carmel-river-watershed-assessment-action-plan-2016

Federal, state, and county agencies, as well as others, including the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District MPWMD, Big Sur Land Trust BSLT, and Carmel River Watershed Conservancy

INTRODUCTION

Purpose of and need for a watershed management plan

The Carmel River watershed spans 36 miles and covers 255 square miles of diverse land uses, including National Forest, agricultural, urban, and range lands, offering critical benefits to local wildlife and communities It originates in the Santa Lucia Mountains and Sierra de Salinas, flowing northwest to Carmel Bay near Carmel-by-the-Sea, making it a vital water source for the Monterey Peninsula region The watershed's complex land use and natural resources support ecological health and regional sustainability.

Figure 1-1A Watershed Map (National Marine Fisheries Service 2013) page 7 January 17, 2017

The Carmel River watershed, despite its small size, plays a crucial role in regional water supply, supplying over 60% of potable water to the Monterey Peninsula through private wells and water companies Water from this watershed has been exported since 1883, beginning with the first dam on the Carmel River Additional infrastructure includes the San Clemente Dam, built in 1921 with a capacity of 1,300 acre-feet, which ceased operational activities by 2013 and is being removed, and the Las Padres Dam, completed in 1949 with a 3,200 acre-foot capacity, now mainly used for habitat management due to siltation diminishing its storage capacity.

The ecological and physical character of the Carmel River has been negatively affected by the construction of San Clemente and Los Padres dams, groundwater withdrawals along the lower river, land use changes, and river modifications Increased groundwater extraction, combined with extreme droughts and floods during the 1970s to 1990s, have harmed property, threatened species, and degraded riparian habitats Despite these challenges, the Carmel River demonstrates signs of ongoing recovery and stabilization, showcasing resilience amid past environmental pressures (Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, 2004).

The Carmel River watershed is home to rare and federally threatened species such as the South-Central California Coast steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus) and the California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii), with the watershed designated as critical habitat for the CRLF Historically, the Carmel River supported one of the largest steelhead populations in the region, benefiting from perennial flows, suitable habitat conditions including riparian cover and spawning substrates, and minimal physical barriers Despite a relatively strong population compared to other streams, adult steelhead numbers have declined by approximately 50-75% since the 1970s, primarily due to dam construction, reservoir management, water exports, and extensive well pumping in the Carmel Valley alluvial area.

Federal involvement in watershed water resource management increased in the late 1990s following the listing of CRTF and SCCCS as threatened under the Federal Endangered Species Act, highlighting concerns about water quantity, quality, and habitat conditions In response, federal, state, and local advocacy groups identified limiting factors affecting steelhead and other species, initiating coordinated habitat restoration projects and research efforts to address these ecological challenges.

Goals & objectives

A comprehensive watershed management plan and action plan are essential to enhance management efforts and achieve key environmental goals Stakeholders at Carmel River Task Force meetings from 2011 to 2014 identified specific objectives aimed at improving watershed health These goals focus on sustainable water resource management, habitat preservation, and community involvement Implementing these strategies will support the long-term ecological stability and resilience of the Carmel River ecosystem.

 Identify and incorporate updated physical and biogical information about the watershed from reports and studies

 Identify and update critical issues

 Identify and prioritize actions to address limiting factors for steelhead, California red-legged frogs, and other species of concern

 Recommend actions that will improve aquatic and wildlife habitat

 Provide opportunities to educate the community on watershed conditions and ecological processes

 Build local support for and participation in watershed conservation and restoration

This document is designed to support community groups, non-governmental organizations, and agencies in securing funding for their projects, including opportunities like the Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW) Fisheries Restoration Grant Program (FRGP) It offers essential guidance to help these organizations successfully navigate grant applications and increase their chances of funding for important conservation and restoration initiatives By providing clear information and support, this resource aims to facilitate effective project planning and foster environmental stewardship through funded efforts.

 Increase summer and fall instream flows

 Continue restoration efforts in the floodplain, lagoon, and riparian corridors

 Reduce Fine Sediment Delivery to the Carmel River and tributaries

 Conserve and Protect Open Spaces and Existing Land Uses

 Remove Barriers to Fish Passage

Watershed management planning history

In 2001, the Carmel River Watershed Conservancy (CRWC) received a $198,200 grant from the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to conduct a comprehensive watershed assessment of the Carmel River The resulting document, titled the Watershed Assessment and Action Plan of the Carmel River Watershed 2004, was developed through a collaborative effort involving public agencies, non-profit organizations, and local businesses within the watershed Stakeholder engagement was crucial to the project's success, as regular meetings facilitated the sharing of historical and current information, dissemination of updates, and review of data accuracy The Carmel River Task Force (CRTF) and other key groups actively participated in reviewing the assessment and providing valuable input, ensuring a well-rounded and community-driven approach to watershed management.

In 2004, three key documents were completed: the Physical and Hydrologic Assessment of the Carmel River Watershed, the Environmental and Biological Assessment of Portions of the Carmel River Watershed, and the Watershed Assessment and Action Plan, providing a comprehensive overview of the region's ecological and hydrological conditions In 2007, the Planning and Conservation League Foundation developed the Supplemental Action Plan focused on the removal of San Clemente Dam to enhance watershed health Due to the information being spread across four separate documents, the original watershed management and action plans lacked cohesion, prompting the Carmel River Task Force to update and consolidate the most relevant data This effort included re-modeling the structure of the management and action plans to create a clearer, more unified approach to watershed conservation and management.

1.3.1 Stakeholder involvement in the watershed management plan

Interest and restoration activities for watershed health increased significantly in the late 1980s, after steelhead runs declined to near extinction, prompting the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to declare the species nearly extinct Following the listing of steelhead as a threatened species, private citizen groups and public agencies united to conduct watershed assessments and develop comprehensive management plans Recognizing the need for a strategic, scientifically-based approach, resource agencies responsible for steelhead recovery began to consolidate efforts, aiming to improve steelhead habitat within the Carmel River watershed.

In January 1999, Congressman Sam Farr from the 17th District convened a meeting to address federal concerns regarding the enforcement of the Endangered Species Act and to foster a community-driven, enforceable policy As part of this effort, Monterey County Supervisor David Potter helped establish the Carmel River Watershed Council (CRWC) and facilitated public meetings where local residents identified key issues such as water quality and quantity, riparian habitat preservation, erosion, sediment transport, runoff management, flooding, education, and overall quality of life An advisory committee of twelve diverse stakeholders—including representatives from hospitality, ranching, agriculture, resource management, environment, recreation, homeowners, education, business, local residents and businesses, vineyards, and water suppliers—was formed in December 1999 to guide watershed management efforts.

In 2001, the SWRCB grant funded the CRWC and PCLF to facilitate stakeholder meetings aimed at defining watershed goals and objectives A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), comprising representatives from key stakeholders such as the Water Management Group, CSUMB, MBNMS, City of Seaside, CRSA, PCLF, and Pebble Beach Company, was established to coordinate input and guide the watershed planning process.

TAC refined a set of goals and objectives that the stakeholder group considered prior to adoption of the

2004 assessment and action plan The following goals and objectives were included in the 2004 assessment:

1 Identify critical areas of the river and surrounding watershed areas needing restoration work

2 Conduct assessment of physical characteristics of the river channel, including flow regimes and sedimentation studies

3 Conduct assessment of riparian functioning and conditions, of the Carmel River & the main tributaries using Properly Functioning Conditions (PFC) a process developed under collaboration with Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S Forest Service & Natural Resources Conservation Service

4 Conduct biological assessment of fish and amphibian populations

5 Conduct assessment of water quality conditions in river and lagoon using existing data

6 Conduct benthic macroinvertebrate analysis of Carmel River Collect benthic macroinvertebrate samples from three sites along the mainstem and selected tributaries

7 Produce GIS database and maps All data layers will be supplied on CD-ROM in electronic GIS format Maps in Poster form covering A) location of Carmel River; B) towns, roads & rivers; C) Land Use; D) Geology, E) Soils; F) Points of Interest

8 Conduct series of four workshops to educate stakeholders, resource managers and community members on the assessment process, development of the assessment and participation in the Action Planning process

9 Prepare a Watershed Action Plan as a cooperative effort among Council Stakeholders, agency representatives and the general public

In 2004, the Carmel River Watershed developed its comprehensive Watershed Assessment and Action Plan, followed by the 2007 Supplemental Watershed and Action Plan to enhance watershed management efforts A dedicated technical advisory committee, known as the Carmel River Task Force, was established in 2006 to support the completion and ongoing implementation of these plans This committee meets quarterly to oversee watershed improvement projects in Carmel Valley and to facilitate the development of effective watershed management strategies, ensuring sustainable conservation and resource management.

The 2004 assessment and action plan, conducted by CRWC, MPWMD, and PCLF, evaluated the health of the Carmel River and its tributary creeks, focusing on steelhead spawning habitats and water quality Findings revealed that many creeks in the Carmel River Watershed are not functioning properly due to inadequate vegetation and large woody debris (LWD), which are essential for dissipating high water flows, filtering sediment, reducing erosion, and stabilizing stream banks The assessment highlighted concerns about habitat degradation, reduced biodiversity, and creek bank instability resulting from these issues Water quality monitoring and aquatic invertebrate assessments were instrumental in evaluating habitat conditions, food availability for steelhead, and the presence of steelhead populations.

Table 1-1 List of participants and stakeholders

Kera Abraham Monterey County Weekly

Gabriela Alberola California State University, Monterey Bay

Joyce Ambrosius National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries

Shawn Atkins Monterey County Public Works

Steve Bachman California State Parks

Jennifer Bodensteiner Monterey County Water Resources Agency page 11 January 17, 2017

Barbara Buikema Carmel Area Wastewater District

Trish Chapman California Coastal Conservancy

Debie Chirco-Macdonald Coastal Watershed Council

Thomas Christensen Monterey Peninsula Water Management District

John Dalessio Carmel River Advisory Committee

Joanna Devers Big Sur Land Trust

Martha Diehl Monterey County Planning Commission

Sam Davidson Trout Unlimited - Sportsmen's Conservation Project

Regina Doyle Monterey Peninsula Water Management District

Denise Duffy Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc

Ken Ekeland Monterey County Water Resources Agency

Lisa Emanuelson Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary

Frank Emerson Carmel River Advisory Committee

Laura Engeman California Coastal Commission

Linda Ferrasci Carmel Valley resident

Chris Fischer Santa Lucia Conservancy

John Ford Montery County Resource Management Agency

Tim Frahm Trout Unlimited - Sportsmen's Conservation Project

David Frisbey Monterey Bay Regional Air Pollution Control District

Mike Fuzie California State Parks

Tom Gandesbery California Coastal Conservancy

Elizabeth Geisler Monterey Peninsula Regional Parks District

Paula Gill US Army Corps of Engineer

Paul Greenway Monterey County Public Works Department

Norm Groot Monterey County farm Bureau

Larry Hampson Monterey Peninsula Water Management District

Sarah Hardgrave Big Sur Land Trust

Erin Harwayne Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc

Josh Harwayne Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc

Chris Hauser Santa Lucia Conservancy

Carl Holm Monterey County Resource Management Agency

Bridget Hoover Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary

Thomas House Carmel River Advisory Committee

Monica Hunter Planning and Conservation League Foundation

Alison Imamura Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc

Marjorie Ingram Carmel River Advisory Committee

Tim Jensen Monterey Peninsula Regional Parks District

Mark Johnsson California Coastal Commission

Robert Johnson Monterey County Water Resources Agency page 12 January 17, 2017

Dana Jones California State Parks

Pat Krone-Davis California State University, Monterey Bay

Jeff Kwasny US Forest Service

Robert LaFleur Natural Resource Conservation Service

Kathleen Lee District 5 Board of Supervisors

Brian LeNeve Carmel River Steelhead Association

Lorin Letendre Carmel River Watershed Conservancy

Marc LosHuertos California State University, Monterey Bay

Dirk Madema Monterey County Planning Dept

Jacob Martin US Fish and Wildlife Service

Rachel Martinez Monterey Peninsula Water Management District

Raul Martinez Monterey County Dept of Public Works

Mibs McCarthy Carmel Valley Association

Donna Meyers Big Sur Land Trust

Matthew Michie California Department of Fish and Wildlife

Nina Miller California American Water Company

Chad Mitcham US Fish and Wildlife Service

Jayne Mohammadi Congressman Farr's Office

Lance Monosoff Carmel River Advisory Committee

Tom Moss Monterey County Resource Management Agency

Edward Muniz Monterey County Planning Dept

Jackie Nelson Monterey Peninsula Regional Parks District

Mike Novo Monterey County Planning Dept

Seth Parker Monterey FireSafe Council

Jacqueline Ociano RMA - Planning Department

Margaret Paul California Department of Fish and Game

Jacqueline Pearson-Meyers National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries

Greg Pepping Coastal Watershed Council

Peter Perrine California Wildlife Conservation Board

Frank Pierce Frank Pierce & Associates

Margaret Robbins Carmel River Advisory Committee

Paul Robins Resource Conservation District of Monterey County

Tanja Roos MEarth, Carmel Middle School

Richard Rosenthal Save Our Peninsula

Laura Ryley California Department of Fish and Wildlife

Enrique Saavedra Monterey County Public Works Department

Clive Sanders Carmel River Watershed Conservancy page 13 January 17, 2017

Rachel Saunders Big Sur Land Trust

Rami Shihadeh Resource Conservation District of Monterey County

Nancy Siepel California Department of Transportation

Doug Smith California State University, Monterey Bay

Mike Stake Ventana Wildlife Society

Catherine Stedman California American Water Company

Richard Svindland California American Water Company

Kevan Urquhart Monterey Peninsula Water Management District

Fred Watson California State University, Monterey Bay

Mike Watson California Coastal Commission

Michael Waxer Carmel River Watershed Council

Noelle White Assemblyman Bill Monning's Office

Kristina Barry US Forest Service

1.3.2 Related studies and management actions in the watershed

As referenced earlier, the Carmel River Watershed Assessment and Action Plan of 2004 and the

Supplemental Watershed Action Plan of 2007 are two sources utilized for the development of this plan

This watershed plan update synthesizes existing conditions by incorporating additional data from watershed management and restoration studies gathered by researchers and stakeholders in the Carmel River watershed Key documents from 2004 and 2007 provide foundational information and are accessible in full at the Carmel River Watershed Conservancy website These comprehensive studies help inform effective management strategies to restore and protect the watershed's ecological health.

The fisheries and aquatic habitat information is derived from key sources including the Environmental and Biological Assessment of Portions of the Carmel River Watershed (2004), the Ten-Year Summary of the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District’s Bioassessment Program on the Carmel River, and the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District’s Mitigation Program Reports from 2000 to 2013 Additionally, NOAA’s South-Central California Coast Steelhead Recovery Plan provides essential insights These sources collectively offer a comprehensive understanding of the region’s aquatic ecosystems and inform conservation efforts References for all materials used are detailed in the accompanying table and reference section.

Table 1-2 Related Studies (Monterey Peninsula Water Management District 2004)

Environmental and Biological Assessment of Portions of the Carmel River

Watershed, Monterey County, California Prepared by Monterey Peninsula Water

Management District, under Contract with Carmel River Watershed Conservancy

Physical and Hydrologic Assessment of the Carmel River Watershed, California

The Watershed Institute at California State University Monterey Bay conducted a comprehensive assessment and developed an Action Plan for the Carmel River Watershed in California, published in November 2004 Subsequently, a Supplemental Carmel River Watershed Action Plan was released in 2007 by PWA Associates to address emerging concerns and enhance watershed management strategies These initiatives are part of broader regional efforts integrating the Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey Bay to protect and sustain the local ecosystem, ensuring effective watershed conservation and environmental resilience in California.

Water Management Plan The Water Management Group 11/19/2007 page 14 January 17, 2017

Supplemental Carmel River Watershed Action Plan The Planning and Conservation

League Foundation In Partnership with The Carmel River Watershed Conservancy 3/1/2007

Ten-Year Summary of the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District’s

Bioassessment Program on the Carmel River 11/1/2010

Santa Rosa Creek Watershed Management Plan, Central Coast Salmon

South-Central California coast Steelhead Recovery Plan NOAA 12/1/2013

Several watershed management and restoration projects have been implemented and are ongoing within the Carmel River watershed Detailed descriptions and maps of these projects, including past, present, and future initiatives, are provided in Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 to offer comprehensive insights into the area's conservation efforts.

Overview of the watershed

The Carmel River watershed boasts a diverse array of plant and animal species, shaped by its varied topography, rainfall patterns, soils, and geological processes Episodic wildfires and landslides, along with proximity to marine air, create ideal conditions for endemism and localized genetic variations This rich biodiversity is further protected within the watershed, which includes parts of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, Los Padres National Forest, Ventana Wilderness, and Carmel Bay, designated as an Area of Special Biological Significance (ASBS).

The watershed is a highly dynamic system characterized by significant seasonal variability in flow levels and sediment transport from the upper watershed to the estuary and ocean It encompasses terrestrial, riparian, freshwater aquatic, and coastal estuarine habitats that support diverse wildlife, including migratory and resident birds, as well as at-risk species such as Pacific lamprey, western pond turtle, California tiger salamander (CTS), SCCCS, and CRLF Notably, SCCCS, CTS, and CRLF are currently listed as threatened at both federal and state levels, reflecting ongoing ecosystem decline The decline of these key species signals broader ecosystem degradation and environmental fragmentation in the lower 27 miles of the river, necessitating targeted management efforts Refer to Figure 1-2 for a map of the river miles.

Figure 1-2 River Mile Map (CSUMB)

Recent surveys reveal that riparian-wetland areas in the upper watershed along the 9-mile reach upstream of Los Padres Reservoir remain relatively undisturbed by human activity and are sustainable Between Los Padres Dam and Carmel Valley Village, approximately 15 miles apart, summer dam releases are essential to preserve aquatic habitats, with riparian conditions remaining reasonably healthy despite observable channel degradation downstream of both dams The lower 10 miles of the river (RM 1-10), impacted by water extraction, require ongoing irrigation, streamside vegetation maintenance, streambank reconstruction after high flows, and habitat restoration efforts for species like the California Red-Legged Frog (CRLF) and Santa Cruz Long-toed Salamander (SCCCS) Regulatory water extraction is managed under California State Water Resources Board orders (Order No 95-10) and related directives, while local mitigation programs by MPWMD aim to offset water extraction impacts on the mainstem through continuous habitat enhancement and monitoring activities.

Previous studies (CRWC 2004, Smith et al 2004; Monterey Peninsula Water Management District 2004) indicate that most upstream reaches of the Carmel River Watershed, above RM 10, offer high-quality, productive habitat for terrestrial and aquatic species such as SCCCS and CRLF In contrast, sections downstream to the Carmel River Estuary are classified as “functional at-risk” due to reduced physical and ecological health The diminished functioning of the lower river and estuary results from cumulative impacts of various factors, highlighting the need for targeted conservation efforts.

 Groundwater pumping from the riparian aquifer by Cal-Am and private wells and associated Carmel River water diversions

 San Clemente Dam (RM 18.6) and Los Padres Dam (RM 27) influence downstream river conditions and affect the connectivity of habitats

 Seasonal breeching of the Carmel River Estuary sand bar

 Erosion and polluted runoff from developed landscapes

 Constraints on the natural river processes by levees, river control walls, bridges, roads, and other human infrastructure that reduce the ability for river to geomorphically function (2007 Supplement)

 Extensive urbanization exists within the regulatory 100-year floodplain and in the dam-failure inundation zone

The Carmel River State Beach, including its adjacent lagoon and wetlands, serves as a vital refuge for sensitive aquatic species and represents a dynamic boundary between marine and freshwater systems The surrounding floodplain area supports some of California’s highest densities of migratory songbirds The seasonal Carmel River lagoon, located at the river’s mouth, is often subject to emergency breaching during winter to prevent flooding of nearby structures, as tidal forces frequently build up the barrier beach beyond nearby homes and infrastructure These breaching actions, necessary when the lagoon levels rise due to wave overwash or river inflow, can lead to habitat loss and negatively impact fish and wildlife, including the federally threatened steelhead and California red-legged frogs Additionally, diversions of the Carmel River during dry months significantly diminish water flow to the lagoon, further reducing its habitat quality and quantity year after year.

The Carmel River environment has significantly improved since 1990, evidenced by consistent adult steelhead spawner counts of several hundred fish in recent years—compared to just zero to five fish annually when the Mitigation Program started in 1991 Additionally, there are higher densities of juvenile steelhead indicating a healthy, seeded stream, along with a balanced diversity of bird species within MPWMD restoration areas The river now experiences fewer miles of dry conditions during summer and fall, and water tables in the Carmel Valley alluvial aquifer are consistently higher at the end of each water year, reflecting overall ecological recovery.

The MPWMD Mitigation Program plays a crucial role in environmental improvement by combining direct actions like fish rescues, rearing, and riparian habitat restoration, which support species survival and reproduction, with indirect measures such as conservation initiatives, water augmentation, regulations, and cooperative strategies that reduce human impact Its comprehensive monitoring system provides essential scientific data, enhancing understanding of the complex relationships between weather, hydrology, human activities, and the environment This deeper knowledge of the MPWRS enables informed decision-making, helping MPWMD effectively fulfill its mission to benefit both the community and the environment.

Multiple factors have contributed to the improved water situation, including environmental conditions and regulatory actions From Water Years 1991 to 2012, the Carmel River experienced normal or better runoff in 16 of 21 years, supporting water availability Federal agencies' involvement under the Endangered Species Act and the SWRCB's Order WR 95-10 have incentivized Cal-Am and local water producers to modify their water withdrawal practices and promote community water conservation Since the implementation of Order 95-10 in July 1995, the community has largely adhered to the production limits set by the SWRCB, with only one exception in 1997, indicating effective management and compliance over the years.

Despite recent improvements, human activities continue to threaten the health of the Carmel River, with the steelhead and red-legged frog remaining listed as threatened species under the ESA Annual dry-up of several miles of the river harms critical habitats for fish and amphibians, while existing dams, floodplain development, and water diversions disrupt the river’s natural flow Additionally, large winter storms can cause significant damage to stream bank restoration projects, and illegal dumping and unauthorized property alterations further degrade the ecosystem Therefore, a comprehensive mitigation program will be essential for safeguarding the river's ecological integrity as long as water is heavily diverted and development persists near the Carmel River.

SYNTHESIS OF WATERSHED CONDITIONS

Historical watershed conditions

Before European settlement, the Carmel River watershed was largely undisturbed, with minor impacts from indigenous hunting, gathering, and land management practices such as controlled burning However, in the early 1800s, agricultural development—including cattle ranching, crop cultivation, and logging—significantly altered the watershed by degrading native vegetation and disrupting rainfall-runoff patterns The mid-1800s marked a period of increased population growth and land development, leading to the construction of the first dams and initiating ongoing water and habitat degradation that persist today.

By the mid-1900s, suburban development, groundwater pumping, and natural events such as fire and drought caused significant bank erosion, riparian habitat decline, river channel incision, and decreased groundwater recharge into the aquifer These environmental changes directly harmed groundwater resources, property, and wildlife habitats within the watershed The underlying causes of this instability are complex and include factors like the unique terrain and flow patterns of the Carmel River, water and sediment retention at San Clemente and Los Padres Dams, fire suppression efforts, and periodic floods and droughts Over two centuries, the watershed has experienced extensive environmental damage that negatively impacts private property, aquatic and terrestrial wildlife, visual appeal, and recreational opportunities.

In 1995, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) restricted California American Water Company’s (Cal-Am) diversions from the Carmel River Watershed to 11,285 acre-feet annually to protect steelhead and other aquatic species Consequently, direct surface water diversions in Carmel Valley are no longer used for municipal supply, with stored water from Los Padres Reservoir released during dry periods to maintain instream flows and mitigate environmental impacts from groundwater extraction Today, the region relies primarily on wells in Carmel Valley and the Seaside Groundwater Watershed to meet municipal water demands However, the shallow Carmel River aquifer has been over-pumped by approximately 11,000 acre-feet per year, risking long-term groundwater sustainability.

Stakeholders and government agencies are evaluating the potential of developing a seawater desalination plant to enhance water supply reliability in the region This desalination facility aims to reduce dependency on the overdrawn Carmel River groundwater aquifer, especially during dry years, by supplementing existing water sources Implementing a seawater desalination plant could provide a sustainable and resilient solution to address water shortages and support regional water security.

The Ohlone Tribe historically controlled the region from San Francisco to Point Sur and inland to the Coast Ranges, with an estimated population of 7,000 to 10,000 people Known as the Costanoans or "Coastal People" by the Spanish, they predominantly inhabited coastal areas with deep harbors, making them among the first California tribes to interact with Europeans During the establishment of the Mission system, many Ohlone were converted to Christianity and worked for the missionaries The local Ohlone subgroup in the Monterey Peninsula was the Rumsen, whose territory included present-day Monterey, Carmel, and inland areas along the Carmel River toward Carmel Valley Village.

Throughout this region, indigenous tribes traditionally set fires to manage the landscape, which is believed to have promoted the growth of oak trees and grasslands Native Americans frequently used low-intensity, high-frequency fires to shape their environment, resulting in minimal mature tree mortality, steady tree recruitment, and an open understory (Keeley, 2002; Anderson, 2005; Syphard et al., 2007; Mensing, 1991).

Native Californians intentionally burned oak woodlands to manage specific plant species, using purposeful and directed fires While natural lightning fires historically occurred across coastal oak woodlands and the Sierra Nevada, these could burn for hundreds of miles under ideal conditions The arrival of Europeans led to widespread fire suppression efforts, which over 200 years resulted in the accumulation of fuel and increased wildfire risk Today, warmer, drier summers and prolonged fire suppression have contributed to the rise in frequent and large wildfires across California’s landscapes.

For a chronological history of the watershed from 1603-2000, please see Appendix 3 (CRWC).

Land use

The Carmel River watershed, covering nearly 255 square miles, is primarily situated within unincorporated Monterey County, where land use decisions are guided by the county’s General Plan Mostly rural, the watershed's main land uses include cattle ranching, limited agriculture, viticulture, recreation such as golf courses and parks, as well as national forests and open spaces Urban development is mainly concentrated along the Carmel River’s riparian corridor and floodplain Key physical and land use characteristics of the watershed are detailed in Table 2-1 (January 17, 2017).

Table 2-1 Physical and Land Use Characteristics of the Carmel River Watershed (National Marine

Watershed Area (acres) Area (sq.mi.) Stream Length

Public Ownership Urban Area Agriculture/Barren Open Space

The Carmel Valley area experiences moderate to high human population density, primarily concentrated in the lower and middle sections, including the towns of Carmel and Carmel Valley On average, the population density is about 70 persons per square mile, reflecting a relatively dense settlement pattern Despite this, less than four percent of the watershed is classified as urban, indicating that most of the area remains largely undeveloped and natural.

Approximately 50% of the watershed is privately owned, with the lower Carmel Valley, through which the mainstem flows, surrounded by public parks, large ranches, and rural land uses Less than 1% of the watershed is under cultivation, highlighting the predominantly undeveloped natural landscape (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2013).

Many key properties are publicly owned and accessible for community recreation and exploration, fostering outdoor engagement Adjacent private property owners have shown support for parkway planning and are interested in collaborating to enhance public benefits An ongoing wetland and floodplain restoration project at the mouth of the Carmel River is demonstrating positive impacts on wildlife habitat and ecosystem health.

Public lands provide numerous environmental and community benefits, including protecting and restoring endangered habitats and species, improving water quality in the Carmel River aquifer, offering alternative transportation routes, enhancing flood management, and supporting outdoor environmental education programs Land use and floodplain functions within the watershed are detailed in Figures 2-1 and 2-2, based on a 2005 Vision Plan prepared for the Big Sur Land Trust—note that this plan is informational and not officially adopted or legally binding Additionally, Figure 2-3 illustrates the distribution of federal and non-federal land ownership within the watershed, highlighting land management patterns crucial for conservation and planning efforts.

Figure 2-1 Land-use functions map in the lower carmel River, and surrounding areas (Kasey and Peterson 2005) page 21 January 17, 2017

Figure 2-2 Landscape function map for the Lower Carmel River (Kasey and Peterson 2005)

Figure 2-3 Federal & non-fed land ownership within the Carmel River Watershed (National Marine

The economic base in the watershed is made up of tourism, recreation and agriculture According to a

2001 report prepared by the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG), over the next

Monterey County is expected to experience over a 30% increase in population and housing over the next 20 years, reflecting significant regional growth While population and housing are projected to grow at a slightly higher percentage than employment opportunities, this expansion may be limited by constrained water supplies and the capacity of local roads and services in the watershed and surrounding areas These growth constraints, highlighted by the Water Management Group (2014), could impact the overall development outlook for both unincorporated communities and incorporated cities within the county.

According to the Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis of the Proposed Incorporation of Carmel Valley (June 9,

The Carmel River watershed's valley area is home to approximately 11,700 residents, with the nearby Cachagua community housing fewer than 2,000 residents according to the 2004 Monterey County General Plan Update Development constraints in Cachagua are expected to limit future population growth to around 4,000 residents (Water Management Group, 2014) Population density in the region, as shown in Figure 2-3A, indicates limited growth potential, and over the next 20 years, demographic trends are projected to align with those of other incorporated areas in Monterey County, which are experiencing slight declines due to similar development limitations.

Figure 2-3A Population density per square mile (Kasey and Peterson 2005) page 23 January 17, 2017

Limited water resources have hindered large-scale regional growth over recent decades, while existing traffic patterns are straining roadway capacity Land use policies remain contentious, exemplified by the delayed adoption of a new County General Plan due to local residents' opposition Community efforts have successfully prevented proposals for new dams, freeways, and developments, shaping the region's development trajectory (Kasey and Peterson, 2005).

California has mandated local water utilities to identify alternative water sources to prevent further decline of the Carmel River, which is under increasing stress from regional growth pressures To ensure sustainable development, effective land use strategies must be implemented to prevent new water sources from fueling unsustainable growth in this coastal region.

Climate

The region's watershed climate is characterized as Mediterranean, featuring dry summers and wet winters with significant annual variation in precipitation and surface runoff On average, annual rainfall ranges from 14 inches at the river mouth to 41 inches in the Santa Lucia Mountains, primarily falling as rain (Rosenberg, 2001).

Figure 2-4 Average rainfall contours in the watershed (Rosenberg 2001, Smith 2004)

Approximately 70% to 80% of the surface runoff in the Carmel River watershed originates from rainfall within the Los Padres National Forest and Ventana Wilderness, highlighting the region's significant contribution to local water flow (Water Management Group, 2007) The Carmel River's average annual runoff, measured at the USGS gauge near Carmel, was 78,190 acre-feet during 1962-2006, reflecting consistent water flow over decades (USGS, 2006) Although the Pine, Garzas, and Black Rock/San Clemente creeks subwatersheds produce only 15% of the watershed area, they contribute 27% of the total annual flow, underscoring their hydrological importance The Santa Lucia region serves as the primary water source feeding the lower valley, making it vital for the water supply of the greater Monterey Peninsula Historic rainfall variability in the watershed is evidenced by long-term data from San Clemente Dam since 1922, demonstrating the area's climate fluctuations over nearly a century.

Since 1922, rainfall at San Clemente Dam has been consistently monitored, with an average annual rainfall of 21.37 inches marked by a dotted line on the graph The bold line indicates the rainfall threshold that leads to hydrologically "dry years," highlighting periods of significantly reduced precipitation Rainfall measurements falling below this threshold are considered hydrologically "critically dry years," which can have substantial impacts on local water resources Data sourced from Cal-Am, as reported in James (2009) and Smith (2004), emphasizes the importance of understanding rainfall variability for effective water resource management in the region.

Carmel Valley has experienced seven droughts since 1902, with drought defined as two or more consecutive years of dry or critically dry conditions (James) Analysis of historical records reveals the region's vulnerability to prolonged dry periods, emphasizing the importance of drought resilience and water management strategies Understanding these recurring drought patterns is essential for effective planning and conservation efforts in Carmel Valley.

2009) Analysis of this and other records indicate that the Carmel Valley has endured six droughts since

1902, where drought is defined as two or more successive years of dry or critically-dry conditions (James

The Carmel River has been designated as a seasonally fully-appropriated stream by the State Water Resources Control Board, highlighting that water supply generally exceeds demand during normal and wet years However, climatic variability and multi-year droughts can significantly impact water availability, as evidenced by the Peninsula’s history of mandatory rationing Since 1976, the region has experienced two extended drought periods requiring conservation measures: 18 months of water restrictions from 1976 to 1977 and 28 months from 1989 to 1991.

The Carmel River is a seasonal and fully appropriated stream currently being over-pumped beyond its legal limits, making it vulnerable to drought stress Climate change threatens to significantly impact both terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems within the Carmel River watershed, with projections indicating longer, hotter summers and increased fog along the coast These changes are expected to bring more extreme heatwaves, droughts, and severe precipitation events, challenging the resilience of local populations such as steelhead trout Coastal steelhead populations have historically relied on the ocean’s moderating effect due to its high heat capacity, which may help them adapt to changing climate conditions Despite the predicted climate alterations, research suggests that southern coastal steelhead populations could have a more predictable future, thanks to the ocean’s buffering capacity.

Climate change poses significant threats to steelhead and their habitats, especially in central and southern California Altered precipitation patterns are expected to cause increased winter runoff, reduced summer stream flow, and more frequent and severe storms, droughts, wildfires, and floods Rising sea levels—projected to reach 3-5 feet along the California coast by 2100—threaten coastal areas, including the Carmel River watershed, by increasing flood risk and accelerating shoreline erosion These environmental changes are compounded by human responses to climate change, such as heightened competition for limited freshwater resources, further jeopardizing steelhead populations and their ecosystems.

Sea level rise poses a significant threat to wetlands and lagoons in the Carmel River watershed; if sea levels rise faster than wetland accretion or migration, vital habitats like the Carmel River lagoon risk becoming permanently submerged (Heberger et al., 2009; Largier et al., 2010) Increased flows in natural and managed waterways due to higher watershed elevations can lead to greater erosion and flooding, while regional and coastal levees may become inadequate during extreme storm events Failing to account for climate change impacts in planning could result in underestimating flood-prone areas, particularly those vulnerable to 100-year floods, as noted in the California Water Plan Update 2009 (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2013).

Geology and soils

The Carmel Watershed is the northernmost in a series of northwest-southeast trending valleys that dissect the rugged Santa Lucia Mountains within the California Coast Ranges The Sierra de Salinas serves as the northeastern divide of the watershed, while the northern terminus of the Santa Lucia Mountains marks its southwestern boundary Key physical features of the Carmel Watershed drainage area are detailed in Table 2-2 (Smith et al., 2004), highlighting its unique geographical and hydrological characteristics.

Table 2-2 Physical attributes of the Carmel (Smith 2004)

Watershed Drainage area 656 km 2 (256 mi 2 )

Highest peak (South Cone) 1514 m (4965 ft.)

Mouth elevation Sea level at mouth of Carmel submarine canyon

Land-use Wilderness, grazing, viticulture, golf-courses, sparse residential, suburban, urban, and light industrial

Vegetative Ecosystems Dominated by chaparral, grasslands, and oak woodland Local conifer and redwood forests present

The Carmel Watershed is comprised of 25 subwatersheds, each separated by major hydrologic divides or ridges These subwatersheds are named after the principal tributaries or rivers that drain the region Collectively, they contribute water, sediment, large wood, and organic matter to the Carmel River, its lagoon, and the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, supporting the health of local ecosystems (Smith et al., 2004).

The Carmel River Watershed was shaped by the Salinian Block, a granitic crust extending from the southern Coast Ranges to the north of the Farallon Islands Key features include the Santa Lucia Range, with peaks between 4,000 and 5,862 feet, forming the southern divide of the watershed, and the Sierra de Salinas along its northeastern boundary These prominent mountain ranges surrounding the Carmel River Watershed are considered young landscapes, having experienced significant uplift over the past two million years, contributing to the region's geological and ecological diversity.

The physical strength of rocks and soils influences river flow, aquifer recharge potential, and landslide risk, thereby guiding land use decisions Steep topography historically hindered early settlement in the Carmel region, limiting rapid growth during the 1900s and maintaining its rural coastal character while much of coastal California experienced large-scale urbanization.

Geology is a fundamental factor influencing the physical condition of the watershed, with its landscape comprised of a complex mix of igneous, metamorphic, and sedimentary rocks connected by faults of varying ages The Carmel Watershed is uniquely carved into the Salinian Block—a crustal fragment that originated near the Mojave Desert and has been transported northward by the Pacific Plate over the past 20 million years This geological history shapes the watershed’s structure and geological stability, essential for understanding its environmental characteristics.

The physical strength of rocks and soils influences their erodibility, landslide risk, and potential for supporting ecosystems and land use Upland aquifers within these geological formations serve as vital water resources, with their distribution affected by complex geology and variable annual precipitation This interplay results in diverse soil types, erosion rates, and landslide probabilities, shaping ecosystems, recharge areas, and human land use patterns In the Carmel Watershed, fractured granitic rocks in steep headwaters contribute significantly to bedload sediment, which has led to substantial reductions—up to 90% in San Clemente Dam and 50% in Los Padres Dam—in their storage capacities.

The Carmel watershed lies within the Santa Lucia Mountains at the apex of several fault zones (Figure 2-

The Carmel River watershed covers 255 square miles and is characterized by poorly consolidated marine sediments, along with metamorphic and granitic formations (Smith et al., 2013) Its elevation ranges from just above 4,000 feet to sea level, within a Mediterranean climate that ensures moderate, year-round temperatures Most precipitation occurs between November and April, with 60% falling from December to February (Kondolf & Curry, 1986) This dynamic watershed experiences significant seasonal flow variability, which influences sediment transport from the upper river to the lagoon and ocean (PWA, 2007).

Figure 2-7 Geologic map of the Carmel River watershed (CSUMB 2012)

Geomorphology

Human development along the Carmel River has significantly altered its natural flow through floodplain development, dams, levees, roads, and bridges, which confine the river’s course The valley’s gentle slopes, formed by yearly runoff, have historically been the most easily cultivated and developed areas Once a depositing river that built soils and expanded alluvial aquifer storage, the Carmel River is now a deeply incised channel, increasing water flow velocity and necessitating bank stabilization measures to prevent erosion and flooding Figures 2.8A and 2.8B illustrate the Carmel River’s alluvial aquifer, 100-year floodplain, and riparian vegetation, highlighting the impact of human activity on its natural hydrology.

Figure 2.8A Carmel River’s alluvial aquifer, 100-year floodplain and riparian vegetation (Kasey and

Figure2.8B Carmel River’s alluvial aquifer, 100-year floodplain and riparian vegetation (Kasey and

The Carmel River traverses the alluvium-rich Carmel Valley, where sediment depths reach 50 to 75 feet before it flows into Carmel Lagoon (Kondolf and Curry, 1986) Its channel features diverse sections, including meandering stretches, steep constrained bedrock segments, and short braided reaches (Kondolf, 1996) Key factors influencing the river’s behavior in the Carmel River mainstem are valley width and slope, which play significant roles in shaping its flow dynamics (Smith et al., 2004).

Dams on the Carmel River have caused sediment trapping, leading to channel incision and increased bank instability, which diminishes spawning habitats for fish The natural seasonal sediment flow of sand and gravel has been replaced by coarse cobbles and boulders, resulting in a hardened downstream river channel Reduced sediment supply from headwaters decreases the availability of spawning gravels below the dams, impairing fish reproduction The hardening of the channel creates lower flushing hydraulic conditions, further limiting spawning habitat Over time, the coarser and hardened bed becomes less mobile during large flows, causing the river to become more static and incised, which diminishes its capacity to support habitat formation.

Vegetation plays a crucial role in shaping river patterns and profiles by stabilizing banks and enhancing sediment capture (Urquhart pers comm.) The lower Carmel River exhibits more stable meanders, supported by effective erosion control through vegetation and structural protections, whereas mid-river reaches tend to be more braided and dynamic (Hampson pers comm.).

The lagoon and estuary are seasonally closed to the ocean by a sandbar, leading to extensive flooding of the low-lying coastal plain at the Carmel River’s mouth Upstream base flows combined with periodic tidal inundation create seasonal brackish water conditions The sandbar is naturally eroded by long-shore currents and winter wave action and is often breached by storm-related Carmel River flows, maintaining dynamic estuarine processes.

Figure 2-9: Lagoon Aerial Photo (MPWMD 2009)

Following the initial artificial breaching, the beach berm generally remains open, allowing the river to flow into the ocean throughout winter and early spring During this time, the lagoon opens and closes multiple times—either naturally or through artificial breaching—depending on fluctuating ocean and river conditions (Watson 2008) As inflows decrease in spring and summer, the river mouth eventually closes for the rest of the season until the next significant rainy period reinitiates the breaching process (James 2005).

Carmel River State Beach, managed by the California Department of Parks and Recreation, extends one mile from Abalone Point to Granite Point, nestled between two granodiorite outcrops The beach primarily relies on sediment carried by the Carmel River during winter storms, but historic human activities have caused significant sediment loss From the 1920s to 1970s, sand and gravel mining depleted beach and river sediments, while the construction of San Clemente Dam in 1921 and Los Padres Dam in 1949 disrupted natural sediment flow, creating impounded sediment behind the dams Additionally, floodplain development and bank stabilization projects have further diminished sediment supply to Carmel River State Beach, impacting its natural geomorphology and shoreline stability.

Erosion and sediment

The Carmel River region experiences high erosion and sedimentation rates primarily due to its underlying rock types, which influence sediment transport during storm events During storms, rivers and streams carry large sediment loads, contributing to ongoing landscape changes Naturally occurring fires also play a role in increasing sedimentation, as they disturb the soil and promote erosion Historically, the erosive landscape deposited nutrient-rich alluvial sediments with each flood, creating fertile farmland within the Carmel River’s alluvial valley—making this area ideal for agriculture.

Human activities and development have disrupted natural sedimentation processes, with levees blocking flood cycles and preventing the replenishment of the historical floodplain with sediment Additionally, disturbed riverbanks and abandoned dirt roads contribute to excessive sedimentation, further impacting river health Upstream dams have interrupted deposition patterns and stream ecology in the lower river, leading to significant harm to native vegetation and wildlife Specifically, changes in gravel composition can severely damage habitats for Carmel River steelhead trout and other amphibians, highlighting the ecological consequences of these disruptions.

Future efforts to adjust or remove levees will help restore natural flow cycles, promoting healthier river ecosystems The removal of the San Clemente Dam presents a valuable opportunity to re-establish more natural stream conditions and sediment transport processes These modifications aim to enhance ecosystem resilience and support biodiversity by allowing rivers to flow freely and replenish sediments naturally.

Some of the major erosion and sediment problems in the watershed are summarized below, in no particular order (Smith et al 2004):

• Demand for water far exceeds water supply, leading to many related subordinate problems

• Extensive urbanization exists within the regulatory 100-year floodplain and in the dam-failure inundation zone

Excess sediment runoff primarily originates from numerous dirt roads, with some being abandoned or non-compliant with grading ordinances However, the majority of these roads are constructed in accordance with existing regulations, highlighting the importance of proper road maintenance and adherence to legal standards to minimize environmental impact.

• Nearly all sub-road drainage culverts are undersized, leading to downstream erosion, whether related to dirt roads, paved roads, or highways

• Excess sediment is generated by many bare road cuts on dirt roads, paved roads and highways

• Excess sediment is generated in tributary drainages by soil slip, gullies, unstable stream banks, and roads Many of those issues are related to cattle impacts

• Excess sediment is generated in a great number of incised streams that have tall, exposed banks

• Los Padres Dam is rapidly infilling with sediment and is also close to active faults page 35 January 17, 2017

• Watershed impairment is the result of incremental, permitted, changes that have a large cumulative impact on the watershed

The primary erosive processes in Carmel Valley include bedrock landslides, shallow soil slips, rock falls, stream incision and widening, and slope gullying Regions experiencing rapid tectonic uplift, such as the Carmel Watershed, feature steep, rugged landscapes with slopes constantly at risk of failure Human activities like road and building grading can over-steepen these slopes, significantly increasing the rate of erosion and slope failure Consequently, nearly the entire Carmel Watershed is considered highly susceptible to erosion, highlighting the area's vulnerability to ongoing geomorphic changes.

Figure 2-10 Erosion susceptibility in the Carmel Watershed (Rosenberg, 2001) (Smith 2004)

Historical land use, groundwater pumping, dam construction, urban development, bank revetment, land management practices, and road building have significantly impacted the physical processes and ecological conditions of the Carmel River watershed These activities increase erosion and sediment delivery to tributaries and the mainstem, worsen low flow conditions during summer and fall, degrade riparian and aquatic habitats, create barriers to fish migration, reduce water and sediment quality, and facilitate the spread of non-native invasive species.

Storm water-related erosion, drainage problems, and flooding occur throughout the watershed during and after large storm events, especially in the lower mainstem and estuary The combination of steep terrain, inadequate drainage infrastructure, and the placement of many parcels within the 100-year flood zone leads to localized flooding of homes, buildings, and roads during storms Factors such as estuary management, high river flows, and ocean conditions like high tides and storms primarily drive flooding and erosion in the lower watershed The lower Carmel reaches feature more stable meanders, thanks to effective erosion control measures including structural protections and vegetation However, channel erosion has degraded riparian habitats, negatively impacting aquatic and terrestrial wildlife.

Despite concerns about erosion caused by infrastructure and channel modifications, streambanks in the Carmel River mainstem currently appear to be relatively stable during average water years A significant change is the ongoing degradation of the channel bottom, with the river channel incising into floodplain deposits This downcutting has both positive and negative effects: it has winnowed out sand and fine sediments, exposing gravel and cobble layers that enhance spawning habitats for steelhead and support their food web However, the lack of natural sediment supply from the upper watershed, due to the presence of mainstem dams, causes the river to erode its channel bottom and streambanks to compensate for sediment deficits Consequently, the river system downstream of Los Padres Dam remains “sediment starved,” impacting ecosystem health.

Approximately 35% of streambanks downstream of Carmel Valley Village have been altered or hardened over the past 40 years, leading to increased sediment from scouring of the channel bottom, which exposes the bases of streambanks and bridge structures Without corrective measures, streambank collapse and damage to bridges are imminent, highlighting the need for a long-term environmental recovery plan Essential strategies include increasing dry-season water flows, reversing channel incision, and reestablishing natural meander patterns Balancing sediment supply with the river's transport capacity could potentially halt or reverse incision, though dam removal alone may not generate enough sediment to fully achieve this Over time, boosting downstream sediment flows may help stabilize streambanks and protect infrastructure from erosion, contributing to overall ecological health.

The Carmel River and its tributaries have been extensively studied for their sediment transport characteristics, highlighting concerns about soil stability in the watershed Extreme weather events, including the severe drought of 1976-77 and a subsequent wet period from 1978 to 1983, led to significantly increased sediment discharge into the riverbed Sediment measurements taken during this wet period likely represent a short- to medium-term response involving substantial sediment movement Many homes in Carmel Valley are situated on a broad terrace formed by major flooding in 1911 and 1914, underscoring the ongoing risks of flooding, sedimentation, and channel instability in the region.

Figure 2-10A Soil stability map (Kasey and Peterson 2005)

Sediment from the watershed includes bedload and suspended load, with bedload consisting of larger particles that cannot be easily lifted off the streambed, while suspended load comprises fine materials kept in suspension by water turbulence (Leopold et al., 1964) Maintaining an appropriate amount and grain size of bedload is essential for ensuring channel stability and supporting healthy spawning habitats; however, excess or insufficient sediment can negatively impact habitat quality and ecosystem health (Dettman).

Changes downstream from dams significantly impact the stability of river channels by disrupting the natural flow of sediment within the watershed Dams impede sediment transport, leading to alterations in river morphology and increased channel instability, as documented by Kondolf and Curry (1986), Kondolf (1997), Kondolf and Metzer (1999), and Watson et al (2003).

Large volumes of both bedload and suspended load sporadically leave the Carmel watershed (Smith et al

Krebs (1983) estimated that during the wet winter of 1982-1983, the Carmel River transported approximately 1.9 million tons of sediment, significantly exceeding its normal sediment load, with bedload accounting for about 22% of that total Notably, over half of this bedload was transported in just 1.5% of the time, coinciding with periods when water discharge exceeded 3,000 cfs, highlighting the intense sediment transport during peak flow conditions in flood events.

Less than 1% of the sediment load was transported when river flows were below 200 cfs, which accounted for 66% of the study period, indicating a strong dependence on high flows for sediment transport This suggests that the watershed accumulates and generates sediment during normal or low-flow years, setting the stage for extremely high transport rates during wet years Similar behavior has been observed in Arroyo Seco (Watson et al., 2003) and is likely characteristic of Mediterranean climates (Kondolf and Smetzer, 1999).

Sediment in the Carmel Valley is primarily generated from both bedload and suspended load originating from all tributaries feeding into the watershed Estimated bedload contributions from select tributaries are documented in Table 2-3, providing key data on sediment sources within the Carmel Valley watershed Understanding these sediment loads is essential for effective watershed management and erosion control strategies.

Contributors of erosion and sediment

Wildfires have historically played a vital role in shaping the natural landscape of the Central Coast and the Carmel River Watershed, with fire occurring roughly every 21 years prior to 1900 in the Santa Lucia Range (Matthews 1989) Significant fires such as the 1927 Miller Canyon Fire, 1977 Marble Cone Fire, 1999 Kirk Complex Fire, and 2008 Basin Complex Fire have shaped the region's fire history Recent research indicates that periodic fires have been a natural part of the ecosystem for thousands of years, allowing these habitats to evolve under natural and human-influenced fire regimes However, over the past century, fire suppression efforts have led to increased surface and crown fuels, invasion of woody vegetation in the understory, and higher tree densities (Purcell and Stephens 2005) The combination of fire suppression and expanding urban development along the wildland-urban interface has significantly altered both the spatial and temporal patterns of fire in the region.

Fire is a vital natural disturbance in central California, essential for the germination of many chaparral species such as manzanita While fire promotes the abundant reproduction of native plants, it also poses risks to public health and safety through airborne ash and potential infrastructure damage Additionally, post-fire sediment changes can significantly alter watershed morphology, increasing the likelihood of flooding and related damages.

Wildfires in the Carmel River Watershed significantly increase sediment loads in the river, primarily due to debris and erosion from fire-affected areas and fire suppression activities This effect is especially pronounced when wildfires are followed by heavy rainfall, which exacerbates erosion and sedimentation (Smith et al., 2004).

Increased flood risk, decreased reservoir capacity, and heightened erosion, sediment transportation, and deposition of fine sediments into watercourses with spawning gravels are significant environmental impacts Additionally, these changes lead to destruction of riparian vegetation and facilitate the spread of non-native plant and animal species, disrupting native ecosystems (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2013).

Part of the Carmel River Watershed lies within Los Padres National Forest, where approximately 25,000 acres are burned each year by seasonal wildfires, significantly impacting the ecosystem (Smith et al., 2004) The 1977 Marble Cone Fire notably increased sediment runoff into the Carmel River, contributing to substantial capacity loss at Los Padres Reservoir (Smith et al., 2004) In 2008, major wildfires, including the Indians Fire and the Basin Complex Fire—caused by lightning—further threatened the forest and its watersheds, emphasizing the ongoing challenge of wildfire management in the region.

The "Indians Fire," which burned for a month, consumed over 240,000 acres, ranking it as one of California’s largest wildfires (De Santis et al., 2010) Post-fire sediment erosion rates increase significantly, especially in steep, erodible sub-watersheds above Los Padres Reservoir, where debris flows pose the greatest risk of reservoir sedimentation However, the likelihood of slope failure and debris-flow generation decreases during the first few years after a fire, as the landscape begins to stabilize.

The seismically active Santa Lucia Range is highly susceptible to landslides due to its rapid geologic uplift that has formed deep, V-shaped canyons with sharp ridges (Smith et al., 2004) Landslide susceptibility in Monterey County, especially within the Carmel River watershed, ranges from moderate to high, with the steep upper watershed and downstream slopes being most at risk (Rosenberg, 2001) Landslides currently contribute significantly to sediment in the watershed, with the largest active landslide located upstream of San Clemente Dam (Smith et al., 2004) Mapping efforts revealed over 1,500 landslides along Highway 1 near Carmel Valley, indicating slope failure is common in the region (Willis et al., 2001) Approximately 57% of landslides in the watershed are confined to specific rock types, including Monterey Shale, Tertiary Sandstone, and Porphyritic Granodiorite (Smith et al., 2004), with over 85% occurring on slopes less than 30%, which aligns with local ordinances prohibiting grading on slopes steeper than 30% to mitigate landslide risk (MCRMA, 2013).

Figure 2-13 Landslide susceptibility in the Carmel Watershed (Rosenberg, 2001, Smith 2004)

Reconnaissance work by Smith (2004) revealed a strong correlation between the susceptibility map and the current distribution of large landslides, highlighting areas at heightened risk It is important to note that poorly constructed roads and structures on steep slopes within the watershed significantly increase the likelihood of landslide occurrence Presently, landslides are a major source of both natural and human-made sediment in the region A digital geologic map by Rosenberg (2001) was utilized to evaluate landslide potential, revealing that certain rock formations and steep slopes are particularly susceptible to large landslides.

Figure 2-14 Relationship between mapped Quaternary landslides and hill slope gradient in the Carmel

Levees are built along river corridors to protect developed land from moderate flood damage; however, they often create a false sense of security against major floods This has encouraged development within the floodplain, increasing flood risk over time Additionally, upstream levees can cause water flows to be diverted downstream, leading to higher flood levels and greater damage downstream (Smith et al., 2004) Proper flood management requires understanding the limitations of levee systems and the importance of sustainable development practices in flood-prone areas.

The 100-year floodplain has a tenfold probability of inundation within the next 1,000 years, while the 500-year flood event is expected twice during this period, but these probabilities do not imply specific time intervals; for instance, multiple 100-year floods could occur within a single year The floodplain maps used to guide development in the Carmel River Valley are estimations that can change with storm events and alterations in river morphology Recent flood events highlight the uncertainty of floodway boundaries, as the 1998 flood, despite being classified as a 30-year event, caused more property damage than the 1995 flood, which was a 65-year event, demonstrating the unpredictable nature of flood impacts.

Recent flood events and resident concerns have prompted efforts to study and restore the Carmel River floodplain, enhancing flood protection and ecological health The ongoing Carmel River Lagoon Restoration Project aims to provide significant flood mitigation for neighborhoods north of the lagoon while restoring a historic wetland habitat that was drained in the late 1800s for agricultural use Restoration efforts include excavating wetland arms that mirror the area's original wetland form, notching levees east and west of Highway 1 to reduce floodplain constriction, and planning to expand floodplain capacity east of the highway These initiatives are depicted in Figure 2-15A, which illustrates floodplain functions and delineates the 100-year floodplain area, ensuring improved flood resilience and ecological restoration.

Figure 2-15A Floodplain functions map (Kasey and Peterson 2005)

Major flood events have occurred in Monterey County during 1911, 1914, 1922, 1926, 1931, 1937, 1938,

Flooding along the Carmel River has occurred multiple times throughout history, with notable events recorded in years such as 1941, 1943, 1945, 1952, and up to 1998 (Monterey County Water Resources Agency [MCWRA] 2003) Private levees have been built along the lower Carmel River to provide flood protection, but these barriers are not sufficient to contain a 100-year flood event (FEMA 1991) Monterey County enforces flood control standards within the 100-year flood hazard zones in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) The USGS gage near Carmel estimates the 100-year flood flow to be approximately 29,100 cubic feet per second (cfs) Floodplain maps, such as Figures 2-15B and 2-15C, illustrate the extent of the 100-year floodplain and highlight existing development within these areas.

Figure 2-15B Approximate boundaries of the 100-year floodway (FEMA 1996)

Urban development along the lower Carmel River, as depicted in Figure 2-15C, is vulnerable to flooding from the estimated 100-year flood event, with the affected area highlighted in blue based on FEMA 1996 data Levees currently line both sides of the Carmel River upstream of Highway One, providing some flood protection, but potential flood impacts could still threaten nearby developments This highlights the importance of flood risk assessment and effective levee systems in managing future flood hazards in the area.

In recent history, the Carmel River experienced two significant flooding events in 1995, occurring in January and March The March flood caused extensive damage in Carmel Valley, affecting 400 residences and 68 businesses, and led to the closure of the Highway 1 Bridge over the Carmel River Additionally, untreated sewage was released into the river during this event, highlighting the severe environmental and infrastructural impact (MCWRA 2003).

The last significant flood control channel clearing project using bulldozers took place in fall 1977, following a massive die-off of streamside vegetation caused by severe drought and increased groundwater pumping Property owners and the Monterey County Water Resources Agency (formerly the Flood Control District) were concerned that the numerous dead trees might wash out of the banks, creating debris dams that could lead to flooding.

Water Supply

Residents of the Monterey Peninsula depend primarily on the Carmel River Watershed for their drinking water, as Monterey County does not source water from the California State Water Project Rainfall within the Carmel River watershed replenishes the Carmel River alluvial aquifer, which supplies approximately 75% of the water needs for over 100,000 residents The remaining 25% of water comes from the Seaside Aquifer and additional local wells, highlighting the critical importance of the watershed for sustainable water supply in the region.

The Carmel River alluvial aquifer has been over-pumped annually despite limited opportunities for large-scale water resource expansion and increased conservation by local residents (California Public Utilities Commission, 2004) These sustained withdrawals have significantly altered the river's flow, impacting its hydrologic cycle, habitats, and sedimentation processes, leading to ecological and environmental challenges.

Streamflow and precipitation data are essential for effective water resource management within the MPWMD watershed, supporting Carmel River Watershed planning, reservoir operations, water supply forecasting, and hydrologic baseline assessments These data ensure informed decision-making to sustain water availability and ecosystem health.

Surface water storage on the Carmel River is limited, with the Los Padres Reservoir, completed in 1948, providing approximately 1,626 acre-feet (AF) of usable storage according to 2008 data Additionally, the San Clemente Reservoir, built in 1921, previously contributed to regional water storage but was rendered unusable after the San Clemente Dam was removed in 2015 by order of the Department of Water Resources (DWR) due to seismic safety concerns.

Groundwater levels in the Carmel Valley Alluvial Aquifer have remained relatively stable in recent years, contrasting sharply with the significant declines experienced during the 1987-1991 drought This stability is due to more favorable hydrologic conditions since 1991 coupled with improved water management practices that have helped preserve higher groundwater storage levels.

Recent years have seen unstable storage conditions in the coastal area of the Seaside Groundwater Basin, especially in the deeper Santa Margarita aquifer, which supplies over 80% of Cal-Am's water in the Seaside Watershed This decline in water levels is primarily due to changed production practices following SWRCB Order 95-10, with increased reliance on Cal-Am’s major wells and higher non-Cal-Am usage significantly lowering aquifer levels Seasonal recoveries have been insufficient to halt this downward trend In response, MPWMD began developing a Seaside Watershed Groundwater Management Plan around 2000-2001 to address storage depletion, adhering to California state protocols such as AB 3030 and SB 1938.

The MPWMD’s Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) Program connects the Carmel River and the Seaside Groundwater Basin by diverting excess water from the Carmel Valley Alluvial Aquifer during winter and spring, then injecting it into the Seaside Basin for use during dry periods, helping to reduce impacts on the Carmel River The primary purpose of the Phase 1 and 2 ASR Projects is to improve water resource management, especially during droughts, by reducing unauthorized river pumping and increasing groundwater storage, which benefits the environment These projects, also known as Water Projects 1 and 2, have a combined diversion capacity of up to 5,326 AFY, with an average yield of about 2,000 AFY, supporting long-term water augmentation efforts Groundwater quality remains generally acceptable in both aquifer systems, with no significant signs of contamination from septic systems or seawater intrusion to date.

Groundwater extraction has significantly impacted the health of the Carmel River for decades In response to severe drought conditions in 1976 and 1977, the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD) was established to manage water resources and develop additional supplies In April 1990, MPWMD released the Water Allocation Program Final EIR, which analyzed the environmental impacts of California American Water Company’s (Cal-Am) production, ranging from 16,744 to 20,500 acre-feet per year (AFY) On November 5, 1990, the MPWMD Board certified the Final EIR and set an annual water allocation limit of 16,744 AFY for Cal-Am, 3,137 AFY for non-Cal-Am sources, totaling 19,881 AFY for the Monterey Peninsula Water Resource System, including the Carmel Valley Alluvial Aquifer and Seaside Groundwater Basin.

Although Option V was identified as the least environmentally damaging of the five options in the Water Allocation Program EIR, its implementation still caused significant adverse impacts that required mitigation measures The MPWMD Board approved a Mitigation Program to address these impacts In June 1993, after completing a new water supply well (Paralta), Ordinance No 70 was enacted, increasing the annual production limits for Cal-Am from 16,744 to 17,619 acre-feet and adjusting the non-Cal-Am limit from 3,137 to 3,054 acre-feet for the Monterey Peninsula Water Resource System In 1995, the California State Water Resources Control Board found that California American Water Company (Cal-Am), a private utility, was unlawfully extracting 10,730 acre-feet of water from the Carmel River Aquifer.

The authority was instructed to reduce the environmental impacts on the riparian corridor along the river, focusing on protecting wildlife and aquatic habitats, especially if the MPWMD discontinues their Mitigation Program This directive aligns with regulations outlined in the 2002 Monterey County guidelines.

The Floodplain Management Plan has been updated to reflect current strategies A key aspect involves Cal-Am’s contingent liability outlined in Order 95-10, requiring them to fulfill the MPWMD Mitigation Program responsibilities if the district failed to do so When the SWRCB issued Order 95-10, their primary concern was the potential dissolution of the district due to new state legislation, and they aimed to ensure the continuity of the Mitigation Program regardless of the district’s status, although that legislation ultimately did not advance out of committee.

The Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP) addresses water resource management challenges and opportunities for the Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey Bay regions Covering approximately 350 square miles, this IRWM region encompasses coastal cities such as Carmel-by-the-Sea, Del Rey Oaks, Monterey, Pacific Grove, Sand City, and Seaside, along with unincorporated areas including Carmel Valley, Pebble Beach, Carmel Highlands, Laguna Seca, and part of the Ord Community The region is home to numerous protected areas, including the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, sections of the Ventana Wilderness, and Fort Ord National Monument, highlighting its ecological and socio-economic significance.

The IRWM Plan aligns with the criteria established by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) under the 2012 Proposition 84 and 1E IRWM Guidelines, amended through December 2013 These guidelines outline the process DWR follows to implement each IRWM Grant Program, ensuring a consistent and strategic approach The IRWM planning process is designed to be in harmony with the California Water Plan, a comprehensive document that integrates regional water planning efforts This framework facilitates collaboration among elected officials, agencies, tribes, water and resource managers, businesses, academia, stakeholders, and the public to develop well-informed findings and recommendations for California's water future.

The Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Management Group (RWMG) is responsible for developing and implementing the IRWM Plan, comprising seven local agencies and organizations RWMG members must sign a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to formalize their cooperative efforts and establish an institutional framework for IRWM Plan development A well-defined governance structure and process promote transparency and foster strong collaboration among all stakeholders involved in creating the IRWM Plan.

Figure 2-17A Map of Monterey Peninsula Integrated Regional Water Management Planning Region

Water extraction

The Carmel River watershed is the primary source of drinking water for local residents and surrounding communities Approximately 75% of the water within the MPWMD boundaries is managed by California American Water Company (Cal-Am), which serves 95% of the Monterey Peninsula's population and businesses Cal-Am operates a series of production wells along the Carmel River and in the Seaside Groundwater Basin, supported by a network of pipelines from the San Clemente Reservoir to the communities of Monterey Peninsula and Seaside During low flow seasons, most wells capable of dewatering sections of the Carmel River are operated by Cal-Am, ensuring reliable water supply.

Am production wells in lower Carmel Valley produced approximately 7,515 acre-feet of water in Water Year 2012, while around 651 private wells in alluvial and upland areas contributed an additional 2,700 acre-feet per year, collectively significantly reducing the Carmel River's flow During dry seasons, declining groundwater levels often cause the Carmel River to dry from Highway One Bridge (RM 1) to Schulte Road (RM 6.7), and in critically dry years, the dry zone can extend up to Mid-Valley Safeway (RM 8) However, adequate winter rains typically enable rapid recharge of the aquifer once the Carmel River reaches the lagoon, restoring flow levels.

In Water Year 2012, the Carmel River Watershed supplied nearly 65% of the local domestic water supply, highlighting its importance for regional water needs The mainstem reservoirs owned by California American Water (Cal-Am) have a limited combined capacity—less than 2% of the watershed's average annual flow—making natural river flow largely unregulated during the rainy season During dry periods, flow releases from Los Padres Reservoir in Carmel Valley are strategically managed to protect steelhead habitat and supplement natural flows along the riparian corridor Water diversions for municipal supply are typically conducted at the farthest downstream wells to minimize impacts on streamside ecosystems, with upstream diversions occurring as needed due to demand or maintenance A comparison of legally available water supply versus consumer demand in MPWMD territory illustrates the balance and challenges in managing water resources effectively.

Figure 2-17B Illustrates legally available water supply compared to consumer demand in MPWMD territory

2.9.1 State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Order 95-10, Order WR 2009-0060 and Order WR 2016-0016

In response to environmental concerns regarding Cal-Am’s water extraction from the Carmel River, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) issued Order 95-10, mandating a 75% reduction in pumping to protect the river’s steelhead, streamside vegetation, and wildlife The SWRCB also determined that the underground water rights had changed legally, stripping Cal-Am of its permit to access this water source To prevent immediate disruptions to public health and safety, the SWRCB implemented an interim 20% cut, limiting Cal-Am’s pumping to 11,285 acre-feet, with a future cap of 3,376 AF—roughly 25% of its historical 14,106 AF pumping in the 1980s.

On January 15, 2008, the SWRCB issued a draft Cease and Desist Order (CDO) against Cal-Am, referencing the 1995 SWRCB Order 95-10 and highlighting that compliance had not been achieved after 12 years The draft CDO mandated significant reductions in Cal-Am's water production from the Carmel River and banned new or intensified connections within the Cal-Am main system Following formal hearings in summer 2008 involving MPWMD and other parties, the SWRCB issued its final determination (Order 2009-0060) on October 20, 2009 This order lowered Cal-Am's annual diversion limit from the Carmel River from 11,285 acre-feet to 10,429 acre-feet for Water Year 2010, with a further reduced limit of 3,376 acre-feet.

On July 19, 2016, the SWRCB issued Order WR 2016-0016, which amended existing water diversion requirements to support the schedule of new water supply projects This order established an effective diversion limit of 8,310 AFY from the Carmel River until December 31, 2021, contingent upon Cal-Am meeting specific project milestones If Cal-Am fails to achieve these milestones, the diversion limit can be reduced in increments of 1,000 AF.

2021, the diversion limit on the Carmel River will be 3,376 AFY.

Surface and ground water hydrology

Surface water in the Carmel River originates from rainfall runoff, dam releases, groundwater seeps and springs, and urban return flows from irrigation and wastewater systems Once in the river, water is diverted for groundwater withdrawals, flows to the ocean during winter, evaporates, or is transpired by riparian vegetation, with all water diversion and use exerting a cumulative impact on the river and aquifer system Although individual water claims are small, collectively they have led to the stream being fully appropriated in summer months, affecting water availability and ecosystem health.

Although the first significant rains of the season typically begin in November, substantial changes in streamflow usually do not occur until December or January Fall rains replenish dry soils from summer, resulting in minimal runoff during this period, and most Carmel River tributaries are dry at their confluence with the river, with the lower reaches typically dry as well By December or January, winter rains saturate soils, leading to a notable increase in streamflow Monthly streamflow peaks between January and March as moist soils and frequent rainstorms enhance runoff While October to December falls have a minimal impact on streamflow due to soil absorption, rains from February to May generate more runoff because saturated soils prevent water from soaking in, thus increasing streamflow; additionally, stored winter moisture seeps back into the river, further contributing to flow levels.

Vegetated, non-compacted soils play a crucial role in storing, transporting, and releasing rainfall runoff to channels well after precipitation ceases This natural mechanism is essential for maintaining perennial flow in rivers, such as the Carmel River, which likely depended on these soils before the construction of the SCD & LPD infrastructure.

Well-managed landscapes can enhance natural soil functions despite urban development when these functions are properly understood, preserved, and supported The Carmel Valley Master Plan emphasizes the importance of effective watershed management, including protecting aquifer recharge areas, native soils, and native vegetation It also recommends strategic planning to retain urban stormwater runoff for aquifer recharge, promoting sustainable water management practices.

Figure 2-18 San Clemente Reservoir site average monthly rainfall and streamflow

The MPWMD operates and maintains 14 streamflow gaging stations within the Carmel River Watershed

Continuous water-level data were collected at key locations, including Los Padres and San Clemente Reservoirs, as well as the Carmel River Lagoon, to monitor hydrological conditions The MPWMD co-funds two USGS gauging stations along the Carmel River, ensuring comprehensive data collection These continuous recording stations, operated by MPWMD and USGS, are documented in Table 2-5 and Figure 2-19, providing critical insights into streamflow and water levels for effective water resource management.

Streamflow gaging station operation and maintenance (O&M) at each site include monthly discharge measurements, maintenance of recording equipment, staff gage readings, and occasional surveying The collected data is processed to generate mean daily streamflow records, providing essential insights into river and creek flow patterns Table 2-6 summarizes the computed annual flows for MPWMD sites over the water years 1992 to 2013, supporting water resource management and planning efforts.

A V E R A G E M O N T H L Y P R E C IP IT A T IO N IN IN C H E S

OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP

Note: Rainfall averages obtained from Table II-1.

Streamflow averages based on unimpaired flows (Table III-2) for the 1902-2008 period simulated by MPWMD. page 59 January 17, 2017

Table 2-5 Gaging stations in the Carmel River Watershed (MPWMD)

Figure 2-19 Map of Carmel River Watershed gaging stations (MPWMD)

Gaging Stations in the Carmel River Watershed

Location Station Name Abbrev Frequency Operator

Carmel River Highway 1 H1 Daily MPWMD

Carmel River Near Carmel NC Daily U.S.G.S.

Carmel River Don Juan Bridge DJ Daily MPWMD

Carmel River Sleepy Hollow Weir SH Daily MPWMD

Carmel River Robles del Rio RR Daily U.S.G.S.

Carmel River Below Los Padres BL Daily MPWMD

Carmel River Above Los Padres LP Monthly MPWMD

Tributary Potrero PO Daily MPWMD

Tributary Robinson Canyon Creek RC Daily MPWMD

Tributary Garzas Creek GA Daily MPWMD

Tributary Garzas Canyon GC Daily MPWMD

Tributary Hitchcock Creek HI Daily MPWMD

Tributary Tularcitos Creek TU Daily MPWMD

Tributary San Clemente Creek CL Daily MPWMD

Tributary Pine Creek PI Daily MPWMD

Tributary Cachaua Creek CA Daily MPWMD

Tributary Finch Creek FC Daily MPWMD page 60 January 17, 2017

Table 2-6 Carmel River Watershed Annual Streamflow Summary Water Years 1992-2013 (MPWMD

CA RM E L RIV E R BAS IN - AN NU AL S T REAM F L OW S UM M AR Y WATE R Y E AR S 1992 - 2013 (Va lues in Ac re -F ee t)

N o te s: 1 C a rme l R iv e r ( C R ) a t R o b le s d e l R io a n d n e a r C a rme l si te s a re mai n ta in e d b y th e U S G S

2 ( * ) N o co n ti n u o u s s tag e d ata co lle cte d

3 S tr e am fl o w s it e s l iste d in d o w n str e am o rd e r.

4 S an J o se Cr e e k is o u tside th e Car m e l Riv e r Bas in , b u t i s s h o w n f o r co m p ar iso n

5 W Y 1 9 9 2 -2 0 0 8 v al u e s ar e F IN A L W Y 2 0 0 9 -2 0 1 3 D RA F T v al u e s s h o w n in it al ic. page 61 January 17, 2017

In above-normal and extremely wet years, total annual Carmel River streamflow generally increases downstream due to tributary inflow, while during normal to critically dry years, streamflow losses primarily result from groundwater extraction in Lower Carmel Valley According to Table 2-7 (MPWMD working file Greg James), runoff classifications vary across these years Notably, the average annual runoff at the USGS gage near Carmel (3.56 miles upstream of the Pacific Ocean) from 1962 to 2006 was approximately 78,190 acre-feet.

Table 2-7 Classification of Unimpaired Carmel River Flow at San Clemente Dam Site (MPWMD)

C LAS S IFIC ATIO N O F UNIMPAIRED C ARMEL RIVER FLO W S AT S AN C LEMENTE DAM S ITE

(RUNO FF IN AC RE-FEET)

W ate r Ye ar Ru n off C l assi fi cati on W ate r Ye ar Ru n off C l assi fi cati on

1905 73,489 Above Normal 1961 9,278 C ri ti cal l y Dry

1907 166,057 Ext remely Wet 1963 86,582 Above Normal

1913 12,933 C ri ti cal l y Dry 1969 174,213 Ext remely Wet

1916 136,932 Ext remely Wet 1972 14,680 Crit ically Dry

1920 35,198 Below Normal 1976 6,358 C ri ti cal l y Dry

1921 49,583 Normal 1977 2,855 C ri ti cal l y Dry

1924 13,304 Crit ically Dry 1980 143,395 Ext remely Wet

1926 80,608 Above Normal 1982 130,522 Ext remely Wet

1927 92,274 Above Normal 1983 318,987 Ext remely Wet

1932 79,097 Above Normal 1988 10,083 C ri ti cal l y Dry

1933 14,383 Crit ically Dry 1989 10,248 C ri ti cal l y Dry

1934 49,058 Normal 1990 8,606 C ri ti cal l y Dry

1938 161,366 Ext remely Wet 1994 13,313 Crit ically Dry

1941 229,468 Ext remely Wet 1997 98,561 Above Normal

1 Year type classifications are based on the Carmel River Basin Runoff Index.

2 Outlined years indicate two or more consecutive dry or critically dry years and are defined as hydrologic droughts.

3 Runoff values for Water Years 1902-2005 were reconstructed by the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District based on records provided by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and California American Water (Cal -Am) The runoff values for

WY 2006 through WY 2013 were computed by the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District based on records provided by

Relative tributary contribution varies annually, primarily influenced by spatial variations in sub-watershed rainfall and differences in drainage areas Key factors affecting tributary runoff include water extraction, urbanization, local terrain and soil type, and vegetative cover Additionally, antecedent moisture conditions, such as preceding years' rainfall, significantly impact sub-watershed runoff and base flow in any given year (James, 2009).

502 Bad GatewayUnable to reach the origin service The service may be down or it may not be responding to traffic from cloudflared

502 Bad GatewayUnable to reach the origin service The service may be down or it may not be responding to traffic from cloudflared

502 Bad GatewayUnable to reach the origin service The service may be down or it may not be responding to traffic from cloudflared

Table 2-8 Percentage of Carmel River Tributary Flow Contribution Relative to Total Flow at the Carmel

River at Highway 1 Bridge Site (James 2009)

Carmel Valley features a “U”-shaped bedrock basin filled with a thick layer of sand, which serves as the primary unconfined aquifer supporting regional water supplies (Kapple et al., 1984) This sandy aquifer overlies low-permeability bedrock and is responsible for both surface and groundwater flow, with water occupying surface river channels and underground subterranean rivers within the sand layer (Kondolf and Curry, 1982; Maloney, 1984) The unique geology links groundwater and surface water resources, meaning that managing one directly impacts the other (SWRCB, 1995a) Currently, surface water in Carmel Valley is threatened due to over-pumping of the shallow sub-stream aquifer by approximately 11,000 acre-feet per year, leading to resource impairments (SWRCB, 1995a; Smith et al., 2004).

Many Carmel watershed streams dry up annually, risking fish populations due to insufficient shallow groundwater in the small headwater streams high in the watershed The lower Carmel River also goes dry each year as surface water percolates through gravel in its bed, compensating for the water withdrawn by municipal and private wells tapping into underlying sands and gravels This decline in the water table caused significant riparian vegetation loss and extensive land erosion in the early 1980s Currently, the riparian zone in the lower Carmel Valley relies on seasonal irrigation systems to offset the overdraft of the unconfined aquifer, preserving the area's ecological stability.

Maintaining year-round surface water in the Carmel River, with appropriate seasonal discharge, temperature, and chemistry, is crucial for sustainable fisheries The success of anadromous fish populations depends on meeting minimum flow conditions that support migration and habitat needs, rather than solely ensuring perennial flow Sufficient winter flows are essential for enabling fish migration to and from the sea, although the river may not flow continuously to the sea every migratory season Summer flows must provide cool, oxygen-rich, and protected habitats for resident fish during dry periods, while also diluting septic return flows to safe levels Additionally, summer surface flows support healthy riparian forests and help reduce stream bank erosion, promoting overall river health and ecological resilience.

1986), and the aesthetic appeal of flowing water (Smith et al 2004)

PERCENTAGE OF CARMEL RIVER TRIBUTARY FLOW CONTRIBUTION RELATIVE TO TOTAL FLOW AT THE CARMEL RIVER AT HIGHWAY 1 BRIDGE SITE

TRIBUTARY SITES Drainage Area % of CRB % of Total Tributary Flow Contribution by WY

1 Percent of Carmel River Basin (CRB) figures are based on a total basin area of 252 square miles (Sq Mi.).

2 Percent of total flow contribution figures are based on the total annual flow at Carmel River at HWY 1 Bridge site.

Water quality

The Carmel River maintains acceptable water quality and is not classified as an impaired river under the EPA’s Clean Water Act (303d) listings Turbidity levels are typically low; however, they may increase after large winter storms or during wet winters, when landslides can have lingering effects beyond the rainy season (Smith et al., 2004).

Groundwater quality in the Carmel Valley Alluvial Aquifer remains acceptable, with no signs of contamination from septic systems or seawater intrusion The primary concerns are water quantity issues driven by environmental factors, including drought and extensive groundwater pumping, rather than quality concerns.

Since 1991, MPWMD has been collecting surface-water quality data at three key sampling stations along the Carmel River, providing essential information on water conditions These stations include below Los Padres Reservoir at River Mile 25.4, below San Clemente Reservoir at Sleepy Hollow Weir (RM 17.1), and at Carmel River Lagoon near RM 0.1 Monitoring these locations allows MPWMD to assess the water quality released from each reservoir and in the surface layer of the lagoon, supporting effective water resource management along the Carmel River.

Data were collected on key chemical and physical parameters, including temperature (°F), dissolved oxygen (mg/L), carbon dioxide (mg/L), pH, specific conductance (uS/cm), salinity (ppt), and turbidity (NTU) These parameters are critical for assessing water quality and determining the suitability of habitats for rearing juvenile steelhead, ensuring optimal conditions for their growth and development (MPWMD 2000-2013).

MPWMD staff continuously monitors river temperatures at six locations within the Carmel River Watershed to document temperature variations across different stream reaches and ensure compliance with water-quality criteria for maximum stream temperatures These measurements help assess whether temperature thresholds are exceeded and enable staff to track changes in the river’s thermal regime over time, supporting effective water management and preservation efforts (MPWMD 2000-2013).

Figure 2-23 Temperature and Semi-Monthly Water Quality Monitoring Locations in the Carmel River Basin During RY 2012 (MPWMD) page 71 January 17, 2017

2.11.1 Surface water quality condition in the mainstem and lagoon

The following paragraphs describe the results of the MPWMD’s semi-monthly data collection and continuous temperature recorders at specific sampling stations in the watershed (MPWMD 2000-2013)

The water-temperature monitoring station at Carmel River Lagoon, located on the CAW effluent discharge pipe in the south arm, faced operational challenges during 2012, resulting in unreliable data that was not reported Despite this, reliable water-quality data from the station on the lagoon's south side showed a maximum temperature of 67.6°F on September 9, 2011, and dissolved oxygen levels averaging 6.2 mg/L, which meet EPA standards for steelhead Additionally, pH levels ranged from 7.5 to 8.0, within suitable limits, while carbon dioxide concentrations varied between 10 and 20 mg/L However, sampling deeper into the water column revealed certain parameters like dissolved oxygen, temperature, and conductivity can become unfavorable for steelhead during specific times of the year.

Increased marine organic debris entering lagoons during high surf events leads to variability in carbon dioxide levels As this debris decomposes, it produces carbon dioxide, which can accumulate in the water Fish exposed to free carbon dioxide concentrations above 20 mg/L often exhibit signs of distress, highlighting the impact of elevated CO₂ on aquatic life (Wedemeyer, 1996) Understanding these dynamics is essential for monitoring lagoon health and managing marine ecosystems effectively.

Conductivity in the lagoon varied widely, ranging from 135 to 35,000 µS/cm, while surface salinity fluctuated between 0.2 and 28.5 ppt due to tidal influences and river inflows Turbidity levels also varied, with measurements from 0.1 to 6.0 NTU The primary threat to steelhead rearing habitats is the high salinity, which significantly reduces suitable rearing areas during late summer and fall, compounded by sub-optimal water temperatures and dissolved oxygen levels during this period (MPWMD 2000-2013).

Table 2-10 Water quality data collected by MPWMD during RY 2012 at Carmel River Lagoon’s Surface

Garland Park's water temperature data, as shown in Figure 2-24, covers the period from July 1, 2011, to June 30, 2012, excluding air temperature data recorded between August 11 and October 26, 2011 The highest annual water temperature at Garland Park was 69.7°F, recorded on July 30, 2011, while the overall average water temperature for the year was 54.9°F The maximum daily average water temperature reached 65.1°F on July 3, highlighting the seasonal temperature fluctuations at the site. -**Sponsor**Need help summarizing your article while adhering to SEO best practices? [Soku AI](https://pollinations.ai/redirect-nexad/DHDCJyWM?user_id=983577) can help! It's like having a team of content specialists optimizing your work Soku AI can extract key sentences and ensure they comply with SEO rules, just as it was trained to do with Facebook ads, ensuring maximum impact and readability For Garland Park, the maximum water temperature reached 69.7°F on July 30, 2011, while the overall average was 54.9°F.

2011 Daily average water temperatures were within adequate range for steelhead rearing during the entire sampling period (MPWMD 2000-2013)

Date Tim e Tem perature Dissolved Oxygen Carbon Dioxide pH Conductivity Nacl Turbidity WSE

24 Hr (F) (m g/L) (m g/L) (uS/cm ) (ppt) (NTU) (ft)

Figure 2-24 Daily temperatures recorded from a continuous temperature data logger at the Garland Park

(GAR) station during RY 2012 (MPWMD)

The Sleepy Hollow Weir (SHW) station recorded a maximum annual water temperature of 68.9°F on July 7, 2011, with an overall average temperature of 55.3°F during the reporting year Daily average water temperatures remained within the suitable range for steelhead rearing throughout the sampling period, although constant temperatures above 68°F can be stressful for steelhead (Brungs and Jones, 1977) The maximum daily average temperature was 67.3°F on July 7, 2011 Water quality parameters such as dissolved oxygen, which ranged from 8.4 mg/L—within EPA recommended levels—and carbon dioxide levels (5 to 15 mg/L), pH (7.5 to 8.5), and turbidity (0.1 to 3.2 NTU) were within acceptable ranges for steelhead rearing Overall, water quality at the SHW station met the necessary standards during the sampling period, except for the elevated temperatures observed in July.

Table 2-11 Water quality data collected by MPWMD during RY 2012 at Sleepy Hollow Weir station

The water temperature at the Above San Clemente (ASC) station, located above San Clemente Reservoir, ranged from an average of 54.7°F during the sampling period from July 11, 2011, to June 30, 2012 The maximum annual water temperature was 67.4°F, recorded on June 17, 2012, while the maximum daily average temperature was 64.8°F on September 11, 2011 Throughout the entire monitoring period, daily average water temperatures remained within a suitable range for steelhead rearing, supporting healthy aquatic life (MPWMD 2000-2013).

Date Tim e Tem perature Dissolved Oxygen Carbon Dioxide pH Conductivity Turbidity

Figure 2-25 Daily temperatures recorded from a continuous temperature data logger at the above San

Clemente (ASC) station during RY 2012

Below Los Padres Reservoir The sampling period for this station was July 1, 2011 to June 30, 2012

The highest annual instantaneous water temperature recorded was 68.4°F on July 6, 2011, indicating peak summer temperatures Throughout the sampling period, the overall average water temperature at this station was 55.5°F, reflecting typical seasonal variations Additionally, the maximum daily average water temperature reached 67.2°F on September 28, 2011, highlighting the warmer end of the temperature spectrum during fall These data points are essential for understanding water temperature patterns and their impact on aquatic ecosystems.

During the entire sampling period, daily average water temperatures remained within the suitable range for steelhead rearing Water quality data indicate that parameters such as dissolved oxygen, which recorded a minimum of 6.7 mg/L—within the EPA’s recommended criteria for steelhead—were maintained at acceptable levels Carbon dioxide concentrations ranged from 5 to 20 mg/L, while pH levels stayed between 7.5 and 8.0, and conductivity varied from 122 to 245 µS/cm, reflecting optimal water conditions Turbidity measurements remained low, between 0.2 and 4.8 NTU, demonstrating clear water quality Overall, water quality parameters at this station met the necessary standards for steelhead rearing throughout the reporting year, influenced by reservoir water quality and release location.

Table 2-12 Water quality data collected by MPWMD during RY 2012 at Below Los Padres station

Above Los Padres Reservoir Water temperature for the Above Los Padres (ALP) station is shown in

The maximum annual water temperature recorded was 65°F on June 17, 2012, with an average temperature of 52°F throughout the reporting period The highest daily average water temperature at this station reached 64°F on July 7, 2011 Throughout the year, daily average water temperatures remained within the adequate range for steelhead rearing, ensuring suitable conditions for fish development (MPWMD 2000-2013).

Date Tim e Tem perature Dissolved Oxygen Carbon Dioxide pH Conductivity Turbidity

Figure 2-26 Daily temperatures recorded from a continuous temperature data logger at the Above Los

In 2012, water-quality conditions across all Carmel River mainstem stations remained within adequate ranges for steelhead rearing, with cooler water temperatures despite a dry hydrologic year No sites recorded average daily temperatures above 68°F, supporting healthy steelhead development However, during late summer and fall, water quality in the Carmel River Lagoon commonly becomes stressful due to low inflows and tidal variability, which can reduce growth and survival rates of juvenile steelhead During this period, lagoon salinity stratifies with increasing depth, reaching up to 20 ppt in deeper areas, consequently reducing rearing habitat for young steelhead Lagoon water temperatures frequently fall within sub-optimal ranges, further impacting juvenile steelhead survival For detailed data and additional figures spanning multiple years, consult the MPWMD Mitigation Reports and the 2004 Watershed Assessment available online.

2.11.2 Groundwater quality condition in the watershed and aquifer

Vegetation

Monterey County boasts one of the largest and most diverse plant communities in California, thanks to its extensive size, varied climate, topography, and complex geology The Carmel River watershed enhances this diversity by supporting a rich mosaic of plant species At Garland Ranch Regional Park in Carmel Valley, over 350 flowering plant species have been documented, highlighting the area's botanical richness The region's diverse topography, rainfall patterns, soils, geological activity, and proximity to marine air create ideal conditions for endemism and localized genetic variations among plant and animal species.

The watershed features diverse vegetation types, including grasslands, scrub/shrub habitats, and mixed oak woodlands Coastal plant communities encompass live oak woodlands, grasslands, coastal scrub, wetlands, Monterey pine forests, and marshes Interior landscapes include redwoods, chaparral, oak savannahs, and both annual and perennial grasslands The riparian zone comprises a mixed forest of willows, alders, cottonwoods, and sycamores, alongside shrubs and herbaceous plants like cattails, sedges, and grasses These riparian habitats support rich biodiversity, providing essential shelter, foraging opportunities, nesting, and rearing habitats for numerous plant and animal species.

Figure 2-27 Vegetation cover map for the Carmel River Watershed (Smith 2004) page 83 January 17, 2017

Protecting and restoring the habitat of threatened and special-status plant species is a crucial component of effective watershed planning The Carmel River watershed hosts a diverse array of native plant species within a complex mosaic of vegetation types However, land use changes and the invasion of non-native animals and plants pose significant threats to the health and sustainability of native flora in the region.

Figure 2-28 Species (vegetation) of concern map (Kasey and Peterson 2005)

This article compiles information on special-status plant species in the Carmel River watershed by reviewing multiple authoritative sources, including the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), the California Native Plant Society’s Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants, and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s list of endangered and threatened plants and animals These sources ensure comprehensive coverage of rare and protected species, supporting effective conservation and management efforts Additionally, the USFWS list of special-status animals further informs the understanding of critical species within the region, highlighting the importance of habitat preservation and biodiversity.

Table 2-14 Plant species that occur in the Carmel River Watershed and are considered to be “special”,

“threatened” or “endangered” by the State of California or the federal government:

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME FED LIST CAL

Nasturtium gambelii Gambel's water cress CNPS species of concern

Arenaria paludicola marsh sandwort CNPS species of concern

Eriastrum virgatum virgate eriastrum CNPS species of concern

Clarkia lewisii Lewis’s clarkia CNPS species of concern

Piperia yadonii Yadon's rein orchid Endangered

Trifolium polyodon Pacific Grove clover Rare

Sidalcea hickmanii ssp parishii Parish's checkerbloom Rare

2.12.2 Riparian habitat - mainstem and tributaries

Riparian habitats are essential for watershed health due to their ecological specificity, limited distribution, high wildlife value, and significant decline in California caused by urbanization, stream channelization, and agricultural conversion The riparian corridor of the middle and lower Carmel River, from the Pacific Ocean at RM 0.0 to San Clemente Dam at RM 18.6, spans from the Carmel River lagoon to a vital aquatic habitat downstream of the dam This section features mature riparian forests that indicate floodplain width and flood periodicity, with dominant species such as arroyo willow, red willow, black alder, and black cottonwood The riparian zone above San Clemente Dam (RM 18.6 to RM 36) remains relatively pristine, especially within Los Padres National Forest and Ventana Wilderness, hosting undisturbed habitats with species like big-leaved maple, Hind’s willow, and Sitka willow Protected and undisturbed riparian ecosystems in these areas are crucial for maintaining biodiversity and ecological integrity.

The Carmel River’s riparian habitat is showing signs of recovery and stabilization after decades of degradation caused by natural and human activities, including increased groundwater extraction in the 1970s to 1990s Restoration efforts have led to the flushing out of fine sediments like silt and sand, resulting in a more complex river channel with improved steelhead spawning grounds, diverse habitats, and a richer riparian ecosystem Areas with perennial or near-perennial flow, such as upstream of Schulte Bridge and downstream of Highway 1, have experienced strong natural recruitment along streambanks and within the channel, which has contributed to stabilizing banks and enhancing aquatic habitat diversity.

Natural recruitment at the channel bottom has caused vegetation encroachment, which can restrict high flows and lead to bank erosion by deflecting water In the lower mainstem, groundwater extraction consistently hampers the recovery of streamside vegetation, with only irrigated areas maintaining diverse plant species During late summer and fall, non-irrigated riparian zones show signs of plant stress, resulting in unstable streambanks prone to collapse during high flows due to the absence of healthy stabilizing vegetation.

Since 1984, MPWMD-sponsored restoration projects have evolved to feature healthier, less disturbed river reaches with diverse plant life, complex floodplain topography, and in-channel features like large wood, pools, riffles, and cut banks Areas restored after the 1995 and 1998 floods are still developing these natural characteristics, though progress is sometimes limited by project location and design, especially in highly urbanized, narrow sections affected by groundwater extraction Additionally, reliance on bank hardening techniques such as riprap for stabilization can hinder plant growth and reduce biodiversity in these restored areas.

The Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) method was used to evaluate 37 sites along the Carmel River from the Lagoon to the headwaters, with assessments conducted in Fall 2003 and Spring 2004 Results showed that many reaches between RM 10 at the Narrows and RM 36 at the headwaters were functioning properly However, some downstream reaches near the Narrows were classified as “functional at risk,” indicating that without mitigation measures for water diversions, these areas could become non-functional Figures 2-29 illustrate the locations and ratings of these assessments, including additional evaluations by the Carmel River Watershed Conservancy in the tributaries.

Figure 2-29 Assessment of Riparian Functions and Conditions (Monterey Peninsula Water Management

Since the mid-1980s, water diversion points during summer and fall have shifted downstream into the lower river, with increased groundwater extraction from reaches downstream of the river This shift has led to higher surface flows in the 8.6-mile stretch between the Narrows and San Clemente Dam, improving aquatic habitat quality, quantity, and diversity upstream of the Narrows However, increased groundwater extraction downstream of the Narrows may have caused vegetation stress in the lower river, resulting in the loss of streamside vegetation and heightened bank instability.

Between 1986 and 2001, riparian wooded areas within the streamside corridor downstream of San Clemente Dam expanded from approximately 299 acres to about 438 acres, reflecting natural ecological recovery This increase is attributed to bank stabilization following a previous episode of erosion, highlighting the resilience of the riparian ecosystem in the area.

1978 and 1986 combined with increased surface flows and restoration work by a variety of groups including private property owners and public agencies

The riparian corridor between Highway 1 and Schulte Road Bridge is highly fragmented and extremely narrow in some areas, often just one or two trees wide, due to urbanization This limited corridor reduces wildlife mobility by degrading habitat quality and quantity Additionally, streamside areas between the ocean and Carmel Valley Village face ongoing development pressures as rising real estate values lead property owners to create more urban spaces or alter the river’s natural meanderings Poor landowner practices, such as removing streamside vegetation for view corridors, constructing structures near the stream, and illegal bank protection works, further threaten the health and connectivity of these riparian zones (MPWMD 2004).

The Carmel Lagoon and surrounding wetlands, located just south of Carmel-by-the-Sea in Monterey County, span approximately 100 acres and serve as vital habitats for riparian and wetland species The seasonal lagoon at the mouth of the Carmel River plays a crucial role in supporting diverse aquatic and plant life Managed by the California Department of Parks and Recreation as part of Carmel River State Beach, this protected area is essential for local biodiversity conservation and ecological health.

The lagoon area features a diverse mix of seasonal and perennial wetlands that serve as vital habitats for various wildlife species, including several federally listed species The restoration of the Odello West Property, a former agricultural land, has significantly expanded wetland acreage and enhanced habitat quality for numerous species Vegetation distribution across the lagoon is depicted in Figure 2-30, while Figure 2-31 illustrates the varied habitat types surrounding the Carmel River, including riparian scrub-shrub zones.

Figure 2-30 Wetland habitat types of the Carmel River Lagoon and surrounding areas (Casagrande

Figure 2-31 Photo of habitat types surrounding the Carmel River (Casagrande 2006)

The permanently flooded areas of the lagoon include the South Arm and a small section of the North Arm, with water depths ranging from less than 3 feet in the North Arm to over 10 feet in the South Arm Both arms primarily consist of fine sediments such as silt and clay, along with detritus and smaller amounts of sand, with extensive beds of submerged pondweed (Potamogeton spp.) present throughout these areas When water quality is favorable, macroinvertebrate communities thrive, providing a vital food source for rearing juvenile steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) The South Arm also supports habitat for Western pond turtles (Clemmys marmorata) and California red-legged frogs (Rana aurora draytonii), highlighting its ecological importance.

2 Emergent (tule marsh; semi-permanent) Wetlands

Fish & wildlife

The Carmel River watershed is a highly dynamic system characterized by seasonal fluctuations in flow levels, which influence sediment transport to the estuary and ocean This interconnected ecosystem includes terrestrial, riparian, freshwater aquatic, and coastal estuarine habitats that support diverse wildlife, such as migratory and resident birds, and at-risk species like Pacific lamprey, western pond turtle, California tiger salamander (CTS), SCCCS, and CRLF These species are currently listed as threatened at both federal and state levels, reflecting broader ecosystem decline The reduction of these key species signals declining ecosystem health and environmental fragmentation in the lower 27 miles of the river, necessitating targeted management efforts to restore and preserve habitat integrity.

Despite declines in steelhead (SCCCS) populations, the Carmel River environment has significantly improved since 1991, when the MPWMD began its Mitigation Program Biological and hydrologic indicators, such as consistent adult steelhead spawner counts of several hundred in recent years compared to negligible numbers before, demonstrate this progress Additionally, increased juvenile steelhead densities reflect a healthier stream ecosystem, while balanced bird diversity in restoration areas indicates improved habitat quality Fewer miles of dry riverbed during summer and fall, along with higher water tables in the Carmel Valley alluvial aquifer at the end of each water year, further confirm the positive environmental changes achieved through the program.

The MPWMD Mitigation Program plays a crucial role in environmental improvement, utilizing both direct actions like fish rescues, rearing, and habitat restoration to support species survival and reproduction, and indirect strategies including conservation initiatives, water augmentation, and regulatory measures to minimize human impact Additionally, the program’s comprehensive monitoring provides essential scientific data, enhancing understanding of how weather, hydrology, and human activities interact with and affect the environment.

Between Water Years 1991 and 2012, the Carmel River experienced normal or above-average runoff in 16 out of 21 years, contributing to improved water conditions Federal agencies under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the SWRCB’s Order WR 95-10 have incentivized Cal-Am and local water producers to review and modify their water extraction practices Additionally, community efforts to reduce water consumption have supported these improvements Since the implementation of Order 95-10 in July 1995, the community has largely complied with the mandated water production limits, except in 1997, promoting sustainable water management in the region.

Despite recent improvements, human activities continue to threaten the river’s health The steelhead and California red-legged frog remain listed as threatened species under the Endangered Species Act, while many other species are considered species of concern by California Several miles of the river still dry up annually, disrupting critical habitats for wildlife Factors such as the Los Padres Dam, the recent removal of San Clemente Dam, floodplain development, and water diversions to serve community needs continue to alter the river’s natural dynamics, posing ongoing challenges to conservation.

The Carmel River currently supports native populations of the following aquatic species (excluding benthic macroinvertebrates):

 River lamprey (Lampetra ayresi: observed by one MPWMD biologist but no voucher specimen collected for verification)

 Sacramento hitch (Lavinia exilicauda: introduced from elsewhere in California)

 Sacramento blackfish (Orthodon microlepidotus : introduced from elsewhere in California)

 Coast range sculpin (Cottus aleuticus)

The following species can be found in the Carmel River lagoon (MPWMD 1994):

 Pacific staghorn sculpin (Lepotocottus armatus)

Steelhead are the most important management species among the fish present in the river, with extensive fisheries research focused on their habitats and behavior Historically, the Carmel River supported the state's largest self-sustaining steelhead run and was the second-largest fishery for this species south of San Francisco Bay, according to a 1983 CDFG report Understanding and conserving steelhead populations remain a priority for effective river management and ecological health.

Habitat loss, degradation, water quality, water quantity, and the introduction of nonnative species are key limiting factors affecting the Carmel River Nonnative fish species such as goldfish, carp, black bullhead, mosquitofish, green sunfish, and bluegill are occasionally found in the river, though their presence is infrequent Brown trout are well established above Los Padres Dam but are uncommon downstream, indicating varying distribution patterns influenced by habitat conditions.

The Carmel Region is home to approximately 50 terrestrial species, including several species of special conservation status Appendix 4 provides a comprehensive list of mammals, amphibians, and reptiles found within the Carmel River watershed Preserving sensitive habitats and essential wildlife connectivity points will support the stability and growth of local wildlife populations The Carmel River Vision Plan emphasizes habitat conservation and key ecological corridors to ensure the long-term health of the region’s diverse ecosystems.

Parkway that was developed for Big Sur Land Trust in 2005 included a preliminary analysis of lower

Carmel River watershed wildlife corridors (Kasey and Peterson 2005).

Special-status species

Special-status species are plant and wildlife species that are listed by the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as Threatened or Endangered under the provisions of the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, highlighting their protected status and the importance of conservation efforts.

Special-status species include those protected under the Endangered Species Act (16 USC 1531 et seq.) and designated as Proposed or Candidate species by the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Additionally, wildlife species listed as threatened or endangered by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) are classified as special-status species Species identified by CDFW as of special concern are also considered part of this group, emphasizing the importance of conservation efforts for these vulnerable populations.

Seven plant species that occur in the Carmel River watershed are considered to be “special”, “threatened” or “endangered” by the State of California or the federal government

Three federally-listed threatened species inhabit the watershed, including the South-Central California steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), the California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii), and the California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) The California Central Coast steelhead population has been listed as threatened since August 1997 and is protected under NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service The California red-legged frog was designated as threatened in 1996 and is managed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service Additionally, the California tiger salamander's Central California distinct population segment (DPS) was listed as threatened by USFWS in 2004, emphasizing the importance of conservation efforts within the watershed.

This section provides a comprehensive list of special-status wildlife species documented in the watershed, as identified by agencies such as CDFW, NMFS, USFWS, the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), and the California Native Plant Society (CNPS), detailed in Table 2-15 It discusses both species known to occur and those with potential to inhabit the area, with an assessment of habitat quality and the likelihood of their presence.

Table 2-15 Special status species of the Carmel River watershed includes species found in the Carmel

River Watershed that are considered to be “special” by the California Natural Diversity Database, or

“threatened” or “endangered” by the State of California or the federal government (Water Management Group 2007; California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2014)

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME FED LIST CAL LIST

Caecidotea tomalensis Tomales asellid None None

Syncaris pacifica California freshwater shrimp Endangered Endangered

Eucyclogobius newberryi tidewater goby Endangered None

Gasterosteus aculeatus williamsoni unarmored threespine stickleback Endangered Endangered

Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus steelhead Threatened None

Ambystoma californiense California tiger salamander Threatened Threatened Watchlist Ambystoma macrodactylum croceum Santa Cruz long-toed salamander Endangered Endangered

Fully- protected Bufo microscaphus californicus arroyo southwestern toad Endangered None SSC

Rana boylii foothill yellow-legged frog None None SSC

Rana draytonii California red-legged frog Threatened None SSC

Rana muscosa mountain yellow-legged frog Endangered Endangered Watchlist

Spea hammondii western spadefoot toad Under review None SSC

Taricha torosa Coast Range newt None None SSC

Anniella pulchra nigra black legless lizard None None SSC

Emys marmorata western pond turtle None None SSC

Phrynosoma blainvillii coast horned lizard None None SSC

Thamnophis hammondii two-striped garter snake None None SSC

Lasiurus blossevillii western red bat None None SSC

Neotoma macrotis luciana Monterey dusky-footed woodrat None None SSC

Taxidea taxus American badger None None SSC

Agelaius tricolor tricolored blackbird None None SSC

Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus western snowy plover Threatened None

Empidonax traillii brewsteri little willow flycatcher None Endangered

Empidonax traillii extimus Southwestern willow flycatcher Endangered Endangered

Geothlypis trichas sinuosa saltmarsh common yellowthroat None None

Pelecanus occidentalis brown pelican Delisted Delisted

Vireo bellii pusillus least Bell's vireo Endangered Endangered

Euphydryas editha bayensis bay checkerspot butterfly Threatened None

Euphilotes enoptes smithi Smith's blue butterfly Endangered None page 98 January 17, 2017

2.14.1 South-central coast steelhead, Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus (SCCCS)

Effective monitoring and protection of steelhead trout and their habitat are essential for managing the Carmel River Watershed, impacting the health of the river, lagoon, and surrounding areas Ensuring sufficient water flow, removing migration barriers, and improving water quality are vital strategies to support the steelhead lifecycle, which depends on seamless migration between the ocean and freshwater habitats Maintaining river-ocean connectivity is crucial for the survival and recovery of steelhead populations, making these conservation efforts integral to watershed management.

Regulatory agencies have implemented protective measures to safeguard steelhead spawning and rearing habitats amid ongoing declines in steelhead populations The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) is particularly concerned that the Carmel River steelhead population is at risk of becoming a remnant run due to water development, drought, land use changes, and environmental challenges CDFW’s management policy aims to preserve and restore steelhead populations by ensuring suitable habitat conditions and addressing key threats impacting their survival.

"maintain it as a self-sustaining resource and to restore it as much as possible to its historic level of productivity” (McEwan and Jackson 1996; CDWR 2012)

Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus) in the Carmel River watershed are part of the South-Central California coast Distinct Population Segment (SCCCS DPS), encompassing streams across Monterey, San Benito, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, and San Luis Obispo counties The recovery of this threatened DPS depends on restoring a minimum number of viable populations within four Biogeographic Population Groups (BPGs) in the SCCCS Recovery Planning Area Preserving these populations is essential to maintain the species’ genetic, phenotypic, and behavioral diversity, as well as its spatial distribution and abundance, ensuring the long-term viability of the SCCCS DPS.

The steelhead DPS is listed as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act, with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) recognizing it as a threatened species (NMFS 2011) The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) considers it a species of special concern, and in August 1997, NMFS identified 15 population units called Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) The Carmel River falls within the South-Central California Coast (SCCC) ESU, which is designated as threatened Additionally, the Critical Habitat for steelhead in the Carmel River (established in 2005) includes all accessible reaches of the river, even areas upstream of the Los Padres Dam (CDFW).

Figure 2-33 Biogeographic Population Groups (BPGs) in the South-Central California Coast Steelhead

Recovery Planning Area (after Boughton et al 2007b) (National Marine Fisheries Service 2013)

The Carmel River supports the largest run of approximately 27 anadromous streams within the SCCC DPS, making it a critical habitat for steelhead recovery Unlike many smaller streams in the DPS with limited data, the Carmel River has long-term monitoring data on adult returns and juvenile abundance, highlighting its importance for conservation efforts Most other creeks within the DPS have undocumented run sizes, which are estimated to be in the low hundreds or fewer, whereas counts at the SCD range from low to high hundreds, emphasizing the significance of the Carmel River as the primary steelhead habitat in the region.

According to CDWR 2012, the life history and population trends of SCCCS in the Carmel River watershed are detailed, highlighting key aspects of their ecology The article discusses the primary factors that limit steelhead populations in this region, providing in-depth insights into environmental and anthropogenic influences affecting their survival and recovery.

Steelhead Limiting Factors Analysis section

Annual monitoring by MPWMD indicates that the Carmel River steelhead population has seen some recovery since the last drought and past water management practices Despite overall improvements since the 1990 Mitigation Program's inception, data reveals a decline in adult steelhead runs from 2001 to 2012 The spawning population increased from a handful of fish to nearly 900 adults between 1992 and 2001, but then declined sharply to 222 adults by 2007, with a brief rebound in 2008 The population faced a dramatic drop to just 95 and 157 adults in 2009 and 2010, followed by a partial recovery to over 450 adults in 2011 and 2012, slightly above the long-term average.

Recent redd surveys below the SCD confirm that the spawning habitat in the lower river has significantly improved over the past 21 years, with adults now spawning in the lower river instead of passing the SCD fish counting station Additionally, juvenile steelhead rescued by MPWMD from the lower river that survive to adulthood are more likely to return to spawn in the lower river rather than migrating upstream past the SCD During the 2011-2012 migration season, MPWMD installed a fish counting station funded by a CDFW grant to better understand whether more adults are spawning in the lower river Although the reasons for the apparent decline in adult returns at SCD remain unclear, it is likely due to a combination of factors, including habitat improvements and migratory behavior changes (MPWMD 2012).

 Improved spawning conditions in the lower Carmel River, encouraging fish to spawn before they reach the counter at the dam;

 Spring flow variability such as low flow conditions that could dewater redds prematurely or high flows that could either deposit sediment over redds or completely wash them out;

 Variable lagoon conditions, caused by artificial manipulation of the sandbar and/or naturally occurring periods of low winter flows;

Impediments to adult and smolt migration routes include seasonal barriers and inadequate passage facilities, which hinder fish movement Additionally, intermittent periods of low flow create critical riffles below the Narrows during the normal winter-spring migration season, further obstructing successful migration Addressing these issues is essential for maintaining healthy fish populations and ensuring effective connectivity within the river ecosystem.

 Low densities of juvenile fish in 2004, 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 affecting subsequent adult populations;

Legal fishing has ongoing but limited impacts on fish populations, with incidental mortality estimated at approximately 0.5 to 1.5% during catch-and-release activities for adults in winter Additionally, spring and summer fishing for juvenile steelhead in the upper watershed may slightly reduce adult spawning stocks and the number of juveniles reaching the ocean Illegal poaching activities also pose a threat to fish populations, underscoring the need for effective enforcement and conservation efforts.

Monitoring of juvenile steelhead populations along the Carmel River reveals significant variability in fish density across eleven sites below Los Padres Dam, with levels fluctuating from less than 0.40 to over 1.00 fish per foot of stream, typical of healthy, well-stocked steelhead streams During the 2011-2012 MPWMD mitigation reporting period, the average population density was notably below the long-term average of 0.81 fish per foot, primarily due to low adult returns in 2009-2010 The recovery and fluctuation of juvenile steelhead populations in the Carmel River Watershed are closely linked to factors such as adult migration patterns and environmental conditions.

 Improvements in streamflow patterns, due to favorable natural fluctuations, exemplified by relatively high base-flow conditions since 1995; page 101 January 17, 2017

Non-native species

Carmel Valley’s favorable climate supports the growth of many non-native plant species, which can disrupt local ecosystems by altering nutrient and hydrological cycles and increasing wildfire risks These invasive plants outcompete native species, threatening biodiversity and ecosystem health Effective management requires public awareness and active participation from residents and natural resource managers alike To combat these challenges, the Monterey County Weed Management Area (WMA) was established to identify and map the most problematic invasive weeds, implement prevention and eradication projects, and educate the community about the impacts of non-native plants.

New non-native species are frequently reported in Monterey County, with many observed within the Carmel River watershed each year These invasive plants can disrupt local ecosystems and threaten native biodiversity Key non-native plant species found in the watershed include various invasive varieties that negatively impact the natural habitat Monitoring and managing these species are essential to protect the health and integrity of the Carmel River ecosystem.

1 Field mustard and wild radish (Brassica rapa & Raphanus sativus)

7 Blue gum eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus)

Non-native fishes found in the Carmel River (MPWMD 1994) are listed below

11 Red swamp crayfish (Procambarus clarkia)

Limited research has directly assessed predation on native wildlife along the Carmel River and its watershed However, non-native predators like rats, cats, and wild boars are known to significantly threaten native terrestrial and aquatic species in similar habitats The Carmel River region hosts various non-native terrestrial and bird species, which may pose additional risks to native ecosystems (MPWMD, 1994).

2 European house sparrows, Passer domesticus page 132 January 17, 2017