 5-foot intervals below the groundwater surface or at changes in lithology. Using the hollow-stem auger drill rig will greatly minimize any disruption to any sensitive habitat by leaving a small or no residual activity footprint.
Samples of the saturated Dune Sands and any lower permeable units will be retained for laboratory geotechnical and hydrogeologic characteristics. Laboratory testing will include general index testing (e.g., grain size), strength tests (e.g., direct shear and consolidation), and permeability.
Assumptions:
Boring locations are not firmly established, as the
California Department of Parks and Recreation (CDPR) will not allow
investigative activities on already restored areas of the
Deliverables:
Technical memorandum on hydrogeologic conditions of the Dune Sands and any low permeable units separating the Dune Sands from the underlying Paso Robles Formation and/or the 180-Foot Aquifer. Recommendations will be presented to advance or terminate further hydrogeologic studies at each site.
Task 1.2 - Hydrogeologic Investigation - Bunker Site
For purposes of understanding the potential cost to perform
the hydrogeologic investigation, CDM has developed the following tasks to
investigate the Bunker site. This work
involves collection of all data to evaluate the technical feasibility of
installing production wells at the Bunker Site and the potential impact
seawater production may have upon the
Task 1.2.1 - Formulate Field Investigation Plan
A detailed field investigation plan will be developed that specifies data collection protocols, monitoring activities and frequency, field quality assurance and quality control, health and safety protocols, and activities necessary to comply with CDPR protocols to protect sensitive areas.
Deliverables: Field Investigation Plan
Task 1.2.2 - Install Monitoring Wells
If results from Task 1.1 appear favorable, three monitoring wells will be installed to monitor the Dune Sands aquifer at the Bunker site. Tentative locations of the wells are shown in Figure 1. It is assumed that the wells will be installed and screened in the upper 20 to 30 feet of the Dune Sands aquifer. Total well depth is estimated at between 120 to 160 feet below the ground surface.
As with the soil borings in Task 1.1, the monitoring wells will be installed using a hollow-stem auger drill rig with samples collected at 5-foot intervals below the groundwater surface or at any change in the lithology. Wells will be completed as 2 or 3-inch diameter Schedule 40 PVC with a secured locking well box.
The wells will be purged and developed to allow for the
collection of representative Dune Sands aquifer water. The wells will be
sampled for general minerals and
The wells will be equipped with a transducer and continuous data recorder to understand both tidal influences in the Dune Sands and drawdown effects during production well pump testing.
Assumptions: Monitoring well production water will be retained on site but discharged though the outfall during the production well testing. Costs for both transducer monitoring and analytical sampling are included in Tasks 1.2.3 and 1.2.4.
Task 1.2.3 - Install Test Production Well
One production well will be installed at the Bunker site to facilitate aquifer pump testing. It is anticipated that the well will be approximately 6-8 inches in diameter and will extend to the base of the Dune Sands aquifer (less than 100 feet below the groundwater surface). The well will be installed using reverse circulation drilling or mud rotary. The well will be completed with schedule 80 PVC with a PVC wire wrapped well screen designed to maximize well performance based upon geologic conditions with a target production rate of at least 200 gallons per minute (gpm).
A caliper tool will be used to ensure hole depth and size prior to installing the well screen.
The well will be developed using swabbing, airlifting, and pumping. Purge water will be contained on site in a Baker Tank and discharged through the stormwater outfall or transported off site for disposal. Drilling soil waste will be contained on site for later land disposal.
Assumptions: Drilling contractor will have an adequate space (100 feet x 100 feet) to stage the project.
Task 1.2.4 - Conduct 72-Hour Dune Sands Aquifer Pump Test
The production well will be flow tested for a 72- hour period to evaluate steady-state drawdown and boundary conditions in the Dune Sands aquifer. Specific activities associated with this test include:
n Discharge water will be piped approximately 1200 feet using temporary flexible hosing (fire hose) installed on the ground surface to the existing stormwater outfall on site.
n Water
samples will be collected at approximately 6 hour intervals during flow testing
and analyzed for electrical
n Data loggers will continuously record water levels in the production well and the three monitoring wells.
n The drilling contractor will be contracted to perform the pump testing and will provide power and the submersible pump for the test.
n A flow meter will record discharge flow.
Assumptions: The stormwater outfall can be used for disposal of water.
Task 1.3 – Permitting of Field Activities
This task includes activities necessary to permit the Phase 2 geologic and hydrologic field investigations, and proposes permitting in two stages. This approach mirrors, to some extent, the phasing of the engineering investigations. However, some permitting activities are consolidated, both for cost efficiency, and to minimize the overall schedule to complete permitting activities.
The first effort to be undertaken would include permitting
and environmental clearance for drilling all soil borings, all monitoring wells
and the test well at each of the three target sites on former
ICF Jones & Stokes would take the lead on this task. CDM would provide support in preparing permit information.
Task 1.3.1 – Permitting for Soil Borings and Well Construction at All Test Sites
The first effort under the soil borings and well construction
permitting task would be to meet with MPWMD, CDM, and anticipated permitting
agency staff to confirm the assumptions contained in this scope of work. A permitting plan would be developed and
submitted to the MPWMD for approval prior to initiating the permit development
process. Based on the requirements of
permitting efforts accomplished in 2003 for test wells on former
California Department of Parks and Recreation (CDPR) –
Right-of-Entry Permit. A
right-of-entry permit would be needed from CDPR to access the state parks land
and undertake the temporary construction and monitoring activities. This permit is needed even though the land at
Monterey County Health Department (MCHD) – Permit to Construct or Destroy Soil Borings and Monitoring Wells. The MCHD requires well drillers to pay fees and obtain permits for construction and demolition of soil borings and monitoring wells.
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) –
Fort Ord Reuse Authority (FORA) – Consultation Regarding
Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency.
Because FORA is the sponsor of the ongoing Habitat Conservation Plan
process for all of former
The scope of work for this effort includes developing the information for and completing the permit application packages, submitting the applications and responding to data requests, and submitting final permits. Permits and approvals for both soil borings and well construction would be pursued during this first task because of the similarity of these activities and the fact that application fees would not be increased significantly by the increased number of construction sites. It is possible, however, that the permitting for well construction would not have been needed if the field investigations were terminated after the soil borings were complete.
Assumptions:
For purposes of developing costs for this task, the following is assumed:
n There would be no requirement for CEQA or NEPA compliance for the temporary investigation activities;
n All official correspondence between the MPWMD and the permitting and approval agencies during the permit application process would be developed by MPWMD with input from ICF Jones & Stokes and transmitted by MPWMD;
n One round of draft permit reviews would be needed to develop the final permit applications;
n One ICF Jones & Stokes staff person would attend two meetings with each permitting or approval agency; the first meeting would be to verify permit or approval requirements and data needs, and the second would be to answer questions during the permit issuance or approval process;
n All permit fees would be paid directly by MPWMD or its well drillers; the costs for these applications are not included in budgeting for this task; and
n No permits or approvals beyond those listed above would be required to conduct the field investigations.
Deliverables
n Draft and final permitting plans;
n Draft and final permit applications;
n Final permits from the U.S. Army, California Department of Parks and Recreation and the California Coastal Commission; and
n Letters of no effect or take authorizations from FWS and CDFG.
Task 1.3.2 – Permitting for Test Well Operation
If the results of the soil boring activities indicate that further monitoring and testing was advisable, ICF Jones & Stokes would initiate a second round of permitting to allow for operation of the test wells. This effort would include applying for and receiving a general waiver from the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) for discharge of produced water back to the ground. It is assumed that the waiver request would include all three potential field investigation sites, even though testing may not be pursued at all sites based on the results of the initial work at the Bunker site. As mentioned in the first permitting task, waivers for all three sites would be pursued because costs would not be significantly greater than if a waiver for a single site were pursued. Considerable time and extra cost would be saved if a second round of permitting for the Range 8 and Stilwell sites could be avoided.
Assumptions
For purposes of developing costs for this task, ICF Jones & Stokes assumed:
n There would be no requirement for CEQA or NEPA compliance for the test well operation activities;
n All official correspondence between the MPWMD and the RWQCB during the waiver application process would be developed and forwarded by MPWMD;
n One round of draft waiver review would be needed to develop the final waiver application;
n If the waiver development process results in the need for a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, the plan will be developed by the well construction contractor;
n One ICF Jones & Stokes staff person would attend two meetings with the RWQCB in San Luis Obispo; the first meeting would be to verify waiver or approval requirements and data needs, and the second would be to answer questions during the waiver issuance or approval process; and
n Any waiver fee would be paid directly by MPWMD; the cost of the waiver application is not included in this proposal.
Deliverables
n Draft and final waiver applications; and
n Final waiver from the RWQCB.
Task 1.4 Groundwater Modeling
Results from the Dune Sands pump testing and soil borings
will be used to establish aquifer properties, aquifer lithology, flow direction
and gradient, hydraulic conductivity, and transmissivity of the shallow aquifer
system. This information will be used
to update and/or expand the boundary of the existing Sites 2 and 12 groundwater
flow model. The model will be calibrated
to steady state conditions using existing hydrologic and hydrogeologic
data. The model will be used as a
simulation tool to evaluate the size of a potential 95-10 Project and its
effect on the
Assumptions:
n The existing Sites 2 and 12 groundwater model is calibrated to steady state conditions. Steady state simulations are adequate for the simulations of the expanded and updated model.
n Particle tracking is adequate to estimate the impact of pumping on the ocean and surrounding aquifers. Simulating the transport of chemical constituents is not necessary.
n Up to five pumping scenarios will be simulated.
n The model layers for the existing sites 2 and 12 model are adequate for the currently simulated region.
Task 1.5 Hydrogeologic Assessment Report
Data collected from Tasks 1.2 through 1.4 will be combined
into a comprehensive report on the viability of using the Bunker site for
seawater extraction for the 95-10 Project. The report will detail all information
collected and provide for interpretation of results. The report will attempt to identify the
hydrogeologic effects that the 95-10 Project Bunker site might have on the
Deliverable:
n Four hard copies of draft report for MPWMD review.
n Twelve hard copies and one soft copy of final report.
Assumption: Report cost assumes that all of the activities would be conducted.
Task 1
Optional Services
The following tasks are identified as optional tasks that could be incorporated into the Task 1 scope of services.
Optional Task 1.A – Geophysical Logging of Soil Borings
If warranted because of field conditions or observations, the
three monitoring wells will be geophysically logged fo
Optional Task 1.B - Extended Dune Sands Aquifer Pump Test
If necessary and warranted, the production well will be flow tested for a longer period (1-3 months) to evaluate the dynamic equilibrium of the groundwater system with respect to seasonal recharge of the Dune Sands aquifer and it’s interaction with seawater. Activities for the extended pump test include:
n Long-term rental of a 25 kW gas powered generator and protective enclosure.
n Purchase
o
n Discharge water will be piped to the same outfall as specified in Task 1.2.5.
n Water
samples will be collected approximately every five days and analyzed for
n Data loggers will continuously record water levels in the production well and the three monitoring wells. Data will be downloaded weekly.
Assumptions: The stormwater outfall can be used to dispose of water. The testing will not require constant oversight. Discharge hosing remains in place from the 72-hour test.
Optional Task 1.C - Demolition
of Test and Monitoring Wells
CDPR has indicated that a requirement of the project is that existing test well and monitoring wells be demolished and removed should the project not proceed to subsequent phases. This task includes the following activities:
n Obtain
well destruction permit from
n Demolish and remove test and monitor well casings.
n Perform site restoration, as required by CDPR.
Optional Task 1.D – Hydrologic
Field Program at Stilwell Site
General investigation activities and costs at the Stilwell Hall site are anticipated to be the same as those at the Bunker site. Differences in projected scope include:
n A single groundwater monitoring well would be installed instead of three.
n Several additional wells (5-10) in the existing Sites 2 and 12 cleanup program will be incorporated into the monitoring network including collecting hydrogeologic data from the A, Upper 180, and Lower 180 aquifers. CDM will work with the Army to incorporate the logistics of including the Sites 2 and 12 monitoring in the investigation program.
n Water will be piped approximately 600 feet to an existing stormwater out fall.
Assumption: The level of effort and costs assume that efficiencies will be gained in working though the field testing protocols and process as each site is assessed sequentially (i.e. the same scope of work for the Bunker site should be less labor intensive at the Stilwell site). For budgeting purposes, the costs for the Bunker site are used for the Stilwell site.
Optional Task 1.6 -
Hydrogeologic Field Program at Range 8 Site
General investigation activities and costs at the Range 8 site are anticipated to be similar to those at the Bunker site. Differences in projected scope include:
n Two groundwater monitoring wells would be installed instead of three.
n Water will be piped approximately 2000 feet to an existing stormwater outfall.
Assumption: The level of effort and costs assume that efficiencies will be gained in working though the field testing protocols and process as each site is assessed sequentially. For budgeting purposes, the costs for the Bunker site are used for the Range 8 site.
Task 2 – Project Description
In this task, information for project facilities will be developed for the environmental impacts of proposed facilities, which would be conducted in Phase 3 of the study.
Conceptual Approach
The types, locations, and sizes for the water supply components of the project (well locations and layouts, raw and treated water pipeline alignments; water treatment plant location and layout; and brine disposal through the Monterey Regional Pollution Control Agency regional outfall) will be developed at a conceptual level so that the environmental impacts of proposed facilities can be assessed. Planning-level capital and annual costs will also be developed.
To the extent possible, information developed in the 2002 through 2004 analysis of the project will be used. However, many aspects of the project have changed, and will require new analysis. For example, none of the previously evaluated desalination water treatment plant sites are still available. Scoping also assumes that given the length of time that has passed since the previous study, all agencies previously contacted to review various project aspects will be contacted as part of the current effort.
Task 2.1 - Collector Well Layouts
n Prepare conceptual-level facility layouts for collector wells and associated facilities.
n Review/refine concept layouts, based on input from CDPR. Budgeting assumes one meeting with CDPR to review concepts.
Task 2.2 - Desalination Plant Siting
n Identify up to three potential sites based on proximity to Fort Ord/Cal Am tie-in locations.
n Work with MPWMD staff to identify property ownership, and meet with property owners to confirm availability of sites. One meeting assumed with each property owner.
n Prepare concept-level layouts for water treatment plant and appurtenant facilities.
n Review water quality data collected from the field program to develop general treatment process criteria.
Task 2.3 - Assess Potential Integration/Connection of New Facilities to Cal-Am System
n Meet with Cal-Am to review estimated seasonal deliveries and review potential tie-in locations.
n If needed, use Cal-Am’s system hydraulic model to assess the operation of the Cal-Am system and need for improvements within the distribution system to receive desalinated supply. Future maximum demand day and minimum-day winter demand conditions will be evaluated.
Task 2.4 - Pipeline Alignment Evaluation
n Perform
detailed pipeline alignment evaluation for proposed conveyance facilities fo
n Identify
preliminary alignments and review potential alignments with various agencies,
to confirm alignment alternatives and identify major utility crossings or
conflicts. The following agencies will
be contacted: the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency, City of
n Identify the type of property (public, railroad, private, government) along the proposed pipeline alignments and at facility locations.
n Identify
order-of-magnitude of costs for purchase of property and right-of-way for the
water treatment plant and pipeline corridors (where applicable).
n Review available geological and landslide maps for pipeline alignments to identify potential seismic and/or landslide areas.
Task 2.5 - Regional Wastewater Outfall Evaluation
n Meet with MRWPCA to obtain information on outfall. Budgeting assumes one meeting.
n Review available design and capacity information on outfall to assess available capacity of outfall, and construction considerations for connection to outfall.
n Review outfall modeling conducted by California American Water Company to determine whether previous analysis is sufficiently comprehensive to be used for the current study. Meet with Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and MRWPCA to review results of previous analysis, and assess specific modeling requirements. Budgeting assumes one meeting.
n If needed, conduct mixing modeling to assess brine disposal through the regional outfall. Modeling assumes that up to ten different modeling scenarios will be evaluated.
Task 2-6 - Prepare Planning Level Cost Estimates
n Develop planning-level capital and operational cost estimates. Costs will be developed in current dollars.
n Develop
annual cost fo
Task 2-7 - Prepare Project Description Report
Prepare draft and final report documenting Task 2 evaluations and summarizing descriptions of project facilities for each water supply alternative.
Assumptions:
n Report will be 20 to 30 pages of text with supporting graphics and figures.
Deliverables:
n Draft technical memorandum. Four hard copies.
n Final technical memorandum. Twelve hard copies and one soft copy.
Assumptions:
n Digital
ortho-rectified aerial photography for use at 1”=1000’ to 1”=2000’ will be
obtained from
n Budgeting assumes outfall modeling would be required for this study. Modeling would be conducted using CORMIX or Visual Plumes.
n MPWMD will obtain the distribution system hydraulic model of the Cal-Am system for the hydraulic evaluation of connection locations and model can be used as is.
n Assessments to be based on existing topographical data only (USGS or more detailed information, where available).
n The
costs prepared as part of the Task 2 evaluation will be given to MPWMD fo
Task 3 - Project Management/Progress Meetings
Task 3.1 - Project Management
n Project tracking/coordination
n Monthly invoicing and progress reports. Eighteen month duration assumed.
Task 3.2 - Board Progress Briefings
n Present Board progress briefings. Two progress briefings assumed.
n Present final report for field investigations.
n Present final report for project facilities.
Budget
The estimated budget for the program is shown on Table 1 (attached). The table summarizes estimated labor hours and total dollars by activity for the three tasks. Task 1 includes budgeting for soil borings at all three sites, and all hydrogeologic activities at the Bunker site. Additional optional tasks that could be included in the Task 1 effort are included at the bottom of the table. The first three activities (geophysical logging, extended pump testing, demolition of test and monitor wells) could be incorporated into any of the three sites. The last two activities are for testing at Stilwell and Range 8 sites. Budgeting for these two tasks includes the first three optional activities for these sites.
Schedule
The estimated schedule for the project is 18 months. The overall schedule is driven by the estimated time for permitting activities. We have assumed that the first round of permitting would take six months, and that the subsequent round another five months. There is considerable uncertainty in the timeline required for permitting.
This schedule includes field activities to conduct soil borings at all three sites, and other hydrogeologic investigations at the Bunker site. Inclusion of the Stilwell and Range 8 sites into the program would require an additional 6 months per site to conduct field activities, unless field activities at the different sites are conducted in parallel to reduce the duration of the overall schedule.
Note: A more detailed schedule
of anticipated completion dates for individual tasks is being prepared by the
consultants and will be included in the proposal for the December 8, 2008 Board
packet.
U:\staff\word\boardpacket\2008\2008boardpackets\20081208\ActionItems\16\item16_exh16a.doc