EXHIBIT 14-C
MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT
DISTRICT
DRAFT
FINDINGS of APPROVAL
CONSIDER APPLICATION TO CREATE
“DUNNION” WATER
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
Service area: APN 013-321-010
Application #20081017DUN,
Permit #S09-08-L4
Adopted by MPWMD Board of Directors on
May ___, 2009
Unless noted otherwise, all cited documents and
materials are available for review at the MPWMD Office,
It
is hereby found and determined as follows:
1. FINDING: TED Limited
Partnership-A, dated September 16, 1989, is identified as the owner of the 1.52-acre parcel APN
013-321-010 at
EVIDENCE: Application #20081017DUN, site map and application materials dated October 17,
2008; Quitclaim Deed recorded at
the Monterey County Recorder on April 19, 1998 (Document ID #23755).
2. FINDING: The parcel is within the area served by California Am
EVIDENCE: Permit application as specified in
Finding #1; map of CAW service area.
3. FINDING: A valid well construction permit for a new well was issued
by the Monterey County Health Department (MCHD) on September 27, 2007. The well was completed on October 12, 2007 and
was tested for 72-hours during “dry season” conditions starting on October 30,
2007.
EVIDENCE: Monterey County Health Department
Permit #07-11148; State Department of Water Resources Well Completion Report e018489;
72-Hour Constant Rate Well Pumping and
Aquifer Recovery Test with Pumping Impact Assessment for Dunnion Well, prepared by Bierman Hydrogeologic, dated September
5, 2008 (referred to herein as “Hydrogeologic
Assessment”); Review of Well
Source and Pumping Impact Assessment for Dunnion Well, APN 013-321-010;
prepared by Pueblo Water Resources, dated November 13, 2008 (referred to herein
as “Technical Review”).
4. FINDING: Applicant has applied for a permit to create the Dunnion
Water Distribution System (WDS) for a well to provide water for an office
building and landscaping on the parcel specified in Finding #1.
EVIDENCE: Permit application as specified in
Finding #1.
5. FINDING: Based on District staff analysis of the well data
provided in the application, 2.2 acre-feet per year (AFY) has been set as the
annual production limit for the Dunnion WDS to meet the water needs for the parcel
specified in Finding #1.
EVIDENCE: MPWMD
Technical Review of Hydrogeologic Assessment specified in
Finding #3; MPWMD Permit
#S09-08-L4, Condition of Approval #3.
6. FINDING: The application to create the Dunnion WDS, along with supporting materials, is in accordance with District Rules 21 and 22.
EVIDENCE: Permit application as specified in
Finding #1.
Required Findings (MPWMD Rule 22-B)
7. FINDING: The approval of the permit would not cause unnecessary
duplication of water service with any existing system. The subject property is within the CAW
service area, and CAW water is currently serving an existing commercial
structure. However, additional CAW water
is unavailable due to existing constraints and production limitations imposed
by State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Order WR 95-10 and the need to
reduce CAW diversions from the
EVIDENCE: Map of CAW service area; MPWMD Permit #S09-08-L4, Conditions of Approval #1 through #4. SWRCB Order 95-10.
8. FINDING: The approval of the permit would not result in water
importation to, or exportation from the District, respectively. [Rule 22-B-2]
EVIDENCE: The referenced well is located wholly
within the MPWMD as shown on District boundary location maps.
9. FINDING: Approval of the application would not result in
significant adverse impacts to “Sensitive Environmental Receptors” (SER) as
defined by MPWMD Rule 11, including the Carmel Valley Alluvial Aquifer (CVAA). There is one well within 1,000 feet of the
subject well, but no SER located within 1,000 feet. Site-specific hydrogeologic evaluations have
demonstrated that well pumping of up to 2.2 AFY is not expected to have
significant impacts on the CVAA, including pumping during extended dry-season pumping
periods. [Rule 22-B-3]
EVIDENCE: MPWMD
Technical Review of Hydrogeologic Assessment specified in
Finding #3; MPWMD Permit
#S09-08-L4, Condition of Approval #3.
10. FINDING: The
application adequately identifies the claim of right (overlying use) for the
source of water supply (percolating groundwater) and provides supporting
verification (deed to property). [Rule 22-B-4]
EVIDENCE: Permit Application as specified in
Finding #1; grant deed showing ownership of Dunnion Well.
11. FINDING: The
application demonstrates existence of a long-term reliable source of water
supply for the proposed use of up to 2.28 AFY for domestic use. The MPWMD Technical Review concludes that the
supply should be adequate to provide water during peak and extended dry season
periods with the production limit of 2.2 AFY. [Rule 22-B-5]
The
long-term sustainable capacity of wells completed in fractured bedrock collectively
referred to by MPWMD as the “Miscellaneous formations” is dependant on a
variety of factors that cannot be fully evaluated through analysis of
relatively short duration (i.e., 72 hours or less) pumping tests. The movement and long-term availability of
groundwater in these materials are controlled by the occurrence, connectedness,
and distribution of fractures. The distribution
and connectedness of fractures to sources of recharge are essentially random,
and the volume of groundwater in storage in these systems is often
limited. The low volumes of groundwater
in storage can limit long-term supply particularly during period of deficient
recharge. The implications of these
factors should, therefore, be taken into consideration when planning long-term
use of wells that are completed in fractured bedrock settings.
It
should be noted that MCHD well construction permits include a generic
disclaimer regarding the long-term sustainability of wells completed in hard
rock formations.
EVIDENCE: Technical Review of
Hydrogeologic Assessment specified in Finding #3.
12. FINDING: The
source of water supply is non-alluvial fractured bedrock (consolidated rock) of
the area collectively referred to by MPWMD as the “Miscellaneous formations.” The cumulative effects of issuance of a
permit for the subject well would not be expected to result in significant
adverse impacts to the source of supply or the species and habitats dependent
on the source of supply. These impacts
have been evaluated by the District, including calculations of extended (6
months) dry season pumping cycles. The existence
of one well and no SER within 1,000 feet of the subject well and the estimated
production from the subject well were also considered. [Rule
22-B-6]
EVIDENCE: Technical Review of Hydrogeologic Assessment specified
in Finding #3. MPWMD Permit #S09-08-L4,
Condition of Approval #3.
13. FINDING: The
source of supply for the subject parcel is not derived from the Carmel Valley
Alluvial Aquifer or the Monterey Peninsula Water Resources System. The source of supply is not within the
jurisdiction of the SWRCB, and has not been determined to be tributary to the
source of supply for any other system. The
source of supply is from fractured bedrock in the area collectively referred to
as the “Miscellaneous formations” (percolating groundwater). [Rule 22-B-7]
EVIDENCE: MPWMD map showing boundaries of project
site and jurisdiction of SWRCB superimposed on
14. FINDING: MPWMD
Permit #S09-08-L4 does not allow
a permanent intertie to any other water distribution system. The proposed WDS will be limited to a
physically and legally separate system and is not connected to the CAW system. The existing CAW service meter will be
relegated to supplement landscape irrigation only. Temporary water service could be provided by
trucked-in water or a neighboring well in a non-fire emergency such as system
failure. It is acknowledged that the
existing commercial building has CAW service, but that connection will be
severed so that the CAW supply serves only irrigation needs. A stand-by CAW meter may be installed for
separately plumbed indoor emergency fire suppression uses only (fire
sprinklers). [Rule 22-B-8]
EVIDENCE: Map of CAW service area available at
District office; MPWMD Permit #S09-08-L4,
Condition of Approval #13. MPWMD Rules
and Regulations.
15. FINDING: A
back-flow protection device to prevent contamination of the CAW system is
required, if deemed necessary by CAW. [Rule 22-B-9]
EVIDENCE: Map of CAW service area; MPWMD Permit #S09-08-L4, Condition of Approval #14.
Minimum Standards for Granting a Permit
(MPWMD Rule 22-C)
16. FINDING: The
application adequately identifies the responsible party as TED Limited
Partnership-A, dated September 16, 1989.
[Rule 22-C-1]
EVIDENCE: Permit application and Quitclaim Deed specified
in Finding #1.
17. FINDING: The
application meets the definition of a “single-parcel connection system” and
will provide potable water for commercial use on the parcel identified in
Finding #1. It is therefore subject to
and must conform with California Title 22 water quality standards as
administered by MCHD. [Rule 22-C-2]
EVIDENCE: Permit application as specified in
Finding #1. MPWMD Permit #S09-08-L4, Conditions
of Approval #1, #2, #3, and #15; California Administrative Code, Title 22.
18. FINDING: The
application identifies the location of the source of supply for water
distribution system (water source and well site). [Rule 22-C-3]
EVIDENCE: Permit application as specified in
Finding #1, including location map. MPWMD
Permit #S09-08-L4, Condition of Approval #4.
19. FINDING: The
approval of the application would not create an overdraft or increase an
existing overdraft of a groundwater basin.
No overdraft has been declared for the fractured bedrock (consolidated
rock) in the area collectively referred to by MPWMD as the “Miscellaneous
formations.” [Rule 22-C-4]
EVIDENCE: MPWMD hydrologic monitoring data and
annual reports; MPWMD Permit #S09-08-L4,
Condition of Approval #3.
20. FINDING: The
approval of the application would not adversely affect the ability of existing
systems to provide water to users due to conditions of approval that limit
future water use to a reasonable and acceptable amount. Overlying water rights
holders are also co-equal to other overlying users. [Rule 22-C-5]
EVIDENCE: MPWMD hydrologic monitoring data and
annual reports; Hydrogeologic Assessment
and Technical Review
specified in Finding #3; MPWMD Permit #S09-08-L4, Condition of
Approval #3.
Compliance with
21. FINDING: In
the review of this application, MPWMD has followed those guidelines adopted by
the State of
EVIDENCE: Master Variance Permit #06-017 approved
on January 6, 2007 by City of
22. FINDING: Pursuant
to CEQA Section 15091, the MPWMD Board finds that the project will not
have a significant effect on the environment, based on the documentation cited
in Finding #21 as well as the hydrogeologic information provided in Finding #3. Mitigation measures are not made as conditions
of approval by MPWMD for this action. The full record for the
EVIDENCE: Findings and Evidence provided in
Finding #21 above. MPWMD Notice of Determination prepared May ___, 2009 as described in
Finding #21 above.
U:\staff\word\boardpacket\2009\20090521\PubHrgs\14\item14_exh14c.doc