CEQA GUIDELINES APPENDIX G

MPWMD ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST – INITIAL STUDY

PROJECT INFORMATION
1. Project Title:		MPWMD Ordinance No. 124, known as Water Distribution System Regulation Amendment Ordinance (Rule 20-C)
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:		Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, PO Box 85, Monterey, CA 93942-0085 [Street address: 5 Harris Court, Bldg. G, Monterey, CA 93940]
3. Contact Person and Phone:		Henrietta Stern, Project Mgr., 831/658-5621
4. Project Location:		Monterey Peninsula Water Management District
5. Project Sponsor's Name/Address:		MPWMD, see #2 above
6. General Plan Designation:		Varies throughout District
7. Zoning:		Varies throughout District
8. Description of Project: Ordinance No. 124 (Attachment 1) would exempt certain Water Distribution Systems (WDS) within the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD or District) and Former Fort Ord from the requirement to obtain a WDS permit. The exemption from MPWMD WDS permit requirements would apply if the source of supply for the WDS is not derived from the Seaside Groundwater Basin or the Carmel River Basin, including the Carmel Valley Alluvial Aquifer. The WDS instead would be regulated by other governmental entities. The ordinance also deletes a current exemption for new wells that are constructed but not yet activated. The primary purpose of Ordinance No. 124 is to eliminate the apparent regulatory conflict that exists between District Rule 20-A and certain provisions of a 1992 Amended Memorandum of Agreement (Amended MOA), signed in May 1993, between MPWMD, Monterey County Water Resources Agency (MCWRA), and the Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency (PVWMA) that addressed the issue of overlapping jurisdictional boundaries of MPWMD and MCWRA on the Former Fort Ord. The MOA determined that MCWRA would be the sole regulator of water delivery systems to the Former Fort Ord. At the same time, the MOA also stated that MPWMD shall have exclusive authority to regulate the management of the Seaside Groundwater Basin within Fort Ord boundaries. The proposed ordinance resolves this conflict by exempting from MPWMD regulation WDS that do not derive supply from water resources systems regulated by MPWMD, such as Marina Coast Water District service to the Former Fort Ord from water sources extracted from the Salinas Basin. MPWMD Rules & Regulations apply throughout MPWMD, including the cities of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Del Rey Oaks, Monterey, Pacific Grove, Sand City, Seaside, portions of Monterey County (primarily Carmel Valley, Pebble Beach Carmel Highlands and the Highway 68 corridor), the Monterey Peninsula Airport District, as well as a portion of the Former Fort Ord currently owned by the U.S. Government. Attachment 2 provides a schematic of the area boundaries addressed by Ordinance No. 124. If this Ordinance is approved, Rules 11 and 20-C of the MPWMD Rules & Regulations shall be amended to facilitate the changed exemptions described above.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Land uses within the District range from urban and suburban residential and commercial areas to open space/wilderness. Each of the member jurisdictions within the MPWMD named above regulates land uses within its boundaries. The District does not regulate land uses. The Monterey Peninsula is dependent on local sources of water supply, which (directly or indirectly) are dependent on local rainfall and runoff. The primary sources of supply include surface and groundwater in the Carmel River basin, and groundwater in the Seaside Basin (Attachment 3). Vegetation communities on the Monterey Peninsula include marine, estuarine, and riverine habitats; fresh emergent and saline emergent (coastal salt marsh) wetland communities; riparian communities, particularly along the Carmel River; a wetland community at the Carmel River lagoon; and upland vegetation communities such as coastal scrub, mixed chaparral, mixed hardwood forest, valley oak woodland, and annual grassland. These communities provide habitat for a diverse group of wildlife. The Carmel River supports various fish resources, including federally threatened steelhead fish and California red-legged frog. A variety of federally protected plant and animal species occur on lands within the Former Fort Ord currently under federal jurisdiction.
10: Other public agencies whose approval is required: None
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
 Aesthetics	 Hazards and Hazardous Materials		 Public Services
 Agricultural Resources	 Hydrology and Water Quality		 Recreation
 Air Quality	 Land Use and Planning		 Transportation/Traffic
 Biological Resources	 Mineral Resources		 Utilities & Service Systems
 Cultural Resources	 Noise
 Geology/Soils	 Population and Housing		 Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment, and a negative declaration will be prepared.				▇
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A mitigated negative declaration will be prepared.				
I find that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment, and an environmental impact report is required.				
I find that the proposed project may have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or is "potentially significant unless mitigated." An environmental impact report is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.				
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects: 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards; and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. The earlier EIR adequately analyzes the proposed project, so no additional environmental impact report or negative declaration will be prepared. Signature: Date: Printed Name: David A. Berger Title: MPWMD General Manager				

EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:

1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).

2. All answers must take account of the entire action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.

3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

4. "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less-than-significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVIII, Earlier Analyses, may be cross-referenced).

5. The explanation of each issue should identify:

a. The significance threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and

b. The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant

6. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration [Section 15063(c)(3)(D)]. In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:

a. Earlier Analysis used. Identify and state where they are available for review.

b. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analyses.

c. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “less Than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.

7. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. A source list should be attached, and other sources used, or individuals contacted, should be cited in the discussion.

8. This checklist has been adapted from the form in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, as amended effective October 26, 1998 (from website).

9. Information sources cited in the checklist and the references used in support of this evaluation are listed in attachments to this document.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES (See attachments for discussion and information sources)	Potentially Significant Impact	Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated	Less Than Significant Impact	No Impact
I. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway?				▆
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?				▆
c) Create adverse light or glare effects?				▆
II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project :
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?				▆
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?				▆
c) Involve other charges in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use?				▆
Note: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agricultural and farmland.
III. AIR QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?				▆
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?				▆
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?				▆
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?				▆
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?				▆
Note: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the above determinations.
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish & Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?				▆
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish & Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?				▆
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?				▆
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?				▆
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance?				▆
e) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?				▆
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Cause substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Sec. 15064.5?				▆
b) Cause substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Sec. 15064.5?				▆
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?				▆
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?				▆
VI. GEOLOGIC AND SOILS. Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including risk of loss, injury or death involving:				▆
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquidt-Priolo Earthquake Fault zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.				▆
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?				▆
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?				▆
iv) Landslides?				▆
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil?				▆
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?				▆
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?				▆
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?		.		▆
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials?				▆
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accidental conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?				▆
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?				▆
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?				▆
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?				▆
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?				▆
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?				▆
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?				▆
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?				▆
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted?				▆
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site?				▆
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-or off-site?				▆
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?				▆
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?				▆
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?				▆
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?				▆
i) Expose people or structures to a property to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?				▆
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow?				▆
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?				▆
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?				▆
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?				▆
X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and residents of the state?				▆
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?				▆
XI. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?				▆
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?				▆
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?				▆
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?				▆
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?				▆
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?				▆
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?				▆
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?				▆
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?				▆
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in:
a) Substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service rations, response times or other performance objectives for any of the following public services:				▆
i) Fire Protection?				▆
ii) Police Protection?				▆
iii) Schools?				▆
iv) Parks?				▆
v) Other public facilities?				▆
XIV. RECREATION. Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?				▆
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?				▆
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)?				▆
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads and highways?				▆
c) Result in a change to air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?				▆
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?				▆
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?				▆
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?				▆
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?				▆
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?				▆
b) Require or result in construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?				▆
c) Require or result in construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?				▆
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?				▆
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has an adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?				▆
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?				▆
g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?				▆
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?				▆
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)				▆
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?				▆
XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration [State CEQA guidelines Section 15063(c)(3)(D)]. In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets. a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of, and adequately analyzed in, an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards. Also, state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are checked as "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. No earlier analysis were relied upon for the assessment of the impact of Ordinance No. 124. It is noted that the impacts of the redevelopment of the former Fort Ord Military Base were addressed at a program level in the EIR and EIS for the Fort Ord Reuse Plan available from the Fort Ord Reuse Authority. Individual redevelopment projects have been and continue to be subject to project-level environmental review by the appropriate lead and responsible agencies through the CEQA and NEPA processes.
Authority: Public Resources Code Sections 21083 and 21087. Reference: Public Resources Code Sections 21080(c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 21082.1, 21083, 31083.3, 21093, 21094, 21151; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal. App. 3d 296 (1988); Leonoff v. Monterey Board of Supervisors, 222 Cal. App. 3d 1337 (1990).

DISCUSSION OF CHECKLIST ITEMS:

For all categories, “No Impact” was checked. A case could be made that the proposed Ordinance No. 124 is not a “project” under CEQA in that its purpose and substantive effect is to clarify governmental agency roles consistent with the authority vested in those agencies as well as formal agreements regarding regulatory responsibilities in areas where agency authority overlaps. However, an Initial Study was prepared as a conservative measure to ensure CEQA compliance.

Specifically, Ordinance No. 124 eliminates the apparent regulatory conflict that exists between District Rule 20-A and certain provisions of a 1992 Amended Memorandum of Agreement (Amended MOA), signed in May 1993, between MPWMD, Monterey County Water Resources Agency (MCWRA), and the Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency (PVWMA). The 1992 Amended MOA addressed the issue of overlapping jurisdictional boundaries of MPWMD and MCWRA on the Former Fort Ord by determining that MCWRA would be the sole regulator of water delivery systems to the former Fort Ord. At the same time, the MOA also stated that MPWMD shall have exclusive authority to regulate the management of the Seaside Groundwater Basin within Fort Ord boundaries.

The pertinent text of the Amended MOA is Sections 3(a) and 3(b) as follows:

The MCWRA shall have exclusive authority to regulate water delivery systems that deliver water to the area that is both within the present Fort Ord boundaries and within the MPWMD boundaries in existence at the time of the regulation, and the MPWMD will comply with any such ordinance enacted by MCWRA.

The MPWMD shall have exclusive authority to regulate the management of the Seaside groundwater basin within the present Fort Ord boundaries, and the MCWRA will comply with any such ordinance enacted by the MPWMD.

Additional historical information on the original and Amended MOA is provided in the February 23, 2006 MPWMD Board meeting agenda package, Item 18.

MPWMD General Counsel’s interpretation of the Amended MOA is that Water Distribution System (WDS) facilities operated by a water purveyor within the Fort Ord area, such as the Marina Coast Water District (MCWD), would not be regulated within MPWMD boundaries as long as the source of supply is not from the Seaside Groundwater Basin. If Seaside Groundwater Basin sources are contemplated by MCWD or any other user, the current MPWMD WDS regulations would apply.

It is noted that regulation of the Seaside Groundwater Basin would be consistent with the Monterey County Superior Court’s March 2006 Final Decision regarding the Seaside Groundwater Basin adjudication. Specifically, the Decision states that it “does not purport to forbid any regulation of the Basin which may be required by a public agency [such as MPWMD or MCWRA] possessing the power to impose such regulation.”

It is also noted that reference to the Carmel River Basin, including the Carmel Valley Alluvial Aquifer, is also made in the proposed Ordinance. Though highly unlikely to be used as sources of water for the Former Fort Ord, these sources of supply were added for completeness and to ensure the District’s ability to regulate use of water from the Carmel River watershed.

Exemption from MPWMD regulation for a WDS that meets the criteria of Ordinance No. 124 does not mean that environmental review would not take place for a new or expanded water project in the Former Fort Ord. Importantly, for the exempt situations within MPWMD boundaries, the environmental review would be performed by another governmental entity serving as the lead agency, such as the Monterey County Water Resources Agency or the Marina Coast Water District, in full compliance with CEQA (and often NEPA), with a host of responsible agencies and the public participating in the environmental review and approval process.

Ordinance No. 124 would delete the current exemption (Rule 20-C-11) that does not require a WDS permit “to only construct (but not use) the system components.” In essence, the current language does not require a WDS permit for new well that is constructed, but not activated (“inactive well”). District staff has identified tracking and enforcement problems associated with this exemption. Staff believes it is reasonable to assume that a newly constructed well is likely to be used given the time and expense to drill it, unless a physical problem precludes use of the well. District Rules already include provisions for monitor wells, inactive wells, abandoned wells and other situations where a newly drilled well may not be used for production over the long-term. From a CEQA perspective, there are no environmental impacts associated with the removal of this exemption. Indeed, regulation of all new wells, with the associated environmental review, would be expanded.

Based on the above information and this Initial Study, the MPWMD believes that that Ordinance No. 124 would have no actual or potential environmental impacts. Furthermore, the MPWMD determines that there is an absence of substantial evidence from which a fair argument can be made that Ordinance No. 124 would result in measurable and meaningful actual or potential adverse environmental consequences.

The following references, available at the District office, are relevant to the above discussion:

Ø Monterey County Agreement No. A-06181, Memorandum of Agreement Between Monterey County Water Resources Agency, Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, and Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency (December 15, 1991 reference date; approved May 25, 1993).

Ø Addendum No. 1 to Monterey County Agreement No. A-06181, Memorandum of Agreement Between Monterey County Water Resources Agency, Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, and Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency (September 28, 1992 reference date; approved May 25, 1993).

Ø MPWMD Board meeting agenda packet, February 23, 2006, Item #18.

Ø MPWMD Rules & Regulations, revised March 2006.

Ø Final Decision, Judgment and Statement of Decision, filed March 27, 2006, California American Water v. City of Seaside (MPWMD), Monterey County Superior Court No. M 66343.

U:\staff\word\boardpacket\2006\2006boardpackets\20060622\PubHrgs\21\item21_exh21b_IntStudyChecklist.doc