EXHIBIT 1-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 Fort Ord area using collector wells that would be installed in the Dunes Sands aquifer. The project would provide water supply to the Monterey Peninsula, to comply with State Water Resources Control Board Order 95-10 to reduce California-American Water Company’s unlawful diversions from the Carmel River.

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 Seaside and Salinas Valley groundwater basins.

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 Fort Ord Seawater Extraction Sites

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 Fort Ord. The investigation includes phased geologic and hydrogeologic field activities and groundwater modeling to understand the effect of any identified potential 95-10 Project on the Seaside and Salinas Basins. The purpose of the geologic investigation is to:

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 Seaside and Salinas Valley groundwater basins, respectively.

n Assess the hydrogeologic effects that the 95-10 Project might have on the Seaside and Salinas Valley groundwater basins by performing aquifer pump testing and monitoring.

n Refine/ develop aquifer numerical modeling to simulate what effects the 95-10 Project might have on the Seaside and Salinas Valley groundwater basins, when operating at design flow rate, as determined from field testing results.

Conceptual Approach

Three potential sites were identified at former Fort Ord based upon land use, regulatory, and technical constraints. These sites, shown on Figure 1 (attached), include from south to north: the Bunker, Range 8, and Stilwell Hall sites. The first of several phased activities will be the drilling of soil borings at each of the sites to identify the saturated thickness of the Dune Sands and verify the presence of lower permeable geologic units separating the Dune Sands from known potable water bearing aquifers. This data will guide the need for additional hydrogeologic testing at each site if the boring data suggest that an extraction project is geologically viable.

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 Fort Ord Dunes State Park. Consequently some of the boring locations may change, but all attempts will be made to geographically distribute the boring locations at the sites.

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 Salinas and Seaside Valley groundwater basins.

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 TDS to establish initial conditions. The wells will be further sampled for general minerals and TDS during the production well pump testing described in Tasks 1.2.3 and 1.2.4.

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 TDS and general minerals. Electrical conductivity (EC) will be continuously recorded. Analytical results of chloride content will be calibrated to EC readings.

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 Fort Ord. If the results of the soil boring efforts indicated that installation of monitoring and test wells was appropriate, a second round of permitting would be conducted to obtain a waiver for the pump test water discharge with the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board.

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 Fort Ord, the scope of work assumes that approval would be required from seven agencies. These agencies and their approvals are as follows:

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 Fort Ord Dunes State Park has not been officially transferred from the U.S. Army to CDPR.

U.S. Army (Army) – Right-of- Entry Permit. The Army would issue a right-of-entry permit or would review and concur with issuance of the CDPR right-of-entry permit to allow access to former Fort Ord property. It is likely that the Army would be required to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in compliance with the federal Endangered Species Act prior to issuance of its permit.

California Coastal Commission (CCC) – Coastal Development Permit. Because the field investigations would occur in the coastal zone, MPWMD would be required to obtain a coastal development permit from the CCC. Even though the field investigation site is on land owned by the federal government, it is likely that MPWMD would need this permit because it is a non-federal project sponsor.

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.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) – Federal Endangered Species Act Consultation. As part of its permitting responsibility, the Army would need to consult with the FWS regarding any potential effects on federally protected wildlife and plant species. ICF Jones & Stokes would support the Army with information regarding potential effects on protected species and would attend up to two formal or informal consultation meetings if required. The product of this effort would be either an incidental take authorization or a letter of no adverse effect. It is likely this consultation would take place through the ongoing Habitat Conservation Plan process for former Fort Ord being undertaken by the Fort Ord Reuse Authority (FORA).

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) – California Endangered Species Act Consultation. If adverse effects on state protected species were anticipated from the field investigations, MPWMD would need to consult with CDFG in compliance with the California Endangered Species Act. As with the FWS, it is likely that this consultation would take place through FORA’s Habitat Conservation Plan process for Fort Ord. ICF Jones & Stokes would support MPWMD with information regarding potential effects on protected species and would attend up to two formal or informal consultation meetings if required. The result of this effort is assumed to be a Section 2081 take permit or authorization or concurrence of no effect on state-listed species.

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 Fort Ord, it would be necessary to consult with FORA regarding the field study and its consistency with habitat conservation efforts on the coastal portion of former Fort Ord. MPWMD would need to insure that the temporary construction activities would not result in losses of habitat beyond those anticipated in the Habitat Conservation Plan.

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 Seaside and/or the Salinas Valley aquifers.

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 Seaside and Salinas Valley groundwater basins. Groundwater modeling will be used to simulate the largest viable project and that could be considered for development.

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 for resistivity, spontaneous potential, gamma ray, and temperature. The purpose of the geophysical log is to confirm lithologic layers of the borings.

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 or rental of a down hole submersible pump.

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 TDS and general minerals. EC readings will be collected continuously.

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 Monterey County

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 for raw water conveyance pipelines, treated water pipelines to connect to the Cal- Am distribution system, and brine disposal lines to connect to the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency outfall. The alignment evaluation will characterize alignment features that will influence costs and/or environmental factors, including: paved or unpaved, public or private right-of-way, number of stream crossings, micro-tunneling locations and, potential major geotechnical problems. A preliminary utility conflicts evaluation will also be prepared.

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 Marina, CDPR, Transportation Agency of Monterey County, For Ord Reuse Authority, Monterey County, City of Seaside, City of Sand City, City of Monterey, and Cal-Am. One meeting is assumed with each agency. Alignments developed from the previous study will be used as a starting point for discussions.

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). Information will be developed based on the general land use type and general assumptions regarding property values. No detailed property appraisals are proposed as part of this task.

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 for repayment of capital costs and operational costs to develop a unit water cost.

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 Monterey County.

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 for rate evaluations. No rate studies and/or evaluations are included as part of the current scope of work.

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\committees\Admin\2008\20081124\01\item1_exh1a.doc