9.

0
H YDROLOGIC A NALYSIS AND
OTHER RELATED TECHNICAL REPORTS
Water Resources Report

for

Village Park &Commons

Carmel Valley, California

Prepared for

Delfino Family
5100 Coe Avenue
Seaside, CA 93955

November 27, 2006

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1

SECTION 2: WATER SUPPLY PLAN..................................................................................... 2
Potable Water Demand ............................................................................................................... 2
Water Supply Wells .................................................................................................................... 4
Water System Operations ........................................................................................................... 7
Non-Potable Water...................................................................................................................... 7
SECTION 3: WATER BALANCE ANALYSIS ....................................................................... 8
Overview..................................................................................................................................... 8
Existing Conditions..................................................................................................................... 8
Proposed Development Conditions........................................................................................... 10
SECTION 4: NITRATE LOADING ASSESSMENT ............................................................ 12
Background ............................................................................................................................... 12
Cumulative Groundwater Nitrate Impact.................................................................................. 13
References................................................................................................................................. 15
SECTION 5: GROUNDWATER MOUNDING ANALYSIS FOR COMMUNITY
LEACHFIELD........................................................................................................................ 17
Introduction............................................................................................................................... 17
Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 17
Data and Assumptions .............................................................................................................. 17
Calculations............................................................................................................................... 18
Offsite Implications .................................................................................................................. 19

APPENDICES

Appendix A - Water Use Data

Appendix B - Water Balance Data
Appendix C - Nitrate Loading Data and Calculations
Appendix D - Groundwater Mounding Information
 SECTION 1:

INTRODUCTION

This report provides water resources information for the Village Park and Commons project is
located at the former Carmel Valley Airport site in Carmel Valley, California. The proposed
project includes the development of 29 single-family residences and 10 multi-family affordable
housing units plus an approximately 5-acre common space. The project is planned to be self-
supporting with respect to water and sanitation facilities, since public water and sewer are not
available in the area. Onsite wells will be developed for the potable water supply. An onsite
community wastewater system will be developed for the project, including a tertiary treatment
plant and subsurface dispersal using a combination of leachfields and seasonal drip irrigation.
Onsite drainage retention facilities will be developed or enhanced for percolation-recharge of a
large portion of the site runoff as well as portions of runoff from upslope tributary areas that
have historically drained onto the site.

Included in this report are the following items:

• Section 2 presents the Water Supply Plan for the project, including estimation and
supporting basis for the projected water demand, source capacity requirements and water
treatment needs.

• Section 3 presents a Water Balance Analysis for the project site, including estimates
and comparison of annual groundwater recharge volumes for existing conditions and
developed conditions. The water balance accounts for inflows (recharge) to the
groundwater system that include infiltration-percolation of onsite rainfall, runoff from
offsite areas, subsurface wastewater discharges and irrigation seepage losses. It also
accounts for outflows of water from the site that include evapotranspiration, site runoff,
and the proposed extraction of groundwater for domestic water supply needs.

• Section 4 presents a Nitrate Loading Analysis for the project, focusing specifically on
the nitrate loading from the proposed onsite wastewater treatment and disposal system.
The results are compared with established criteria contained in the Carmel Valley
Wastewater Study, Monterey County Code Chapter 15.23, and the Central Coast
Regional Water Quality Control Board’s Basin Plan.

• Section 5 presents a Groundwater Mounding Analysis addressing the potential effects

on the water table in the area of the proposed community leachfield system. The
projected rise (mounding) of the water table is estimated for wet weather conditions to
verify that the amount of rise will not interfere with the operation or treatment
performance of the leachfield system or pose a significant impact on neighboring
properties in the area.

Questa Engineering Corporation 1 260149_VillageParkWaterPlan / 11-27-2006

 SECTION 2:

WATER SUPPLY PLAN

This section discusses the planned water supply requirements and facilities for the Village Park
Commons project.

POTABLE WATER DEMAND

The project will include 29 single-family market rate homes, and 10 multi-family housing units
(i.e., affordable housing). The estimated annual potable water demand for the project, including
system losses and RO treatment losses is approximately 12.18 acre-feet per year (AFY), or
roughly an average of 0.033 acre-feet per day. This equates to an average raw water demand of
about 280 gallons per day for the 39 proposed residential units. The estimated potable water
demand is based on the following assumptions:

• Market Rate Housing. The estimated annual water demand for single-family residences
is 0.27 acre-feet per year (AFY), which equates to an average daily water usage of about
240 gpd. This is based on review of water use data compiled by California American
Water Company (Cal Am) for the period of 2004-2006 for similar residences in the
immediate vicinity of the project. The data are provided in Appendix A. Briefly, they
show the annual water usage rates ranging from 0.244 to 0.264 acre-feet per year (AFY)
for a sampling of about 60 residential service connections located on the following
streets: Lupin, Ford, Via Contenta, Virginia, Merrill, Flight, Poppy and Lilac. To be
conservative, an average water usage rate of 0.27 AFY per market rate home is estimated
for the proposed Village Park & Commons project.

It is generally assumed that about half to two-thirds of the total residential water demand
is used within the home and the remainder is for outside uses (e.g., irrigation, washing,
etc), which varies seasonally. Assuming two-thirds is attributed to inside water uses, this
translates to average wastewater flow of about 160 gpd/residence; this value is used later
in the report to approximate the average wastewater flow generated by the project. This
estimate assumes fairly stringent requirements for drought tolerant landscaping, which
will be an adopted element of the project.

• Multi-family Affordable Housing. Water demand for multi-family housing units is

estimated at 0.18 AFY per connection. This is a very conservative estimate based on
water usage data for other apartment units in the immediate area of the project. The Cal
Am data in Appendix A indicates an average water use rate of approximately 0.09 AFY
per apartment for an existing 4-unit apartment complex at 127 Ford Road. This equates
to an average daily water use rate of about 80 gpd, which is very low. For planning
purposes, a water usage of 0.18 AFY (160 gpd) per connection is included to provide a
good factor of safety. The affordable housing units are assumed to have lower outside
water uses and would also generate proportionately less wastewater flow as compared
with the single family market rate residences.

Questa Engineering Corporation 2 260149_VillageParkWaterPlan / 11-27-2006

 • System Losses. Water system losses can encompass a wide range of both “apparent”
losses as well as physical losses, including distribution system maintenance flushing,
distribution leaks, water treatment losses, tank overflows, fire fighting, storm drain and
sewer flushing, illegal connections (stolen water), un-metered uses, and meter and billing
inaccuracies. The industry standard is 7%, which is assumed here.

• RO Treatment System Losses. Water treatment will be required for removal of salts
(total dissolved solids). The treatment process will generate reject water amounting to
about 5 to 15 percent of the total water processed. The losses will depend on the
efficiency and type of water treatment system installed. Losses of 15% are assumed at
this stage of analysis based on eight years of operating data for the nearby Monterra
Ranch water system.

Table 1
Potable Water Demand Estimate

Unit Water
No. of Units Estimated Demand
Water Use Demand
(AFY) (AFY)

Market Rate Homes 29 0.27 7.83

Multi-family Units 10 0.18 1.8

Potable Water Demand 9.63

System Losses (7% of total potable demand) 0.72

Total Required Potable Supply 10.35

RO Treatment System Losses (up to 15 % of total

1.83
demand)

Total Water Demand 12.18

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

Questa Engineering Corporation 3 260149_VillageParkWaterPlan / 11-27-2006

WATER SUPPLY WELLS

The water for the project will be supplied from onsite wells that will draw from the fractured
shale aquifer beneath the project site. The wells will be installed in the western half of the
project site.

Well Production Requirements. The required production capacity of individual water wells is
determined differently by Monterey County and the MPWMD. The following summarize the
key criteria that will need to be satisfied for documentation of an adequate supply of water for
the project.

• Monterey County. Based on “Source Capacity Test Procedures” issued by Monterey

County Department of Heath in May 2006, the following requirements apply to the water
supply wells for the project:

1. Source Capacity. Required source capacity for >15 connections with non-alluvial
wells = 1 gpm per connection. For the project, this will require documented well
production capacity credit of at least 39 gpm.

2. Well Production Credit. Well production capacity credit for non-alluvial wells
is limited to 25% of the sustained well yield documented through a 72-hour
pumping test, or 50% of sustained yield through a 10-day pumping test.
Therefore, for the proposed project the pumping tests must document total well
yield of 156 gpm (39 gpm/0.25) or 78 gpm (38 gpm/0.50), respectively,
depending upon the length of the pumping tests.

3. Two Sources of Supply. Water systems with >20 connections must have two
sources of supply. This is interpreted to mean at least two wells.

4. Maximum Day Demand w/Largest Source Off Line. Water systems with >20
connections must have pumping capacity to meet maximum day demand with the
highest producing source off line. For the proposed project, maximum day
demand is determined, per MPWMD criteria and the preceding analysis, to be
approximately 19,500 gpd. Per Monterey County criteria, this would be met with
13.5 gpm pumping capacity credit, which would be figured as 25% of the
demonstrated 72-hour pumping test yield, or 54 gpm. Alternatively, for 10-day
pumping tests, the yield for non-alluvial wells is credited as 50% of 10-day test
results; this would require documented total well yield of 27 gpm. In either case
this would have to exclude the largest producing well.

Based on the above, it appears that the key (most restrictive) Monterey County criterion
applicable to the project is item (2), the demonstrated total well yield of 156 gpm, based
on 25% credit for 72-hour pumping tests, or 78 gpm, based on 50% credit for 10-day
pumping tests.

Questa Engineering Corporation 4 260149_VillageParkWaterPlan / 11-27-2006

 • MPWMD. The MPWMD issued “Procedures for Preparation of Well Source and
Pumping Impact Assessments” in September 2005. The procedures and criteria vary
according to the hydrogeologic setting of the project. The proposed project is located in
Setting #2, which covers the Carmel Valley Uplands and Other Fractured/Consolidated
Bedrock Formations. Following is a review of key items from this document apply to
determination of source capacity for the proposed project.

1. Source Capacity. The standard required source capacity for single family
residential water supplies is 3 gpm per connection; the MPWMD may consider
variation from this requirement on a case-by-case basis. For the proposed project,
compliance with the 3 gpm standard would require documented well yields (from
72-hr pumping tests) totaling 117 gpm.

2. Maximum Day Demand. The maximum day demand is defined as 1.5 times the
average dry season demand, which is estimated to be 19,500 gpd for the proposed
project. The MPWMD requires that the demand be satisfied based on pumping
capacity, assuming only 12 hours operation per day. Therefore, this would
require documented total well yield of 27 gpm, as calculated previously.

3. Drawdown Impacts. The MPWMD requires estimation and evaluation of

potential drawdown impacts on nearby wells within an approximate 1,000-ft
radius of the project wells. The evaluation is required to verify that the proposed
project wells will not adversely affect the supply to other existing wells.

Based on the above, the key (most restrictive) MPWMD criterion applicable to the
project appears to be item (1), minimum documented source capacity requirement of 117
gpm well yield. This is less than the 156 gpm and more than the 78 gpm required by
Monterey County for non-alluvial wells. However, the basis for determining well yield
(from pumping test data) differs between the County and the MPWMD procedures.
Therefore, the final determinant of well production requirements will rely upon the
completion of the pumping tests.

Water Well Design and Operation

The design, construction and operation of the new water wells will be in accordance with the
following recommendations:

• Steel or PVC (DR 17) well casing;

• Proper aperture size selection sized for the correct aquifer or sand pack dimensions;
• Thorough well development;
• Utilization of only one-third of the available drawdown for 12-hour pumping cycles (per
MPWMD criteria).

Questa Engineering Corporation 5 260149_VillageParkWaterPlan / 11-27-2006

Water Treatment Facilities
A reverse osmosis (RO) and/or electrodialysis reversal (EDR) water treatment system will be
required for the domestic water supply to reduce the concentration of total dissolved solids for
compliance with drinking water standards. Permit issuance for the water treatment plant will be
subject to review and approval by the County of Monterey.

Waste by-products (reject) from the RO treatment process will be disposed by hauling and
disposal to an approved wastewater treatment plant ocean outfall system. Typical treatment
efficiency is 85% (15% losses); however, with multiple stage systems the reject water may be
further concentrated (at additional cost), improving the overall efficiency to around 95% (5%
losses). The reject water will be hauled to the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Plant.
According to one of the plant engineers (Greg Antosz), the Monterey facility currently receives
similar RO reject water from the Monterra Ranch Mutual Water Company and Culligan, and
would have capacity and provisions to take similar waste from the Village Park project. The
City of Watsonville Treatment Plant also currently receives and discharges RO reject water
through their ocean outfall.

Following is a brief review of the RO and EDR treatment processes.

Reverse Osmosis (RO). Reverse Osmosis has been in commercial use for demineralization of
water supplies since about 1970. It is a pressure-driven process that forces water through a semi-
permeable membrane, separating the salts (TDS) from the water. Osmosis is a natural
phenomenon in which water molecules of a lower salt concentration tend to move through a
membrane to the side with the higher concentration, producing equal TDS concentrations on
either side of the membrane. In RO, pressure is applied to increase the water pressure on the
high TDS side of the membrane, causing the water to flow instead from the high TDS side to the
low TDS side, i.e., reversing the natural osmosis process. The semi-permeable membrane allows
the passage of water molecules, but prevents the passage of ions such as sodium and chloride,
which are left behind on the high TDS side, and must eventually be removed as “reject” water.
The reject water from an RO system is commonly estimated at approximately 15% of the total
raw water supply; this is consistent with eight years of monitoring data for the RO treatment
system operated by the Monterrra Ranch Mutual Water Company.

Electrodialysis Reversal (EDR). Electrodialysis is an electrically driven process that uses

voltage (rather than pressure) to drive charged ions through a semi-permeable membrane to
reduce the TDS concentration in the source water. In the process, the high TDS raw water flows
between alternating cation-permeable and anion-permeable membranes, which are driven by a
direct electric current (DC). The cations and anions accumulate on the “reject” side of the
membranes, leaving low TDS water as the product. The electrodialysis reversal system
periodically reverses the polarity of the electric field to drive salt scale off the membranes,
simplifying the operation and maintenance of the system. In general, the EDR process is more
efficient (produces less reject water) than an RO system, but the initial construction costs and
ongoing operation and maintenance costs tend to be higher.

Questa Engineering Corporation 6 260149_VillageParkWaterPlan / 11-27-2006

Additional water quality testing will be required to determine the appropriate type of treatment
system for the Village Park project and to better estimate the efficiency and reject water
quantities.

WATER SYSTEM OPERATIONS

The water system for the Village Park project will be operated under contract with a properly
qualified and licensed water treatment operator. Preliminary contacts and discussions have been
made with Cal Am. Cal Am has indicated their interest and availability to provide contract water
system operations for the Village Park project or, potentially, to incorporate the water system
into their operations.

NON-POTABLE WATER

Non-potable water demand will include landscape irrigation for common areas of the project site.
Water for non-potable uses will be supplied by treated wastewater, and applied by means of
subsurface drip irrigation tubing, such as Geoflow. The common landscaped areas of the site
are the landscaped median areas, which total approximately 1.0 to 1.25 acres.

The landscaped areas will include a mix of turfgrass, shrubbery and trees. The estimated
irrigation water demand for drip irrigation is approximately 24 inches per year, occurring
primarily during the 8-month period of April through October. The peak irrigation demand is in
the summer months of June-August, when the monthly evapotranspiration requirements may be
as high as 6 inches per month. The treated wastewater flow available for irrigation during the
summer months is projected to be about 6,000 to 6,500 gallons per day, average daily flow. This
would be able to supply sufficient irrigation water for approximately 1.0 to 1.25 aces of
landscaped area, as needed for the project.

Questa Engineering Corporation 7 260149_VillageParkWaterPlan / 11-27-2006

 SECTION 3:

WATER BALANCE ANALYSIS

OVERVIEW

The proposed project will alter the hydrology of the project site through: (a) conversion of the
landscape to a mixture of residential development and open space; (b) extraction of groundwater
for domestic water supply; (c) onsite disposal/recharge of the groundwater with treated
wastewater via leachfields and subsurface drip irrigation; and (d) infiltration drainage/recharge
of rainfall runoff from onsite and offsite sources. The estimated changes in the hydrology are
addressed here through the completion of a water balance analysis that compares existing
conditions and future, post-development conditions.

A water balance analysis is an accounting model that tracks flows of water into and out of the
particular hydrologic system of interest. For the proposed project, the analysis focuses on
changes in the groundwater system in the project vicinity. The change is evaluated by
comparing the estimated amount of recharge, before and after, along with the amount of
groundwater that will be extracted for project uses.

The project site lies in the upland areas of the Carmel Valley, more than 1,000 feet from the
limits of the defined Carmel Valley Alluvial Aquifer (see Appendix B). In this region
groundwater may be extracted for beneficial uses (e.g., water supply) and is not subject to the
water right limitations that apply to the Carmel River system. Therefore, the water balance
analysis presented here (along with water well exploration and testing) is a key tool needed to
evaluate the availability of water to meet the project needs, as well as to quantify and assess the
potential level of impact on the overall Carmel Valley watershed that may occur as a result of the
project.

EXISTING CONDITIONS

The project site is the former Carmel Valley Airport. The site encompasses a total 29.37 acres,
including the decommissioned runway, a few unoccupied metal buildings, and surrounding
grassland. The former runways are compacted, semi-impermeable surfaces covering about 3
acres of the site; the remaining area is covered with grassy vegetation on moderately to highly
permeable soils. The site is level to gently sloping and is surrounded on all sides by developed
residential parcels. The elevation of the site is approximately 450 feet above mean sea level.

There are minimal existing storm drainage facilities for the project site; runoff tends to percolate
readily on site or flow in a dispersed sheet-flow pattern toward adjacent downslope areas.
Runoff from the runway and other hard surfaces sheet flows onto the adjacent grassy areas.
However, the site also receives runoff from offsite (upslope) areas to the north, which includes
some natural open space and residential development. A portion of this offsite runoff is routed
through the project site in storm drains that discharge on the southern side of the property near
the east end of Via Contenta. Additionally, the runoff from approximately 55 acres of offsite
areas drain onto the property. There is no storm drainage system to convey this runoff through

Questa Engineering Corporation 8 260149_VillageParkWaterPlan / 11-27-2006

the project site; this runoff generally collects along the north side of the property and percolates
into the gravelly soils in this area.

For the existing conditions, there are two wells on the property, and groundwater recharge
consists of two items: (1) percolation of direct rainfall received by the site; and (2) infiltration of
runoff from about 55 acres of offsite drainage areas that collects, ponds and percolates on the
northern edges of the site. The estimate of existing groundwater recharge, for average
conditions, is presented in Table 2. A discussion of the key assumptions is provided below.

• Rainfall. The average annual rainfall in the project area is approximately 17.5 inches per
year (see Appendix B).

• Evapotranspiration (ET). The actual evapotranspiration for the project area is

estimated to be approximately 13.63 inches per, based on data from the California
Irrigation Management Information System (CIMIS) for Zone 6 and local rainfall data
(see Appendix B). The effctive ET rate for the site under existing conditions is adjusted
downward about 5% to 13 inches per year (averaged over the site), based on the fact that
roughly 5% of the site is hard surfaces (former runway), which provide very limited ET.

• Onsite Rainfall-Runnoff/Percoaltion. Based on permeable, gravelly soil conditions, the

flat topography and vegetative cover, no more than about 5 to 10 percent of incident
rainfall is estimated to run off the site. A runoff rate of 10 percent is used in our
calculations, including both the 26 acres of grassland and the 3 acres of compacted road
and runway surfaces.

• Offsite Runoff/Percolation. The 55 acres of offsite area that drain onto the project site
are estimated to have a peak storm runoff coefficient of about 0.45. The area is
moderately sloping land developed with single family residences. The annual volume of
runoff from this area is estimated to be approximately 25 percent of annual rainfall.
Although there is presently no system for infiltration-percolation of offsite runoff that
collects on the site, observations and experience indicate that virtually all of this runoff
remains on the site for eventual percolation or evaporation. During heavy storms, some
portion of the runoff, estimated at about 10 percent, leaves the site and the remainder
percolates.

Using the above assumptions, the basic water balance equation for existing conditions is as
follows:

Recharge = (29.37 ac)(Rainfall-RO-ET) + (55 ac)(Rainfall*0.25)(1.0-0.10)

The total estimated groundwater recharge under existing conditions is approximately 24.78 AFY.

Questa Engineering Corporation 9 260149_VillageParkWaterPlan / 11-27-2006

 Table 2
Estimated Annual Groundwater Recharge – Existing Conditions

Average Annual Recharge

Factor Assumptions/Calculations
(AFY)

Onsite Rainfall Infiltration (29.37 ac)(17.5”-1.75”-13”)(1ft/12”) 6.73

Offsite Runoff Infiltration (55 ac)(17.5”(0.25)(0.90)(1 ft/12”) 18.05

Total Annual Recharge 24.78

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS

Under the proposed development the water will be extracted from the groundwater for domestic
supply, wastewater and irrigation seepage will percolate back into the groundwater, runoff from
the site will be collected and directed into infiltration areas to mimic existing conditions, and
offsite runoff currently dispersed to the site will continue to be collected and will be directed and
managed for infiltration and percolation. Table 3 presents the water balance for the proposed
development conditions. The key assumptions are discussed below.

• Rainfall. Rainfall will remain the same under the proposed development conditions.

• Evapotranspiration. While the basic evapotranspiration rates will not change with the
proposed development, the conversion of the existing grassy areas to impervious surfaces
will reduce the amount of area for evapotranspiration and, thus, reduce the overall
evapotranspiration losses. This will impact about 25% of the site, reducing the effective
ET rate from 13.63 inches to about 10.35 inches per year (averaged over the site).

• Onsite Rainfall Runoff/Percolation. Under developed conditions approximately 7.3

acres of the site will be converted to impervious surfaces; however, the runoff from these
surfaces will be directed to engineered infiltrations trenches and percolation systems.
This will have the effect of making onsite percolation of runoff more controlled and
efficient, and decreasing the amount of runoff by a small amount, e.g., from 10% to 5%.

• Offsite Runoff/Percolation. Runoff from offsite areas will continue to be collected and
absorbed on the site; engineered infiltration facilities will be constructed to provide better
control and management of this runoff water. This is estimated to increase the infiltration
efficiency from 90% to 95% of the runoff water reaching the site.

• Wastewater Percolation. The treated wastewater will be disposed entirely to subsurface

dispersal systems, including the use of a community leachfield-percolation system for
about 4 months of the year, and subsurface drip irrigation of landscaped median areas for
the other 8 months. The total average wastewater flow is estimated to be about 160 gpd
per residence or about 6,240 gpd. During disposal to the leachfield, the entire flow will

Questa Engineering Corporation 10 260149_VillageParkWaterPlan / 11-27-2006

 result in percolation to the groundwater system. When the treated water is used for
subsurface drip irrigation, it is estimated that about 20 percent of the water will percolate
below the root zone and contribute to groundwater recharge.

• Residential Landscape Irrigation Percolation Losses. Similar to the wastewater

irrigation system, there will be percolation losses from residential landscape irrigation
systems. A factor of 20 percent is also assumed for these losses. The total amount of
residential landscape irrigation is estimated to be about 75 gpd/residential connection, or
roughly 2,175 gpd on average for the 29 market rate units; this equates to about 2.44
AFY. At 20%, the seepage losses amount to about 0.49 AFY. Landscaping irrigation
losses for the affordable multi-family housing units is assumed to be negligible.

• Groundwater Extraction. As presented in the Water Supply section, the estimated total
annual water demand for the project is 12.18 AFY.

Based on the above assumptions and analysis the estimated annual recharge to the groundwater
system under the proposed development conditions is 25.98 AFY. This represents a small
increase in recharge of about 1.20 AFY over existing conditions.

Table 3
Estimated Annual Groundwater Recharge – Developed Conditions

Assumptions/ Average Annual Recharge

Factor
Calculations (AFY)
Onsite Rainfall Infiltration (29.37 ac)(17.5”-0.875”-10.35”)(1ft/12”) 15.36
Offsite Runoff Infiltration (55 ac)(17.5”)(0.25)(0.95)(1 ft/12”) 19.05
Wastewater Percolation
• Winter Leachfield (4/12)(365)(6,250 gpd)/(325,851 gal/AF) 2.33
• Summer Dripfield (8/12)(365)(6,250 gpd)(0.20)/325,851 gal/AF) 0.93
Irrigation Seepage Losses (2.44 AFY)(0.20) 0.49
Groundwater Extraction Per total water demand estimate (12.18)
Total Developed Conditions Recharge 25.98
Total Existing Conditions Recharge 24.78
Net Increase in Recharge 1.20

Questa Engineering Corporation 11 260149_VillageParkWaterPlan / 11-27-2006

 SECTION 4:

NITRATE LOADING ASSESSMENT

BACKGROUND

One of the critical water quality concerns in the Carmel Valley, as well as throughout other areas
of Monterey County, is the concentration of nitrate in groundwater. Nitrate in drinking water
can have serious health effects; and it is addressed through primary drinking water standards; the
limit is 45 mg/l, as NO3, and 10 mg/l, as N1. Since the Carmel Valley groundwater basin serves
as a primary source of water supply for most of the Monterey Peninsula, nitrate effects from
sewage disposal are of additional concern in the project area.

Sewage disposal to land, along with livestock wastes and fertilizer applications on cropland and
golf courses, are the principal sources of nitrate in the Carmel Valley affecting groundwater
quality. In order to assure protection of groundwater resources against affects from sewage
disposal, Monterey County authorized Montgomery Engineers to conduct the Carmel Valley
Wastewater Study (“Wastewater Study” or “Montgomery Study”) in 1981. One of the outcomes
of this study was the establishment of maximum wastewater loading rates (from septic systems)
throughout the Carmel Valley to prevent groundwater nitrate concentrations from rising above a
given level (30 mg/l, as NO3) that would threaten its use for drinking water. The
recommendations of this study were subsequently adopted by the Monterey County Board of
Supervisors, and incorporated as a policy of the Carmel Valley Master Plan.

The Montgomery Study divided the Carmel Valley into 48 hydrologic sub-basins to simplify the
accounting of nitrate loads and projected effects on water quality. Within each sub-basin
geographical areas were defined based on soil, hydrologic and topographic factors; and
recommended maximum wastewater loading rates, in terms of gallons per day (gpd) per acre,
were assigned. The assigned loading rates vary from 80 to 300 gpd per acre. These are
understood to represent the subsurface discharge of septic tank effluent, with a corresponding
total nitrogen concentration averaging 40 mg/l (as N). The allowable daily discharge rate (in
gpd) multiplied by the estimated total nitrogen concentration of the septic effluent (mg/l), thus,
yields the allowable mass loading of nitrate in each geographical area and sub-basin.

In applying these nitrate loading criteria two other assumptions embodied in the Montgomery
Study should be noted:

• Average residential wastewater flow (estimated to be about 250 gpd), as opposed to

maximum design flow, was assumed for the nitrate loading study.

• The nitrate loading rates assume exclusively rural residential land uses with a nominal
amount of landscaping and domestic animals. They do not anticipate or account for
agricultural operations or golf courses and their corresponding nitrate load associated

1
Note: 1.0 mg/l, as N is equal to 4.43 mg/l, as NO3.

Questa Engineering Corporation 12 260149_VillageParkWaterPlan / 11-27-2006

 with fertilizer applications. Therefore, where golf course or agricultural uses occur along
with residential development, these additional nitrate contributions should be determined
and included for comparison with the nitrate loading allocation indicated in the
Montgomery Study. This has been done for other projects in the Carmel Valley (e.g.,
Cañada Woods North). However, for the Village Park and Commons project there are no
other proposed uses with significant nitrate contributions.

In addition to Carmel Valley nitrate loading criteria, region-wide and site specific nitrate criteria
of the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) must also be complied
with for any new wastewater facilities. The RWQCB=s Basin Plan specifies a maximum
nitrogen loading of 40 grams (g) per acre per day fro community wastewater facilities, which
equates roughly to a density of one house per acre. In establishing final Waste Discharge
Requirements, the RWQCB would also examine the localized nitrate impacts on groundwater
quality from a central wastewater treatment-disposal facility, such as that which will serve the
Village Park and Commons project, to assure against adverse impacts to drinking water supplies
in the immediate vicinity of the project.

Finally, in 1991 Monterey County adopted Code Chapter 15.23, which sets limits on the nitrate-
nitrogen discharges from sewage treatment and wastewater reclamation facilities in the County.
The code requires demonstration that the net impact on groundwater quality from wastewater
disposal not exceed 6 mg/l nitrate-nitrogen. This requirement does not apply to septic disposal
systems. The wastewater system for the proposed project would be classified as a community
sewage treatment system and, therefore, would fall under the requirements of Code Chapter
15.23.

CUMULATIVE GROUNDWATER NITRATE IMPACT

The Village Park and Commons project spans two of the hydrologic sub-basins defined in the
Carmel Valley Wastewater Study; these are sub-basins 6 and 9. In circumstances such as this,
where the two sub-basins are hydrologically contiguous, the Monterey County Health
Department has held that the nitrate loading “allocation”, as defined in the Wastewater Study,
can be transferred between the two sub-basins for the specific development area under
consideration. This policy is based upon correspondence from Montgomery Engineers, the
authors of the Carmel Valley Wastewater Study. A copy of the correspondence indicating the
applicability of this policy to sub-basins 6 and 9 is provided in Appendix A.

Following is the analysis of nitrate loading to verify compliance with the limits specified in the
Carmel Valley Wastewater Study and the Basin Plan.

1. Approach. The procedures for determining the nitrate loading from the proposed project
and comparing them with the limitations as set forth in the Montgomery Study were as
follows:

• Determine the mass nitrate-nitrogen loading (in grams/day) for the entire property
based on the acreage and assigned wastewater loading rates shown on the Carmel

Questa Engineering Corporation 13 260149_VillageParkWaterPlan / 11-27-2006

 Valley Wastewater Study map adopted by Monterey County. The portion of the map
covering the Village Park and Commons project is shown in Appendix C.

• Determine the total mass loading of nitrate-nitrogen (also in grams/day) from

wastewater dispersal. This has two components: (1) for approximately 4 months of
the year the treated water will be directed to the community leachfield where minimal
nitrogen removal (10%) will occur in the soils; (2) for approximately 8 months of the
year the treated water will be used for subsurface drip irrigation of common
landscaped areas, where significant (approximately 40%) nitrogen removal will occur
through plant uptake and soil denitrification in the root zone.

• Compare the total estimated nitrate loading from wastewater disposal with the
allowable loading as permitted by (a) the Carmel Valley Wastewater Study and (b)
Basin Plan criteria.

2. Assumptions. The following assumptions were made in carrying out this nitrate loading
analysis:

• Design daily wastewater flow is 12,000 gpd;

• Total nitrogen concentration in septic tank effluent (per Carmel Valley Wastewater
Study assumptions) is estimated to be 40 mg/l; and this is expected to convert entirely
to nitrate through percolation below leachfield systems;

• Total nitrogen concentration in effluent from the proposed tertiary treatment facility
is 8 mg/l;

• Nitrate-nitrogen removal rate achieved through leachfield disposal is estimated to be

10% of the applied nitrate-nitrogen

• Nitrate-nitrogen removal rate achieved through subsurface drip irrigation-dispersal of

tertiary treated water is estimated to be 40% of the applied nitrate-nitrogen.

3. Calculations. The calculations of the projected nitrate-nitrogen loading from the proposed
project are included in Attachment B. In summary, they show the following:

• Project Nitrate Loading:

- From leachfield usage: 4 months @ 327 gm/day = 39,243 gm

- From drip irrigation-disposal: 8 months @ 218 gm/day = 53,414 gm

Total Annual Loading 92,657 gm

Average Daily Loading 254 gm/day

Questa Engineering Corporation 14 260149_VillageParkWaterPlan / 11-27-2006

 • Project Loading as compared with Carmel Valley, Basin Plan and Monterey Code
Chapter 15.23 Criteria:

- Carmel Valley Criteria: 254/309 = 82% of the allowable loading

- Basin Plan Criteria: 254/1,175 = 22% of the allowable loading

• Projected net impact on nitrate-nitrogen concentration in groundwater due to onsite

percolation of treated wastewater:

- Monterey County Code Chapter 15.23: (5.2 mg/L)/(6.0 mg/L) = 87% of limit

REFERENCES

1. Broadbent, F.E. and H.M. Reisenauer. "Fate of Wastewater Constituents in Soil and
Groundwater: Nitrogen and Phosphorus, "Irrigation with Reclaimed Municipal
Wastewater." G. Pettygrove and T. Asano, eds., California State Water Resources
Control Board Report Number 84-1 wr, July 1984.

2. California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Coast Region, Resolution 83-
12, Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, December 1983.

3. Lance, J. C. July, Nitrogen Removal by Soil Mechanisms. Journal of Water Pollution

Control Federation, Vol. 44, No. 7., 1972.

4. Monterey County Health Department, Monterey County Code Chapter 15.20 - Sewage
Disposal, 1985, and Chapter 15.23-Sewage Treatment and Reclamation Facilities, 1991.

5. Montgomery Engineers, Inc., Carmel Valley Wastewater Study, February 1982.

6. National Academy of Sciences. Nitrates: An Environmental Assessment: A report by

Panel on Nitrates of the Coordinating Committee for Scientific and Technical
Assessments of Environmental Pollutants. Washington, D.C., 1978.

7. Planning Analysis Development. Subsequent Carmel Valley Master Plan - Draft

Environmental Impact Report, Monterey County EIR No. 85-002, May 1986.

8. U.S. EPA. October, 1980. Design Manual On-Site Wastewater Treatment and Disposal
Systems.

9. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater, October 1977.

Questa Engineering Corporation 15 260149_VillageParkWaterPlan / 11-27-2006

10. Walker, W.G., et al. Nitrogen Transformation During Subsurface Disposal of Septic Tank
Effluent in Sands: II. Ground Water Quality. J. Environmental Quality, Vol. 2, No. 4.,
1973.

11. Water Pollution Control Federation. Alternative Sewer Systems, Manual of Practice No.
FD-12, Facilities Development, 1986.

Questa Engineering Corporation 16 260149_VillageParkWaterPlan / 11-27-2006

 SECTION 5:

GROUNDWATER MOUNDING ANALYSIS

FOR COMMUNITY LEACHFIELD

INTRODUCTION

Groundwater mounding will occur to some degree under any large or concentrated group of
leachfield systems. The analysis presented here is to demonstrate that mounding under the
proposed disposal area for the community leachfield system will not reach a critical or
unacceptable level that will interfere with either: (1) the normal drainage of water away from the
disposal area; (2) the treatment effectiveness of the soil beneath the leaching trenches; or (3)
significant rise in groundwater levels at neighboring properties downslope of the leachfield area.

The groundwater mounding analysis is presented here for the community leachfield proposed to
be located on the eastern end of the project site. The leachfield will be used primarily during the
wet season (December-March), which corresponds with the period when groundwater levels are
typically highest. During the dry season the treated water will be used for subsurface drip
irrigation-disposal in common landscaped areas of the site. Groundwater mounding is not a
concern for the drip dispersal operations, since the applied water will be lost primarily to
vegetative uptake (evapotranspiration) and this will take place during the dry season when the
water table is naturally at its lowest levels.

METHODOLOGY

The groundwater mounding calculations utilize Darcy’s Law (Q = KIA) for the case of lateral
hillside groundwater flow (see Appendix D). This situation is considered most representative of
the site conditions in the disposal areas as determined from field investigations.

DATA AND ASSUMPTIONS

The key data and assumptions utilized in this analysis are as follows:

1. Flow Rate (Q). For this analysis, the flow rate, Q, is assumed to be equal to the average
sustained wastewater flow that will be discharged to the leachfield during the wet season.
This is estimated to be about 160 gpd per residence, or about 6,250 gpd for the 39
proposed residences. This equates to 836 ft3/day. This flow rate is less than the system
design flow rate for the treatment plant and leachfield sizing, which is assumed to be
12,000 gpd (see Wastewater Treatment and Disposal System Report by Allied Engineers,
Inc.). The design wastewater flow rate of 12,000 gpd accounts for maximum daily flows
which the facilities must accommodate, whereas the groundwater system responds much
more slowly to the average percolating wastewater flow over a period of many days or
weeks.

Questa Engineering Corporation 17 260149_VillageParkWaterPlan / 11-27-2006

 2. Gradient (I). The water table gradient is assumed to be equal to the slope of the surface
of the fractured shale formation beneath the site. This is the most likely area for localized
saturation (and groundwater mounding) to occur. Based on the hydrogeologic cross-
section prepared by Fugro West, Inc. (see Appendix D), the surface of the geologic
contact between fractured shale and the overlying older alluvium at the project site is
approximately 6% (0.06 ft/ft).

3. Hydraulic Conductivity (K). Horizontal hydraulic conductivity (i.e., permeability) is

used in Darcy’s Law for estimation of lateral hillside flow. Ideally, values for K should
be estimated from insitu bail tests. However, this requires the presence of saturated soil
conditions (i.e., groundwater), which have not been observed in the proposed disposal
area. The January 1999 wet weather soil/groundwater investigation found dry conditions
in all test holes except two (#2 and #23) where seepage was noted at depths of 21.7’ and
13.7’, respectively. An alternative approximation of K is possible from percolation test
data. The data for the 10-ft-deep percolation tests provides the most representative
measure of permeability in the deeper soil zones where saturated groundwater flow will
occur. The average percolation rate at these depths was 4 inches per hour, which
corresponds roughly to a hydraulic conductivity of 8 feet per day for use in the Darcy
equation See “Carmel Valley Vintage Airfield Sewage Disposal Study” by
Environmental Concepts for percolation data.

4. Cross-Section Area (A). In the Darcy equation, the cross-section area (A) for
groundwater flow is equal to the depth (D) of saturation times the length (L) across the
slope through which the water can be expected to travel. For this analysis, the depth of
flow is calculated from the assumed/estimated values for Q, I, K and L. The calculated
value for D can then be compared with the available depth of “unsaturated” soil below
the proposed subsurface drip irrigation trenches in order to determine if an adequate
depth of unsaturated soil will be maintained below the leaching trenches. The cross-
section flow length for the leachfield area is approximately 1,000 feet; this assumes that
the leachfield system will be spread over the entire length of the available area set aside
for wastewater disposal.

5. Relationship to Background Groundwater Conditions. The predicted groundwater

rise (i.e., mounding) is in addition to any existing background groundwater condition
observed through wet weather field investigations. For the project site, the January 1999
field investigation by Environmental Concepts revealed two isolated locations of
groundwater “seepage” in test holes #2 (21.7’) and #23 (13.7’). Five other test holes
spread throughout the proposed leachfield area showed dry soils to a depth of 22 feet.
Therefore, it is assumed that the depth to groundwater during the wet season is 22 feet or
greater.

CALCULATIONS

Using Darcy’s Law and the above-stated data and assumptions, the calculation of the
groundwater mounding rise and predicted net separation to groundwater is summarized in
Table 4 below. The analysis indicates a potential water table rise of about 2.0 feet beneath the

Questa Engineering Corporation 18 260149_VillageParkWaterPlan / 11-27-2006

community leachfield area. With the background water table at a depth of at least 22 feet and 5-
foot deep leaching trenches, the projected net separation to the mounded groundwater table is
estimated to be 15 feet. This is 5 feet more than the required 10-ft separation per Monterey
County regulations.

Table 4
Summary of Groundwater Mounding Calculations

Parameter Value

Design Flow, W
• gpd 6,250
• ft3/day 836
Hydraulic Conductivity, K (ft/day) 8.0
Leach Field Cross-Section Length, L (feet) 1,000
Water Table Slope, I (ft/ft) 0.06
1
Predicted Groundwater Rise, D feet 2.0
Total Unsaturated Soil Depth (feet) 22.0
Predicted Depth to Mounded Groundwater (feet) 20.0
Trench Bottom Depth (feet) 5.0
Predicted Net Separation to Groundwater (feet) 15.0
Required Separation (feet) 10.0
Safety Factor (feet) 5.0

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

OFFSITE IMPLICATIONS

Based on the preceding analysis, a projected water table depth of 20 feet below ground surface at
the downslope (southerly) boundary of the community leachfield site would not pose a
significant constraint for the existing or future use of onsite leachfield systems for properties
bordering the project in the area of Poppy Road and Flight Road.

In terms of overall effects on groundwater levels in the project area, the water balance analysis in
Section 3 of this report estimates a potential increase in groundwater recharge of 1.2 acre-feet
per year over the 29.37-acre project site. This equates to 0.04 feet (0.5 inches) averaged over the
project site, or about 3 to 4 inches of water table rise (worst case), assuming a specific yield of
0.15. This is insignificant and would not cause any impact on water table conditions at
neighboring properties.

Questa Engineering Corporation 19 260149_VillageParkWaterPlan / 11-27-2006

 APPENDIX A

WATER USE DATA

 APPENDIX B

WATER BALANCE DATA

 Table B-1
Rainfall-Evapotranspiration Data for Carmel Valley
(inches)

Month ETo Rainfall Net ET

January 1.86 3.46 1.86
February 2.24 3.04 2.24
March 3.41 2.65 2.65
April 4.80 1.43 1.43
May 5.58 0.32 0.32
June 6.30 0.11 0.11
July 6.51 0.03 0.03
August 6.20 0.07 0.07
September 4.80 0.17 0.17
October 3.72 0.70 0.70
November 2.40 2.20 2.20
December 1.85 3.30 1.85
Total 49.67 17.48 13.63
 APPENDIX C

NITRATE LOADING DATA AND

CALCULATIONS
 VILLAGE PARK AND COMMONS

NITRATE LOADING CALCULATIONS

NITRATE LOADING ASSUMPTIONS

• Total nitrogen in septic tank effluent: 40 mg/l

• Total nitrogen in tertiary treated effluent: 8 mg/l

• Nitrogen reduction through leachfield disposal: 10%

• Nitrogen reduction through subsurface drip irrigation-disposal: 40%

• Onsite wastewater recharge area = project site = 29.37 acres

• Average annual rainfall recharge: 17.5” rainfall – 5% runoff – 12” ET = 3.75 inches/yr

CARMEL VALLEY WASTEWATER STUDY CRITERIA

• Nitrogen Allocation to Sub-basins 6 and 9

- Wastewater Discharge via Leachfields:

Sub-basin 6: 12 acres @ 170 gpd/ac = 2,040 gpd
Sub-basin 9: 17 acres @ 0 gpd/ac = 0 gpd
Total = 2,040 gpd

- Implied Mass Nitrogen Loading:

(2,040 gpd) (40 mg/l) (3.785 l/gal) / 1,000 mg/gm = 309 gm/d

REGIONAL BOARD BASIN PLAN NITRATE CRITERIA

• Limit: 40 gm/acre per day

• Allocation to Village Park and Commons property

29.37 acres @ 40 g/acre-day = 1,175 gm/day
NITRATE LOADING FOR PROPOSED PROJECT CONDITIONS

• Leachfield disposal component:

- Leachfield disposal period: 120 days

- Daily wastewater volume: 12,000 gpd

- Total wastewater discharge during leachfield disposal period:

12,000 gpd * 120 days = 1,440,000 gal

- Nitrate-nitrogen concentration of percolating wastewater:

(8 mg-N/L) (1-0.10) = 7.2 mg-N/L

- Mass Loading of Nitrate-Nitrogen:

Total: (1,440,000 gal)(7.2 mg-N/L)(3.785 liters/gal/(1,000 mg/g) = 39,243 gm
Average daily loading: 39,243/120 = 327 gm/day

• Subsurface drip irrigation-disposal component:

- Drip irrigation-disposal period: 245 days

- Daily wastewater volume: 12,000 gpd

- Total wastewater discharge during drip irrigation-disposal period:

12,000 gpd * 245 days = 2,940,000 gal

- Nitrate-nitrogen concentration of percolating wastewater:

(8 mg-N/L) (1-0.40) = 4.8 mg-N/L

- Mass Loading of nitrate-nitrogen:

Total: (2,940,000 gal)(4.8 mg-N/L)(3.785 liters/gal/(1,000 mg/g) = 53,414 gm
Average daily loading: 53,414/245 = 218 gm/day

• Total Mass Loading of nitrate-nitrogen:

- Annual total: 39,243 + 53,414 = 92,657 gm

- Average daily loading: 92,657 gmd/365 days = 254 gm/day

Average daily loading rate per acre = 254 gm/29.37 acres = 8.6 gm acre/day

• Percentage of Established Criteria:

- Carmel Valley Wastewater Study: 254 gm/309 gm = 82%

- Regional Water Board Criteria: 254 gm/1,175 gm = 22%

ESTIMATED NET NITRATE-NITROGEN IMPACT ON GROUNDWATER

Net nitrate-nitrogen impact on groundwater is estimated from the following water-chemical

mass balance equation:

NC = [(NW)(WL)(1-DP)] + [(NW)(WD)(1-DDI)] +[(NB)(R)]

(WL + WDI + R)
Where:

NC = Resultant concentration of nitrate-nitrogen in percolating water (mg-N/L)

NW = Total nitrogen concentration in treated wastewater = 8.0 mg-N/L

NB = Background nitrate-nitrogen concentration in percolating rainfall-recharge = 0.5 mg-

N/L (per water quality test results for onsite well)

WL = Total annual wastewater percolation from discharge to community leachfield for 4

months of the year = 1,440,000 gallons = 4.4 acre-feet/year

WD = Total annual wastewater discharge to subsurface drip irrigation field for 8 months of
the year = 2,940,000 gallons = 9.0 acre-feet/year

WDI = Total annual wastewater percolation below drip irrigation field at 20% seepage
losses = (9.0 acre-feet)(0.20) = 1.8 acre-feet/year

R = Average annual recharge from onsite percolation of rainfall on project site = (29.37
acre)(3.75 inches/year)(1”/12”) = 9.2 acre-feet/year

DL = Denitrification rate for percolating wastewater below leachfield = 0.10

DI = Nitrate uptake/denitrification/rate for percolating wastewater in drip irrigation field =

0.40

Calculation: NC = [(8.0)(4.4)(1-0.10)] + [(8.0)(9.0)(1-0.40)] +[(0.5)(9.2)] = 5.2 mg/L

(4.4 + 1.8 + 9.2)
 APPENDIX D

GROUNDWATER MOUNDING
INFORMATION