APPENDIX D.  FISH AND AQUATIC LIFE

D.1  INTRODUCTION

This appendix updates the impact analysis in Chapter 8 of the 1994 Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Final Environmental Impact Report and Statement, also known as the 1994 New Los Padres (NLP) environmental impact report (EIR) (Monterey Peninsula Water Management District [MPWMD] 1994a).  An update is needed in this supplemental EIR (SEIR) for the Carmel River Dam and Reservoir Project (CRDRP) to reflect potential changes in impacts resulting from several factors:

 

n    The status of steelhead has changed; the species is now listed as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA).

 

n    The project purposes have been revised; the purposes are now to provide drought protection to existing water users within the California-American Water Company (Cal‑Am) service area, legalize existing Cal‑Am diversions from the Carmel River basin, and provide adequate streamflow to protect public trust resources of the Carmel River Basin.  The CRDRP would entail a maximum Cal‑Am production limit of 17,641 acre-feet per year (af/yr) compared to 21,000 af/yr with the NLP project.

 

n    Total storage in San Clemente Reservoir has changed from 796 af in 1984 (with flashboards raised) to 147 af in 1998 (with flashboards permanently lowered) as a result of sedimentation and operational changes.

 

n    The configuration and operation of San Clemente Dam have been revised to reflect Cal-Am’s decision that flashboards would no longer be installed at the dam to increase storage during spring months.  Historically, the raising of flashboards at San Clemente Dam delayed or blocked downstream passage of steelhead during spring months (MPWMD 1994a).  Following implementation of the San Clemente Dam Seismic Retrofit Project, a separate project planned by Cal‑Am, the flashboards would no longer be raised, which could improve passage conditions.

 

n    The period of hydrologic record (the historic period used to analyze the effects of simulated streamflow on the steelhead life cycle with the CRDRP and under no-project conditions) has changed.  For the purpose of this analysis, a 39‑year historical record (1958‑1996) at the U.S. Geological Survey gage at Robles del Rio has been used (in contrast to the reconstructed 91‑year record [1902‑1992] of flows that was used in the 1994 NLP EIR) (SWRCB Order WR 98-04).

 

n    The schedule of surface diversions at San Clemente Dam and groundwater diversions in Aquifers 3 and 4 have changed to reflect current Cal‑Am operations under the Annual Memorandum of Agreement between Cal‑Am, the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG), and MPWMD and in compliance with SWRCB Order No. 95‑10.

 

n    This appendix includes an analysis of how changes in streamflow could affect the diversity of aquatic insect life and production of food for the juvenile steelhead population in the Carmel River (SWRCB Order 98-04). 

 

This appendix is organized according to the outline of Chapter 8 in the 1994 NLP EIR, updated and revised to reflect the items described above.  To avoid interfering with the continuity of the text, tables and figures appear at the end of this appendix.

 

D.2  SETTING

 

D.2.1  AQUATIC RESOURCES OF THE CARMEL RIVER

In general, the Carmel River supports a low diversity of aquatic invertebrates.  The local distribution and abundance of invertebrate populations is limited by the annual reduction in streamflows; drying of the river (which usually extends approximately 9 miles upstream) from the lagoon to the Narrows; high flows during winter and spring; and the transport and deposition of coarse sand, which prevents organisms from colonizing lower portions of the river.  A study of the benthic (i.e., bottom-dwelling) invertebrate fauna found six orders of aquatic insects, represented by 59 species, and eight noninsect orders, represented by 15 species.  Of the noninsect species, the crayfish (Pacifasticus leniusculus) is the largest (Fields 1984).

 

The Carmel River contains a diverse, but limited, assemblage of amphibious and reptilian species, including the California red‑legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii), California newt (Triturus torosus),  Pacific treefrog (Hyla regilla), bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana), western toad (Bufo boreas), western pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata), and possibly the foothill yellow‑legged frog (Rana boylei).  Appendix E, “Vegetation and Terrestrial Wildlife Update”, outlines the status of amphibians and reptiles that are listed as threatened, endangered, or species of special concern.

 

D.2.2  EXISTING FISH RESOURCES

The Carmel River supports populations of steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), Pacific lamprey (Entosphenus tridentatus), river lamprey (Lampetra ayresi), Coast Range sculpin (Cottus aleuticus), prickly sculpin (Cottus asper), Sacramento hitch (Lavinia exilicauda), threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus), Sacramento blackfish (Orthodon microlepidotus), starry flounder (Platichthys stellatus), shiner perch (Cymatogaster aggregata), Pacific staghorn sculpin (Leptocottus armatus) (in the lagoon and lower river), brown trout (Salmo trutta), goldfish (Carassius auratus), green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis), carp (Cyprinus carpio), black bullhead (Ictalunus melas), and large-mouth bass (Micropterus salmoides).  One sighting of striped bass (Moroni saxitillus) in the Carmel River Lagoon indicates that this species is an infrequent visitor.

 

California state law and California Fish and Game Commission policies stipulate that healthy steelhead populations shall be protected or restored by controlling the harvest of adults, providing suitable spawning grounds, and maintaining rearing habitat for juvenile steelhead.  The survival of the Carmel River population, however, is threatened by the development of water resources within the Carmel River Basin, the recent periods of drought, and other environmental problems.  DFG has expressed concern that the steelhead population in the Carmel River is threatened with becoming a remnant run (California Department of Fish and Game 1986, Snider 1983).  DFG’s policy and goal for managing the steelhead resource is to “maintain it as a self‑sustaining resource and to restore it as much as possible to its historic level of productivity” (California Department of Fish and Game 1986).  For this goal to be accomplished, environmental problems that limit habitat and reduce opportunities for adult migration and juvenile emigration will have to be corrected.  The correction of these problems will probably benefit other indigenous fish populations and aquatic resources as well.

 

D.2.3  LISTING STATUS OF STEELHEAD

In August 1996, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) published a notice in the Federal Register summarizing its status review of steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) populations in Washington, Oregon, Idaho and California.  NMFS identified 15 geographic Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) within the species’ range, six of which are in California.  The 15 steelhead populations were categorized on the basis of genetic similarity and similarity in life history patterns correlated to rainfall patterns and topography.  As a result of the review, NMFS proposed five ESUs for listing as threatened and five more for listing as endangered under the federal ESA.  Endangered status means that steelhead within the listed ESUs were believed likely to become extinct without protective action.  A threatened listing means that steelhead within the designated ESUs were believed likely to warrant listing as endangered in the foreseeable future unless conditions for the ESUs were improved.

 

On August 18, 1997, NMFS listed steelhead in four ESUs as threatened species and steelhead in two ESUs as endangered species.  Listing decisions affecting steelhead in other ESUs were deferred until February-March 1998, while additional scientific information was evaluated.  On February 26, 1998, NMFS proposed two additional ESUs for listing.  On March 13, 1998, NMFS approved two ESU listings that had been deferred in August 1997.  As of April 1998, steelhead populations in nine ESUs have been listed or proposed as threatened or endangered.  The 15 ESUs identified by NMFS and their current listing status, including date of action when appropriate, are as follows:

 

n    Puget Sound:  not presently at risk

n    Olympic Peninsula:  not presently at risk

n    Southwest Washington:  not presently at risk

n    Lower Columbia River:  listed as threatened (March 13, 1997)

n    Upper Willamette River:  proposed for listing as threatened (February 26, 1998)

n    Oregon Coast:  not presently at risk

n    Klamath Mountains Province:  not presently at risk

n    Northern California:  not presently at risk

n    Central California Coast:  listed as threatened (August 18, 1997)

n    South Central California Coast:  listed as threatened (August 18, 1997)

n    Southern California:  listed as endangered (August 18, 1997)

n    Central Valley:  listed as threatened (March 13, 1998)

n    Middle Columbia River:  proposed for listing as threatened (February 26, 1998)

n    Upper Columbia River:  listed as endangered (August 18, 1997)

n    Snake River Basin:  listed as threatened (August 18, 1997)

 

NMFS considers steelhead in the Carmel River to be part of the South Central California Coast ESU, which includes all naturally spawned populations (and their progeny) in streams from the Pajaro River (inclusive), in Santa Cruz County, to (but not including) the Santa Maria River, in San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties.  It includes such rivers as the Salinas, Carmel, Big Sur, Little Sur, and Arroyo Seco, as well as significant creeks such as Willow Creek near Pigeon Point, Arroyo de la Cruz near San Simeon, and Santa Rosa Creek near Cambria.

 

Although Carmel River steelhead is now listed as a threatened species under the ESA, regulations prohibiting “take” (i.e., killing of, damage to, or harassment of individuals of a protected species) have not yet been adopted.  Currently, NMFS is promulgating rules under Section 4(d) of the ESA that will extend specific protective provisions of Section 9 of that act to the listed ESUs.  Under the ESA, NMFS has the legal flexibility to work with state agencies and local governments in developing Section 4(d) rules to permit activities that represent incidental (i.e., minimal and inadvertent) take of the protected species, an option not available for a species with endangered status.  The Section 4(d) rule allows NMFS to grant its authority to manage the listed species to state and local agencies as responsible parties.  NMFS has yet to publish the Section 4(d) rules.  It is MPWMD’s understanding that the rules may be available by the end of 1998.

 

According to NMFS, the abundance of steelhead in the South Central California Coast ESU has declined from a historic maximum of 25,000 returning adults to fewer than 500 currently.  From December 1992 to February 1998, the Carmel River and most tributaries below Los Padres Dam were closed to all fishing year round to protect steelhead runs, which had been nearly extirpated during the severe drought from 1987 through 1991.  However, more favorable Carmel River flow conditions following the drought and rescue efforts for juvenile steelhead in the lower reaches of the river have allowed substantial recovery of the steelhead population.  The fish counter at San Clemente Dam has provided steelhead counts over the dam for the last 5 years, and longer term data have been collected at the fish trap at the base of Los Padres Dam.  The San Clemente fish counter tallied 283 steelhead in 1993, 91 in 1994, 310 in 1995, 438 in 1996, 775 in 1997, and 861 in 1998, indicating that the population has been increasing steadily since the 1987‑1992 dry period.  The total adult returns were somewhat higher because some fish spawned downstream of the San Clemente Dam.

 

D.2.4  CALIFORNIA STEELHEAD MANAGEMENT DECISIONS IN RELATION TO NMFS JURISDICTION AND RECOVERY OF THE CARMEL RIVER STEELHEAD POPULATION

In December 1997, the California Fish and Game Commission adopted new sportfishing regulations for anadromous fisheries throughout the coastal region of California.  On February 8, 1998, the Carmel River winter-run steelhead sport fishery was re‑opened with catch‑and‑release angling, subject to gear restrictions and with the possibility of closures based on the level of streamflow.  Gear was restricted to artificial lures with single, barbless hooks and zero “take”.  (“Take” is defined under the California Fish and Game Code to mean possession.  This is in contrast to “take” under the federal ESA, which is defined more broadly to include the following activities:  harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or any attempt to engage in any of these specifically enumerated activities.  Under the ESA, harassment and harm have been extended to include activities that affect habitat that supports listed species.)

 

DFG’s goal in setting these requirements and regulations was to restore the adult steelhead run to more than 2,000 fish returning annually to San Clemente Dam.  This would be a 2,000‑adult steelhead escapement with an estimated maximum 40% take of adults by recreational angling.  Therefore, the DFG goal was to eventually manage the sport fishery to produce an annual return of 3,400 or more adult steelhead.  (D. W. Alley & Associates 1993.)  The previous position of DFG had been to delay reopening the steelhead fishery until after 2 consecutive years in which 1,000 or more adults reached San Clemente Dam.  The current judgment of DFG is that the previous goal was too high, and the agency has recommended reopening the steelhead sport fishery (McEwan pers. comm.).

 

Currently, fishing is allowed in the Carmel River mainstem downstream of Rosie’s Bridge at Robles del Rio and Esquiline Roads from November 16 through the end of February, but only on Saturdays, Sundays, Wednesdays, legal holidays, and opening and closing days.  The regulations include the possibility of a low-flow closure (amendment of 14 CCR Section 8.00), whereby fishing is prohibited when flows fall below 150 cubic feet per second (cfs), measured at the USGS gaging station near Carmel.  The decision to open or close the river to fishing will be made only once per week on Tuesdays:  The stream gage will be checked on Tuesdays; if the river flow is 150 cfs or greater, angling is allowed until the following Tuesday.  The fishing status will not change until the following Tuesday, regardless of whether the streamflow declines below 150 cfs during the week.  Future Section 4(d) rules may be established, however, that do not conform to these regulations.

 

Catch‑and‑release angling for steelhead will continue, with DFG approval, unless adult returns show a precipitous decline (McEwan pers. comm.).  NMFS is likely to prohibit all fishing for steelhead under Section 4(d) rule protection until populations are restored.  However, NMFS could pass regulatory authority to the State of California (DFG) at some point while maintaining oversight on management decisions affecting ESUs or individual streams.  The state would be required to demonstrate that steelhead populations are growing and that fishing would not reduce the growth rate to the point of threatening extinction before NMFS would allow fishing to occur.  (Mobley pers. comm.) 

 

The reopening of steelhead fishing could delay the recovery of the Carmel River steelhead population, but it is presently unknown how many years, if any, that population recovery would be delayed from reaching the level of restoration, if the state regulations continued to allow steelhead fishing.  MPWMD’s position is that prudent management includes prohibiting angling until the steelhead population has fully recovered, especially considering the threatened status of this species and the continuing financial expenditure and human effort to restore the Carmel River steelhead population.  Without a brood stock program or other means to ensure reproduction, the occurrence of multiyear droughts during a delayed recovery period would increase the risk of extinction.  (Mobley pers. comm.)  DFG believes that a significant delay in population recovery is unlikely as a result of the limited nature of the reopened fishery and in light of the active protection of the Carmel River steelhead by local sportfishing groups.  The effects of the sport fishery should be closely monitored and appropriate action taken if there is evidence of detrimental effects (Coulston pers. comm.).

 

Other state fishing regulations effective March 1, 1998, through February 28, 2000, affect the Carmel River steelhead fishery.  For the Carmel River and tributaries above Los Padres Dam, a daily catch limit of five trout, no more than two of which may be rainbow trout, may be taken from the last Saturday in April through November 15.  The minimum size limit is 10 inches total length for rainbow trout.  Only artificial lures with barbless hooks may be used.  These rainbow trout are juvenile steelhead, for the most part.  For the Carmel River mainstem below Los Padres Dam to Rosie’s Bridge (Robles del Rio and Esquiline Roads) and Carmel River tributaries (except Garzas Creek), all fishing is closed all year.

 

The state‑adopted fishing regulations may be inconsistent with the federal goal of restoring the steelhead population in the Carmel River to a self‑sustaining level.  Concerns have been raised by MPWMD that fishing will significantly affect spawning adult steelhead by increased harassment, potential take by handling, migration delays resulting from exhaustion after release and associated failure to successfully migrate upstream, disruption of nest digging and egg laying by gravid females, interference with adult males attempting to fertilize the released eggs, and increased poaching (MPWMD 1997e).  Previous studies have shown that angling efficiency increases to high levels at streamflows lower than 200 cfs, which was the basis for the previously adopted angling cutoff at 200 cfs by DFG in 1985.  Reducing the cutoff to 150 cfs would result in higher catch rates and harassment of adult spawners, especially in low‑flow years (P. W. Alley & Associates 1993).  Exacerbating the steelhead’s vulnerability to catch is the fact that Carmel River flows commonly decline rapidly following peak flows.  This could result in angling being allowed during periods with flows significantly lower than 150 cfs between Tuesdays, when the streamflow is measured for purposes of opening or closing the river to angling.

 

Angling is allowed on approximately 14.7 miles of the Carmel River mainstem; 8 miles (33%) of the reach between Esquiline and Shulte Roads have suitable spawning habitat that could be disturbed by anglers.  Steelhead anglers have been frequently observed to ford streams at the shallow tails of pools, where steelhead commonly bury their eggs for incubation.  Trampling of nests reduces the survival of steelhead eggs.  The take of juvenile steelhead upstream of Los Padres Dam allowed by California regulations could also adversely affect the size of the adult population.

For the reasons stated above, MPWMD’s position is that the management goal should be to increase the adult steelhead population to the level needed to saturate available spawning and rearing habitats before any angling is allowed.  Attainment of an adult population size sufficient to saturate available spawning and rearing habitat annually should be the definition for population recovery.  Based on available habitat for juveniles and spawning adults, estimates of the potential adult run at San Clemente Dam range from 1,800 to 4,200 fish (Snider 1983, Kelley et al. 1987).  The recent adult population returning to San Clemente Dam is only 17-43% of the low end of the potential run, indicating that under current conditions, insufficient numbers of adult steelhead are available to saturate available spawning and rearing habitat.

 

D.2.5  FEDERAL REGULATORY PROCESSES ASSOCIATED WITH PERMITTING OF THE PROPOSED CARMEL RIVER DAM UNDER THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT

The ESA listing of steelhead involves federal protection and a requirement that other federal agencies avoid activities that further jeopardize the species.  The species is considered in jeopardy if activities or new projects put the species at risk of extinction.  Any project or activity that would reduce the species’ present population size would be found to put the species in jeopardy.  In the case of steelhead, the Carmel River population must increase before it is safe from the risk of extinction (Mobley pers. comm.).  Therefore, under the ESA, any project proponent must show that its project activities would not prevent the population from growing to the point of restoration (i.e., defined as the level at which the species would be safe from extinction).  The restored steelhead population size would have to be sufficient to survive the cyclical impacts of drought and angling pressure on adults.

 

Any project requiring a federal action, such as extension of the Clean Water Action Section 404 permit for the CRDRP by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), must conform to the Section 7 requirements of the ESA.  Section 7 requires consultation and coordination of actions between federal agencies.  In this case, consultation is required among the Corps, NMFS, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).  The USFWS must be consulted because the California red‑legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii), which inhabits the Carmel River area, is also a threatened species and its protection is the responsibility of the USFWS.  The purpose of the Section 7 consultation is for the Corps to obtain take permits for protected species under the ESA.  Under Section 7, the Corps is given the responsibility to enforce the conditions of the permit.

 

As a result of the Section 7 process, NMFS and USFWS will provide biological opinions, which include conditions and requirements for implementing the proposed project.  These conditions and requirements will be designed to protect the recovery and sustainability of federally listed species in the Carmel River watershed and to prevent these goals from being jeopardized by construction and operation of the proposed project.  NMFS will take into account the entire water project on the Carmel River, including operation of diversions at San Clemente Dam and fish passage at that dam (Mobley pers. comm.).  NMFS will also consider the present and anticipated future water uses in the watershed, in addition to the proposed project.  The biological opinion will address broader issues than those discussed in this EIR, which primarily addresses the impacts of the new dam.  NMFS must consider the cumulative impacts of all water projects on the continued existence of the Carmel River steelhead population.

D.2.6  STEELHEAD LIFE CYCLE

Steelhead are anadromous fish, which means that they migrate to the ocean as juveniles; the adults live in the ocean and migrate into the Carmel River to spawn (Figure D‑1).  As indicated by adult counts at San Clemente Dam, in the past the migration of adults started with the beginning of major storms in late fall or early winter and continued through March or, in some years, April.  Following upstream migration, the female steelhead establish territories, dig nests in the bottom of the stream, and deposit eggs that are then fertilized by one or more males.  In the Carmel River, adults have been observed spawning from February through March, but they probably spawn from as early as mid‑January to as late as early April (Dettman and Kelley 1986).

 

Eggs buried in nests incubate 3-8 weeks, depending on water temperature, and hatch in late winter or early spring.  The newly hatched fry reside in the gravel for as long as 2 weeks, emerge from the nest, and disperse into quiet areas along the stream margin, where they begin to feed.

 

Steelhead fry grow rapidly during spring and soon move into swifter, deeper water in riffles, runs, and the upstream and downstream ends of pools.  Throughout late spring, summer, and fall, the juveniles feed on immature aquatic insects or adult terrestrial insects that fall into the river.

 

Beginning with the first rains of the fall, some juveniles move downstream.  During the following spring, many juveniles change into smolts (juvenile steelhead that have adapted to seawater), if they have attained sufficient size, and emigrate into the ocean.  Other juveniles remain in fresh water for 1-2 more years before they enter the ocean, depending on their growth rates.

 

Steelhead from the Carmel River spend 1-4 years in the ocean before returning to spawn.  Unlike other Pacific salmon, not all steelhead die after spawning.  Many migrate back downstream as kelts and reenter the ocean.  Some of the larger and older adults reenter the ocean as kelts and migrate upstream again; these are called “repeat spawners”.  Occasionally, juvenile steelhead mature in fresh water and spawn without migrating to the ocean.  This occurs most frequently during droughts when juveniles are trapped in the river and cannot emigrate to the ocean.  Figure D‑2 illustrates the extent of steelhead spawning habitat in the Carmel River Basin.  In most years, adult steelhead spawn in 62.5 miles of stream habitat: 24.5 miles of the mainstem, 30 miles of primary tributaries, and 7.5 miles of secondary tributaries.

 

Spawning habitat in the mainstem upstream of the Narrows totals 120,000 square feet: 50,000 square feet in the reach from the Narrows to San Clemente Dam (41% of total), 10,000 square feet from San Clemente Reservoir to Los Padres Dam (9% of total), and 60,000 square feet upstream of Los Padres Reservoir (50% of total).  The quantity of spawning habitat in the mainstem below San Clemente Dam and between San Clemente Reservoir and Los Padres Dam is limited by the entrapment of spawning gravels in the existing reservoirs.  Figure D‑3 illustrates the extent of juvenile rearing habitat in the Carmel River Basin.  In most years, 49 miles of rearing habitat are available, with 20 miles on the mainstem, 24 miles on primary tributaries, and 5 miles on secondary tributaries.

 

The rearing habitat in the mainstem of the Carmel River can be divided into three reaches based on the physical character of the channel and summer flow regimes:

 

n   Upper Mainstem—Most rearing habitat upstream of Los Padres Dam is within the Ventana Wilderness area, where river flow is unregulated, roads have not caused erosion, the gradient is steep (320 feet per mile), and bedrock outcrops control the course of the channel.  Deep pools separated by short, shallow glides and long, cobble/boulder riffles and runs are common.

 

n    Middle Mainstem—The configuration of the reach between the dams is controlled by bedrock outcrops and large boulders.  The substrate is a mixture of cobbles and boulders and lacks a natural source of gravel because most of it is trapped behind Los Padres Dam.  During summer, water stored in Los Padres Dam is released into the channel and diverted or released at San Clemente Dam.  By agreement with DFG, Cal‑Am maintains a minimum flow of 5 cfs below Los Padres Dam.  Because of variation in natural accretion, the augmented dry-season flows range from 5 cfs in critical years to 15 cfs in wet years.

 

n    Lower Mainstem—Below San Clemente Dam, the river is controlled primarily by bedrock outcrops downstream to near Paso Hondo Road (Powell’s Hole).  Another factor is the interaction of alluvial deposits with stormflows that periodically rearrange, scour, and deposit bedload along the course of the river.  Beginning in 1984, MPWMD, DFG, and Cal‑Am negotiated an agreement to release water during the low‑flow season.  Releases have varied from 2.5 cfs to 10.0 cfs during the period between 1984 and 1998 and have improved aquatic habitat in the reaches downstream of San Clemente Dam.

 

Based on the Rearing Index (RI, a measure related to the square feet and quality of habitat) for age 0+ steelhead, 28% of the total rearing habitat is in the reach from the Narrows to San Clemente Dam, 33% is from San Clemente Reservoir to Los Padres Dam, and 39% is upstream of Los Padres Reservoir.  For yearling steelhead, 23% of the total rearing habitat is in the reach from the Narrows to San Clemente Dam, 20% is from San Clemente Reservoir to Los Padres Dam, and 57% is upstream of Los Padres Reservoir.  Basinwide, rearing habitat totals 12.9 million RI units for age 0+ steelhead and 5.9 million units for yearling steelhead.  These totals do not include habitat in Pine Creek, Robinson Canyon, Garzas Creek, or Hitchcock Canyon.

 

D.2.7  STATUS OF STEELHEAD IN THE CARMEL RIVER

Before 1984, the steelhead run was primarily supported by habitat in the river and tributaries upstream of Robles del Rio where permanent, year-round streamflows and substrate conditions are suitable for juveniles throughout the summer.  Some adults spawned in the river below Robles del Rio, but in most years the progeny died when the river dried up during the summer.  Beginning in 1984, DFG, Cal‑Am, and MPWMD negotiated an annual memorandum of agreement (MOA) that specifies minimum streamflow releases from San Clemente Dam.  Since 1988, the scope of this agreement has been extended to include the following elements:

n    specifications for the maximum diversion that is allowed through Cal‑Am’s Carmel Valley Filter Plant during summer months;

 

n    a schedule for apportioning the spring inflows to fill San Clemente Reservoir, minimize diversions from the reservoir, and maximize releases to the river;

 

n    a schedule of releases and diversions for the late fall/winter period;

 

n    a maintenance pumping schedule for Cal‑Am wells upstream of the Narrows (river mile 9.5); and

 

n    a provision to pump Cal‑Am wells in the lower Carmel Valley (Aquifer Subunits 3 and 4) beginning with the well farthest downstream and progressing upstream as water demand increases.

 

The goal of these negotiations is to provide the maximum amount of juvenile habitat in the reach upstream of the Narrows, consistent with Cal‑Am’s need to divert water at San Clemente Dam for its service area upstream of the Narrows.

 

D.2.7.1  Historical Decline in Adult Steelhead

The most recent estimate of the total steelhead run in the Carmel River was 860 adults during 1984 (Dettman 1986).  Of the total, an estimated 480 fish (56% of the run) were harvested in the lower river, and about 380 fish migrated past San Clemente Dam.  During 1984, only 51 adults were trapped at the base of Los Padres Dam and transported upstream, and an unknown (but probably small) number of adults spawned in the river downstream of San Clemente Dam.  Previous estimates of the run at San Clemente Dam were 395 fish in 1974 and 1,287 fish in 1975 (Snider 1983) (Figure D-4).  A 1987 estimate was that the Carmel River could support a total run of about 3,500 adults upstream of San Clemente Dam (Kelley et al. 1987).  Comparing this estimate to the actual run of 860 fish in 1984 (Figure D-4) indicates that the river produced only 25% of its full potential that year.  A DFG report from 1983 arrived at a similar estimate of the percentage of decline in the run, but concluded that the basin had the potential to produce twice as many steelhead as were estimated in the 1987 report (Snider 1983).  Regardless of the absolute number of adults that can be supported in the river, general agreement exists that the run had declined substantially during the 20‑year period from 1974 to 1993.

 

D.2.7.2  Impact of the 1987‑1992 Dry Period

The 1987‑1991 drought and its subsequent effects, combined with diversions totaling more than inflow, affected natural opportunities for upstream migration of adults and downstream emigration of juveniles during the period from 1987 through 1992.  Opportunities for upstream migration were limited in 1987 and 1991, and no outflow through the river mouth occurred in 1988, 1989, and 1990.  Thus, sea‑run adults were unable to migrate upstream from the ocean to spawn during those years.  However, some adults from the 1987 sea run were landlocked and spawned during spring 1988 and 1989.  Wild, downmigrant smolts were landlocked in the mainstem and given supplemental food by members of the Carmel River Steelhead Association (CRSA) between Rosie’s Bridge and the Tularcitos Creek confluence.  Some of these wild fish reached sufficient size to spawn and were detected during spawning season at San Clemente Dam during the drought years without flow to the ocean.

 

The lack of sea‑run adults during 1988-1991 and critically low flows during spring months combined to reduce the population of emigrating smolts to remnant levels.  During late winter and spring of 1989, 1990, and 1991, the CRSA and MPWMD operated smolt migration traps and captured emigrating smolts in the river below the Narrows.  Fish were then transported to the lagoon or Carmel Bay and released.  During spring 1989, a total of approximately 200 smolt‑sized juveniles were trapped or captured in the lower river.  During spring 1990, a total of 162 smolts were captured, with most of the population emigrating during March.  During spring 1991, MPWMD staff rescued or trapped a total of 700 smolt-sized steelhead.  During 1989‑1991, some smolts were placed in the lagoon, most were released into the ocean, and some were used by the CRSA in its wild broodstock program.  Annual production of only 150‑700 smolt‑sized fish during 1989, 1990, and 1991 was the result of insufficient numbers of adult sea‑run fish spawning in the river during 1987, 1988, 1989, and 1990.

 

D.2.7.3  Recovery of Steelhead Population since 1993

Recently, the steelhead population has begun to recover from the effects of the 1987‑1991 drought.  Since 1991, MPWMD has monitored the number of adult steelhead passing San Clemente Dam and surveyed the population density of juvenile steelhead at several stations in the mainstem below Los Padres Reservoir.

 

Adult Steelhead Run at San Clemente Dam.  The 1997 and 1998 totals are the highest counts at San Clemente Dam since 1975 (Figure D‑4).  During the period from 1962 through 1975, visual counts of adult steelhead at San Clemente Dam averaged 780 fish and ranged from a low of 94 fish in 1972 to 1,350 fish in 1965.  Although not directly comparable to counts from the 1988-1997 period, the index from the 1962‑1975 period was six times the average count during the 1988‑1996 period, indicating that adult returns have not reached levels commonly counted before the 1976‑1977 drought.  Although the number of adults may not have recovered to historical levels, the trend of increasing numbers over the last 10 years indicates that the steelhead population is recovering from the impacts of the 1987‑1991 drought.

 

Juvenile Population Surveys.  Since fall 1990, MPWMD has surveyed the juvenile steelhead population in the Carmel River below Los Padres Dam.  This information is crucial to assess the success of adult reproduction and to determine whether freshwater habitats are fully seeded with juvenile steelhead.  The population is surveyed at eight stations in the 15‑mile‑long reach between Robinson Canyon Road Bridge and Los Padres Dam.  In this reach, the population density has increased from near zero in 1989 to approximately 100 fish per 100 lineal feet of stream (Figure D‑5), which is similar to or higher than densities in other coastal streams in Central and Northern California.  The 1997 juvenile steelhead density in the mainstem of the San Lorenzo River (Santa Cruz County) was 66 fish per 100 lineal feet for both the lower river from Highway 1 to the Boulder Creek confluence and the upper river to Waterman Gap (D. W. Alley & Associates 1998a).  The 1997 juvenile steelhead density in the lower mainstem of Soquel Creek (7.2 miles in Santa Cruz County) was 34 fish per 100 lineal fish.  The 1997 steelhead density in the upper east and west branches of Soquel Creek was 105 fish per 100 lineal feet, producing an overall density of 71 fish per 100 lineal feet in Soquel Creek (D. W. Alley & Associates 1998b).  The 1997 juvenile steelhead density in Santa Rosa Creek (San Luis Obispo County) was 78 fish per 100 lineal feet (D. W. Alley & Associates 1998c).

 

D.2.8  FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH THE HISTORICAL DECLINE OF STEELHEAD

Past reviews of environmental problems in the Carmel River have led to an understanding of the principal factors that constrain the steelhead population in the Carmel River (Dettman 1991):

 

n    Inadequate passage facilities for adults and juveniles at Los Padres Dam—Fish may be injured when passing over the dam at low flows.

 

n    Diversion of surface flows at San Clemente Dam—Rearing habitat for young-of-the-year and yearlings is reduced when riverflow is reduced substantially below San Clemente Dam as a result of diversions.

 

n    Subsurface diversion of streamflows that percolate into the Carmel Valley Aquifer between San Clemente Dam and the lagoon—Declines in spring flows reduce habitat for juveniles, impair smolt emigration, and threaten emigrating fish by stranding them in drying pools.

 

n    Reduction in the number of trees and canopy of the riparian forest downstream of Robles del Rio—Reducing the shade over the river reduces the food available for juvenile steelhead, increases water temperatures, and reduces the quantity and quality of steelhead habitat.

 

n    Increased erosion of sand and gravel from denuded riverbanks by winter flows— Erosion destroys steelhead habitat by filling in spaces between cobbles and boulders needed as cover for juvenile fish and as habitat for the aquatic insects on which they feed.

 

n    The interruption of streamflow at San Clemente Dam and blockage of smolt emigration—Raising the spillway gates in spring may impair steelhead emigration while the reservoir is filling and reduces streamflow downstream of the dam.  This may result in temporary or seasonally complete blockage of smolt migration past San Clemente Dam in some years.

 

n   Deposition of sand and reduced freshwater inflow into the lagoon—Increased quantities of sand and reduced quantities of water reduce habitat for adults during winter, for smolts during spring, and for juveniles during summer and fall.  These factors result in high water temperatures, low dissolved oxygen levels, high carbon dioxide levels, shallow water depths, and high levels of bird predation.

 

n    Insufficient flows for upstream migration of adults during droughts—Because of the extraction of groundwater during summer months, the aquifer either does not fill during drought years or fills later during the following wet season.  This delays or eliminates flows needed for upstream migration in the following January, February, and March.

 

These factors and the ways in which they reduce the steelhead population are discussed in more detail in MPWMD Planning Memorandum 91‑01, which is hereby incorporated by reference (Dettman 1991).

 

D.2.9  EXISTING MITIGATION PROGRAMS

D.2.9.1  Interim Relief Plan (1988‑1990)

To mitigate for the impacts of exporting water from the Carmel Basin, MPWMD and Cal‑Am signed an Interim Relief Plan and Agreement in November 1988.  The agreement specified several programs, including the transport of smolts in critically dry years and the rescue of stranded juveniles during normal years, as mitigation measures to reduce impacts on the steelhead population.  The programs were implemented in fall 1989 and were superseded by measures adopted as part of MPWMD’s existing Water Allocation Mitigation Program.

 

D.2.9.2  Water Allocation Program Mitigation Plan (1991‑Present)

MPWMD’s Water Allocation Program Final EIR (adopted in November 1990) described how existing water supply practices, despite efforts to reduce impacts, result in significant adverse impacts on steelhead and other resources of the Carmel River environment (MPWMD 1990b).  As a result, MPWMD adopted a comprehensive 5‑year mitigation program that began in July 1991.  The program was reviewed in October 1996 and extended for another 5‑year period (July 1996‑June 2001) (MPWMD 1996c).  The comprehensive Water Allocation Program mitigation plan for 1991‑1996 is provided in Appendix 2‑D of Volume III of the 1994 NLP EIR.  The program entails the following mitigation measures, which incorporate and supersede the Interim Relief Agreement:

 

n    Expand program to capture emigrating smolts in spring.

 

n    Prevent stranding of fall/winter juvenile migrants.

 

n    Rescue juveniles downstream of Robles del Rio in summer.

 

n    Conduct smolt mortality study at Los Padres Dam.

 

n    Implement program to rescue kelts during late spring/early summer.

 

n    Expand goals for MOA process, including provisions for limiting diversions at San Clemente Dam, maximizing releases at San Clemente Dam, and shifting Cal‑Am production to lower portions of Aquifer Subunits 3 and 4.

 

D.2.10  EXISTING AND PLANNED FISH PASSAGE FACILITIES

Maintenance of a large, healthy steelhead population in the Carmel Basin depends on the survival rates of adult steelhead and juvenile steelhead during their annual migrations.  As indicated by counts at San Clemente and Los Padres Dams, most adults migrate upstream during January, February, and March.  In some years, when seasonal flows are early or late, adults also migrate upstream during December or April.

 

As shown by counts of juvenile steelhead in the lower Carmel River and in nearby Waddell Creek, juveniles migrate downstream during all months (Shapovalov and Taft 1954, Dettman and Kelley 1986).  However, most juveniles migrate downstream in one of three distinct groups:  age 0+ fingerlings displaced during late spring and early summer (May through July); large age 1+, 2+, and 3+ juveniles that passively migrate downstream during late fall and early winter; and smolts that actively emigrate downstream during late winter and spring (March through May).

 

The existing passage facilities are a steep pool and weir ladder at San Clemente Dam and a short ladder and trap at Los Padres Dam.  MPWMD, as part of the original Water Allocation Mitigation Program, was to construct and operate three passage facilities to mitigate existing impacts of diversions on migrating steelhead.  These facilities were a portable seasonal trapping facility downstream of the Narrows, a holding facility near Schulte Road, and a portable acclimation facility in Carmel River Lagoon.

 

D.2.10.1  Facilities at San Clemente Dam

Fish Ladder.  Cal‑Am owns and operates an 85‑foot‑high fish ladder at San Clemente Dam.  Although its effects are not well documented, the ladder appears to provide adequate passage for adults migrating upstream and juveniles migrating downstream.  This opinion is based on the counts of adult steelhead made during 1962‑1975 and in 1984, on observations of fish climbing the ladder, and on the fact that the ladder operated for about 30 years with no evidence of a declining steelhead run.  However, several problems have been identified: 

 

n    The drop between pools does not meet current design standards. 

 

n    No attraction flows are provided at the base of the ladder.

 

n    Downcutting of the river below the dam has reduced the water surface elevation in the afterbay.

 

n    Fish occasionally jump out of the lower bays of the ladder.

 

n    Water depths through the existing inundation zone are insufficient because of siltation of San Clemente Reservoir.

 

Spillway Gates.  Although not specifically part of fish passage facilities, the operation of spillway gates at San Clemente Dam has adversely affected adults and juveniles emigrating downstream to the ocean during spring months.  Fish have been injured when they spill over the top of spillway gates, and downmigrants have been delayed because of difficulty in finding the gated opening that leads to the fish ladder.

 

D.2.10.2  Facilities at Los Padres Dam

Fish Ladder.  Cal‑Am owns and operates a 50‑foot‑long Denil ladder and fish trap at the base of Los Padres Dam.  Adults are dip‑netted, placed into a 80‑gallon tank, and transported upstream to the reservoir in trucks.  In 1982, a fish gabion barrier was placed just upstream from the ladder entrance to help prevent adults from passing into the plunge pool below the spillway.  Adults entering the existing facilities may become stressed as a result of being crowded into the small holding pool, being netting, being subjected to loud noises when the trap is opened and closed, or being subjected to crowding and high temperatures during transport.

 

Spillway.  No specific facilities were built at Los Padres Dam to pass juveniles and kelts steelhead downstream through the reservoir or over the dam.  Under existing conditions, emigrating juveniles and kelts can pass through the reservoir and down the spillway chute whenever the reservoir spills.  Conditions in the spillway or below it injure and harm emigrating juvenile steelhead, probably as the fish drop onto a bedrock outcrop below the spillway.  At high flows, fish may be injured by the high-velocity flows and rough concrete in the spillway.  In 1986, passage conditions were improved by installation of an 8‑inch-high concrete sill in the lower section of the spillway and a metal extension on the end of the spillway, and by removing a large boulder from the plunge pool at the base of the spillway.

 

As part of the Water Allocation Mitigation Program, in spring 1992, MPWMD measured direct mortality in the spillway at flows of 40-50 cfs.  Mortality was assessed by making releases of marked fish at the top and bottom of the spillway and recapturing the survivors of each group in a trap located 300 feet below the spillway.  Mortality averaged 27% and ranged from zero to 50% (Hanna and Dettman 1993).  If the average mortality rate of 27% in 600 feet (0.045% per foot) was representative of natural conditions, then all smolts in the river would be lost after migrating only 2,200 feet downstream.  Considering that the total distance from the reservoir to the ocean is 24.5 miles, or 168,000 feet, an overall mortality rate of 27% over 600 feet of channel is believed to be excessive.  This study led MPWMD to make additional improvements to the spillway:  In December 1993, a notch was cut into the spillway; in 1995, the bedrock outcrop was removed at the head of the plunge pool below the spillway.

 

D.2.10.3  Seasonal Trapping Facility

As part of the Water Allocation Mitigation Program, MPWMD operates a portable trap.  It is designed to be used when flows in March, April, and May are too low for successful smolt emigration or when the first rains of the year stimulate juvenile steelhead to migrate into the reach below the Narrows, where subsequent flows isolate and strand the fish.

 

The trap design includes a series of portable “V”‑shaped racks and fish screens placed across the stream to catch leaves and small debris and to guide migrants into the throat of a netted funnel, a 20‑foot-long section of 10-inch pipe, and a partially submerged box trap.  The trap can be operated up to a flow of approximately 40 cfs.

 

D.2.10.4  Holding Facility near Schulte Road

Trapped steelhead should not be held longer than overnight because they are stressed by sunlight and confinement.  For this reason, MPWMD’s original mitigation plan included a facility to hold juveniles temporarily before they were transported downstream to the lagoon or ocean.  In cooperation with Cal‑Am, MPWMD had proposed to modify a pond at the old Cal‑Am treatment plant near Schulte Road or construct a new pond at Garland Ranch Regional Park.  The design included a channel with an overflow that would allow fish to emigrate naturally if flow conditions improved in the river.  A streamside collector and pump with a capacity of 3 cfs was planned to divert surface flows for the facility. 

 

After these plans had been designed, the SWRCB, as part of Order No. WR 95‑10, directed Cal‑Am to conduct a feasibility study on bypassing a portion of the early seasonal inflow to Los Padres Dam (i.e., routing early seasonal inflow to the river and bypassing the dam) as a way of improving streamflows in the lower river following the first seasonal storms in late fall and early winter.  In July 1996, Cal‑Am contracted with MPWMD to conduct a feasibility study of bypassing early storms; this study is under way.  If bypassing early storms is feasible, it may not be necessary to construct a holding facility for operation during fall.  Because of this, MPWMD decided to postpone construction of a mid‑valley holding facility.

 

D.2.10.5  Acclimation Facility at Carmel River Lagoon

MPWMD’s original mitigation plan included a facility in the Carmel River Lagoon for holding smolts for up to 24 hours before releasing them into the ocean.  This would allow time for the smolts to acclimate to salt water and for MPWMD staff to release smolts during nighttime hours.  MPWMD purchased the equipment for this facility, which included a small, portable net pen identical to those used throughout in the Pacific Northwest for holding juvenile salmon in lagoons and bays.  In 1995, MPWMD obtained a permit from the California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) to operate the facility during spring months, but the facility was not needed because streamflow persisted throughout the spring emigration period.  The following year, DPR decided not to grant the facility a permit, citing visual and aesthetic problems with this site (Gray pers. comm.).  Currently, MPWMD is searching for an alternative site, but none has been found.  Until an alternative is found, MPWMD will continue to acclimate smolts to seawater over a short period (1-3 hours) before releasing them into the ocean.

 

D.3  HABITAT NEEDS, SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA, AND STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE

 

Maintenance of a large, vigorous steelhead population in the Carmel River depends on the existence of sufficient spawning and rearing habitat; suitability of flows for the upstream migration and spawning of adults; and successful incubation of eggs, rearing of juveniles, emigration of smolts from fresh water into the ocean, and passage of adults upstream and juveniles downstream over San Clemente and Los Padres Dams.

 

All water supply alternatives analyzed in previous environmental documents and in this SEIR may affect habitat or streamflows in the Carmel River.  Some alternatives, such as dams, could inundate or block spawning and rearing habitat.  Other non‑dam-related alternatives, such as desalination plants or increased groundwater extraction, may result in continued direct or subsurface diversion of streamflow, which can interfere with or block the steelhead life cycle.  Conversely, some alternatives would augment streamflow or reduce subsurface diversions and result in beneficial impacts on steelhead habitat.

 

Table D-1 identifies the criteria and standards of significance used in this SEIR.  These standards and criteria are marked with a check (ü) if they are identical to those used in the 1994 NLP EIR.  The criteria or standards without checks have been modified or revised based on new information.

 

As indicated in Figure D‑1, streamflow in the Carmel River affects five portions of the life cycle:  upstream migration of adults, spawning of adults, rearing of juveniles, downstream migration of juveniles during late fall and winter, and seaward emigration of smolts during spring.  The rest of this section provides background information regarding revisions to criteria for evaluating the significance of impacts on flows for spawning adults, the index of adult returns, and the steelhead sport fishery in the Carmel River.

 

D.3.1  FLOWS FOR SPAWNING ADULTS

The quality and quantity of spawning habitat are controlled primarily by streamflow, which creates an appropriate mosaic of suitable water depths and velocities over the streambed.  Other factors are the abundance and distribution of gravel and small cobbles, which must be small enough that the adult female can move them but large enough to resist scouring flows after the nest is constructed.

 

The impact of water supply operations on steelhead spawning habitat was examined in two reaches of the mainstem of the Carmel River: the 9.0‑mile reach from the Narrows to San Clemente Dam and the 5.4‑mile reach from San Clemente Reservoir to Los Padres Dam (see Appendix B, “Evaluation of Water Supply Alternatives”, and Appendix C, “Hydrology and Water Quality”, for maps of the water resources system).

 

The following sections address changes in preferences that have been made since 1994.

 

D.3.1.1  Downstream of San Clemente Dam

The relationship between steelhead spawning habitat and flow downstream of San Clemente Dam was studied by USFWS in 1980 and MPWMD in 1982 (Nakaji 1980, Dettman and Kelley 1986).  The results of these studies indicated that no spawning habitat would be available at flows of less than 40 cfs and that the amount of spawning habitat increased in direct proportion to flows up to about 150 cfs.  In 1992, MPWMD retained D. W. Alley and Associates to apply the USFWS Instream Flow Incremental Methodology (IFIM) to spawning habitat in the reach between the Narrows and San Clemente Dam.  This study found a relationship between weighted usable area (WUA) and streamflow.  In the 1994 NLP EIR, this relationship was applied to simulated mean monthly flows at the Narrows.

 

In 1996, MPWMD again retained D. W. Alley & Associates to estimate the WUA of habitat that would be inundated or blocked by the New Los Padres Dam.  This work was initiated with the approval of the DFG, which had concerns about the methods that had been used for estimating the quantity of habitat inundated by the new dam.  As part of this investigation, D. W. Alley & Associates examined the effect of using the “standard” preference curves (graphs of statistical preferences by fish observed in the area) for water depth and concluded that the shape of the resulting WUA-versus-flow curve was biased because the lower preference values in deeper water depressed the curve at high flows.  In part, the report recommended:

 

For purposes of quantifying the existing spawning habitat below Los Padres Dam during the EIR process, the previous IFIM analysis used unmodified Bovee (1982) suitability curves, as required by DFG (Alley, 1990; 1992).  Since these curves produced an underestimate, in our opinion, we recommend that our modified Bovee curves in conjunction with velocity grids be used to generate new estimates of spawning WUA below the dams, to determine the amount of gravel needed to make up for the WUA lost above the NLP Dam.  (D. W. Alley & Associates 1986.)

 

This recommendation meant that the original WUA-versus-flow curves in the reach downstream of San Clemente Dam needed to be revised to account for the inherent bias in using the unmodified Bovee curves.  Ideally, it would also have meant using a system of grids to measure representative velocities over the entire spawning glide.  For this SEIR, however, MPWMD retained D. W. Alley & Associates to revise the WUA-versus-flow curves based only on the modifications to depth criteria.  This is reasonable because the overall WUA estimates (based on modified depth criteria) were very similar to the grid estimate.  The resulting WUA-versus-flow curve, as well as the original curve, is shown in Figure D‑6 (D. W. Alley & Associates 1998).  As expected, the modified curve is similar to the original curve at flows of less than 40 cfs when similar depth suitabilities are used.  However, at flows exceeding 40 cfs, the estimates of WUA increasingly diverge from the original curve.

 

The revised curve, labeled as existing streambed conditions (n), was applied to simulated mean monthly flows at the Narrows to estimate monthly WUA under no-project conditions and natural flow conditions (Figure D‑7).  For postproject conditions with the CRDRP, WUA was estimated by assuming that the streambed was restored to ideal conditions in the reach from San Clemente Dam to the filter plant.  This relationship between WUA and flow is shown as the intermediate curve, labeled as mitigation plan (D), in Figure D‑7.  A significant impact is defined as more than a 1% reduction in habitat from natural flow conditions.

 

San Clemente Reservoir is expected to fill with sediment within the next decade, resulting in uncontrolled passage of sediment over the dam unless corrective action is successfully taken.  Once the reservoir fills, even with corrective action, a portion of the bedload from the watershed downstream of the CRDRP or existing Los Padres Dam is expected to pass into the river downstream of San Clemente Dam.  Because of this change, refining the curves in Figure D-7 may be necessary, based on changes to habitat quality below San Clemente Dam.  The Interagency Technical Working Group will address this issue as part of the Section 7 consultations between the Corps, MPWMD, DFG, and NMFS.  The modifications could result in different streamflow requirements downstream of San Clemente Dam.

 

D.3.1.2  Between San Clemente Reservoir and Los Padres Dam

The original relationship between spawning habitat and flow in this reach was developed based on the “standard” USFWS habitat model (IFIM) for steelhead spawning habitat (Figure D‑8, 1992 curve) (D. W. Alley et al. 1990)  As a consequence, the original curve needed to be revised to account for the bias at high flows.  Compared to the original curves, the new curve yielded higher estimates of WUA at flows exceeding 30 cfs.  Maximum spawning habitat was produced at a flow of about 150 cfs, about 25 cfs higher than with the original curve.  (D. W. Alley & Associates 1998.)

 

The revised curves in Figure D‑9 were applied to simulated monthly streamflow below Los Padres Dam.  The curve labeled existing substrate (n) was applied to the no-project and natural flow conditions, whereas the curve labeled mitigation plan (D) was applied to postproject conditions with the CRDRP.  A significant impact is defined as a 1% reduction in WUA compared to natural flow conditions.

 

D.3.2  INDEX OF ADULT STEELHEAD RETURNS

For the 1994 NLP EIR, the federal and state resource agencies requested that MPWMD analyze how the project would affect the overall health of the steelhead resource, represented by a qualitative index of the number of sea‑run adults returning to the river.  In the 1994 NLP EIR, the fate of each year class for 33 generations was tracked over a simulated period from 1958 to 1992.  A similar analysis will be updated to reflect the 1958‑1996 hydrologic period and operational changes.  Results of this analysis will be described in a technical memorandum and presented to NMFS for review as part of its Section 7 consultation for the CRDRP.

 

The criteria used for the studies in 1994 evolved from a series of technical study sessions between consultants for MPWMD and biologists from DFG, which began in 1986.  Some of the criteria used in the 1994 study were revised for this SEIR, based on the above revisions to estimates of WUA for spawning habitat in the reaches between the Narrows and San Clemente Dam, between San Clemente Reservoir and Los Padres Dam, and upstream of Los Padres Dam. (D. W. Alley & Associates 1998.)

D.3.2.1  Process for Evaluating Returns of Adult Steelhead

The evaluation began with a detailed review of simulated daily flows during the winter upstream migration period.  This provided a way to assess the opportunities that steelhead would have had in a given year to move upstream to their spawning grounds.  A review of the monthly flows during the winter spawning season led to a prediction of relative spawning success.  Examination of the following summer and fall flows led to an estimate of the quality and quantity of juvenile rearing habitat that would have existed during the first summer of life.  Study of the early winter and spring flows in the next calendar year provided information about the conditions for the emigration of juveniles as they move downstream after being reared.

 

This technique assessed conditions for juveniles that spent one summer rearing in the river before emigrating, without assessing conditions for the small portion of the year class that spent two or more summers before emigrating.  Thus, by examining the flows experienced by most members of a single year class from the time their parents enter the river from the ocean until the brood leaves the river, an assessment (or rating) can be made of each phase of the life cycle.  Finally, by combining the ratings of each phase of the life cycle in sequence, an overall assessment is derived from the production from each year class (Figure D‑10).  This assessment was used in the previous 1994 NLP EIR and is a good indicator of adult-run strength.  As part of the Section 7 consultation, the Interagency Technical Working Group will address the benefits of refining the accuracy of this method of assessing year class production by including juveniles that spend two or more summers rearing in the river before emigrating.

 

The process illustrated in Figure D‑10 will be repeated for 37 generations with simulated flows for the CRDRP and the no-project condition during the period from water year 1958 through water year 1996, corresponding to the record being analyzed with the CVSIM model for historical flows.  Adult production will be evaluated separately for two reaches, from the Narrows to San Clemente Dam and from San Clemente Reservoir to Los Padres Dam.  This evaluation will be performed for the Final SEIR with refined operation schedules and assumptions developed in consultation with regulatory agencies.

 

D.3.3  STEELHEAD FISHERY IN THE LOWER CARMEL RIVER

The sport fishery for steelhead in the Carmel River was closed from December 1992 to February 8, 1998, to allow the population to recover from impacts of the 1987‑1991 drought.  At the time of the closure, DFG proposed to reopen the season when 1,000 fish per year were counted for two consecutive years at San Clemente Dam.  In response to a petition filed by Central Coast Fly Fishing and the CRSA, the California Fish and Game Commission adopted new regulations for the river on December 5, 1997, and reopened the fishery on February 8, 1998, subject to flow and gear restrictions described above.

 

In their comments on the 1993 Supplemental Draft EIR/EIS‑II, the federal and state resource agencies requested that MPWMD analyze how the project would affect the steelhead sport fishery in the lower Carmel River.  In response, MPWMD retained D. W. Alley & Associates to provide a historical overview of the sport fishery and a history of fishing regulations, coordinate with DFG staff to develop an understanding of DFG goals for the fishery, develop a rating of fishing opportunity with the NLP project and no-project condition, assess potential impacts of the NLP project on the steelhead sport fishery, and make recommendations for managing the fishery.  These assessments were provided in Appendix 8, Volume III of the 1994 NLP EIR.

 

For this SEIR, D. W. Alley & Associates produced an updated analysis of CRDRP impacts on the steelhead fishery.  In assessing impacts on the sport fishery, angling opportunity with the CRDRP was compared to opportunity under the no-project condition during the 39‑year period of simulated streamflow (1958‑1996).  Two additional aspects of the project will be evaluated: a comparison of the predicted index of the adult population ready to enter the river in 1961‑1996 and an assessment of the level of fishing potential for the sport fishery with the CRDRP compared to the no-project condition, and the impact of fishing potential on the steelhead population.

 

D.3.3.1  Sportfishing (Angling) Opportunity

Sportfishing (or angling) opportunity refers to the number of fishing days that would be available for anglers on the Carmel River during the winter season.  DFG fishing regulations for steelhead effective February 1998 (described above) were used in the current analysis.  These regulations restrict fishing to days when streamflow measured on Tuesday of each week is 150 cfs or greater near the Carmel River Lagoon.  Annual angling opportunity was defined as the number of days between November 16 and February 28 on which simulated flows were greater than 150 cfs.  This would not be the actual number of fishable days because, as explained previously, fishing is only allowed on certain days of the week when flows are less than 150 cfs between Tuesdays.  However, because the same criteria were applied to both the proposed project and no-project conditions, the analysis provides a fair comparison.

 

Angling opportunity was measured by tabulating the number of days each year under the CRDRP and no-project condition on which fishing would be allowed.  Angling days for 1958‑1996 were based on formulated fishing regulations, the time-series output from the CVSIM operation model for the project, and the CVSIM-simulated flows for the no-project condition. 

 

Angling opportunity was tallied in three ways.  Opportunities for angling were first tallied for the number of days during the angling season on which streamflow would exceed 150 cfs at the Highway 1 Bridge across the river.  Second, opportunities were tallied for days during the fishing season when streamflow exceeded 125 cfs at the bridge.  The 125-cfs criterion was chosen because it would provide adequate flow for adult steelhead migration upstream while also allowing for angling opportunity.  Third, fishing opportunity was tallied for fishable days (as defined by DFG regulations) on which anglers could wade up and down the stream to gain access to better fishing locations; this was determined to correspond to the range of 150-350 cfs.  The upper end of the flow range that would allow bank‑to‑bank wading was based on simulated hydraulic conditions at four spawning glides (i.e., calm stretches of shallow, smoothly flowing water) located from Garland Park Bridge to a short distance upstream of Robles del Rio (D. W. Alley & Associates 1992).  At 350 cfs, a maximum safe value of 10 was consistently reached for wading at all four transects, somewhere along each transect.

The water year classes were based on exceedance frequencies consistent with the classification system listed in Table 2‑3 in Chapter 2 of this SEIR.

 

D.3.3.2  Fishing Potential

Fishing potential refers to an index that combines fishing opportunity (number of days) and the strength of the steelhead run (number of adult steelhead returning to spawn).  The index for each year was developed by multiplying the number of fishable days for that year by a numerical index of the returning adult population.  For a more complete description of the index, refer to Appendix 8 of the  1994 NLP EIR.

 

D.4  IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES OF THE CRDRP

 

This impact assessment addresses four key impact criteria suggested by federal and state resource agencies:

 

n    What physical impacts would project facilities have on steelhead rearing and spawning habitat?

 

n    How would the simulated project operation affect streamflow patterns during specific phases of the steelhead life cycle?  For the 1994 NLP EIR, the simulation assumed a maximum buildout demand of 21,000 af of annual Cal‑Am production during dry years.  Based on Cal‑Am’s application to MPWMD for the Carmel River Dam, MPWMD reduced the portion of buildout demand that would be met by the project to zero.  For this draft SEIR, the simulation assumed a maximum annual Cal‑Am production of 17,641 af.  This allocation limit includes Cal‑Am production of up to 4,000 af/yr from the Seaside Basin, which is an integral part of Cal‑Am operations for the CRDRP.  Thus, any change in the Cal-Am production limit from Seaside, or an increased allocation limit from the Cal-Am system above 17,641 af, would result in different streamflow patterns and potentially different impacts on the steelhead population.

 

n    What is the impact of existing and proposed fish passage facilities on upstream and downstream migration of steelhead?

 

n    How would project operations affect water temperature downstream of the CRDRP?

 

As part of the settlement of litigation, as reflected in SWRCB Order 98-04, this assessment also addresses how reduction in the frequency of high riverflows by the CRDRP would affect substrate characteristics and benthic invertebrate food sources for steelhead (refer to Section D.4.2.4).

 

All of the analyses (except sections on the index of adult returns and steelhead angling) first identify impacts and then address mitigation measures that may reduce the damage to a less-than-significant level; the overall impact with mitigations is then identified.  A similar evaluation is performed for the no-project condition, as summarized in Section D.5.

 

D.4.1  INUNDATION AND BLOCKAGE OF HABITAT

Impact D.4.1‑1:  Inundation or Blockage of about 12% of the Spawning Habitat in the Carmel Basin

Construction of the CRDRP would inundate 2.1 miles of the Carmel River and Danish Creek and would effectively block an additional 1.25 miles of habitat for a total of 3.4 miles because no fish passage facility is proposed for Danish Creek (Table D‑2).  The overall impact would be a reduction of potential spawning habitat by about 14,300 square feet, equivalent to 285 potential nest sites.  This is a significant impact.

 

Mitigation Measure D.4.1‑1:  Restore Spawning Habitat.  Spawning habitat should be restored by the methods described in MPWMD Technical Memorandum 93‑05, included as Attachment 8‑B of the 1994 Mitigation and Monitoring Program Plan for the 24,000-af New Los Padres Dam (referred to as 24 NLP).  Initially, 1,000 cubic yards of gravel would be added to the spawning glides between Sleepy Hollow and New Los Padres Dam.

 

In 1993, MPWMD received a grant from the California Wildlife Conservation Board to inject spawning gravels below the existing dams on the Carmel River using similar techniques as proposed for the CRDRP.  MPWMD has designed this 10-year-long project (1993–2002) to compensate for the loss of spawning habitats, which occurred because of the existing reservoirs trapping gravel bedload that would have otherwise passed into the reaches below the dams.  Since 1993, MPWMD has injected approximately 1,750 cubic yards, or 1.1 af of washed, river-run gravel into the river.  Visual surveys of the restoration sites shown that adult steelhead intensively use the restored habitats (MPWMD 1995a, 1996c).  For example, below San Clement Dam, MPWMD staff observed a total of 53 redds and 42 adult steelhead in the restored habitats.  During several surveys, females were observed digging nests in the restored gravel.  Also of note was the fact that spawning steelhead used the restored gravel exclusively; no other nests were found throughout the reach during a complete survey in April.

 

In brief, the program would increase and maintain spawning habitat downstream of Los Padres and San Clemente Reservoirs with gravels that were previously being trapped in the existing reservoirs.  It could also benefit juvenile production as described in Impact D.4.1‑2.  Measurements of potential spawning habitat below the two existing reservoirs indicate that the existing spawning habitat is insufficient to provide nesting areas for enough fish to fill the good to excellent juvenile rearing habitat that occurs in these areas.  Thus, the mitigation program described below could not only replace the spawning habitat that is inundated, but also increase the production of juvenile steelhead and smolts from the river.  Implementation of this program would mitigate inundation impacts to a less‑than-significant level.

 

Key features of the spawning mitigation program include the following:

 

n    Spawning gravels from deltas at the upstream ends of Los Padres and San Clemente Reservoirs would be collected and stockpiled.  The stockpiles of gravel will be located at the upper end of the reservoir, within the inundation zone, which will prevent impacts to the river downstream of the new dam.  Access sites will be at existing crossings and fords, and the impact of transporting gravel would be less than significant compared to existing conditions.  Aerial photographs and reconnaissance-level field observations indicate that the deltas contain an ideal mixture of spawning gravel.

 

n    Gravel would initially be placed in glides downstream of the existing reservoirs where hydraulic conditions are suitable for spawning habitat, but where scour has reduced the abundance of gravel.  MPWMD has conducted a detailed survey of spawning habitat and located 76 glides that are suitable for the mitigation program.

 

n    Cal‑Am would carry out long-term, periodic monitoring of key spawning glides under an agreement with DFG, MPWMD, and other responsible agencies.  At a minimum, this would include monitoring once every 2 years to measure spawning habitat and ensure that enough additional habitat is maintained to offset the losses caused by inundation.  During wet years, monitoring would probably be needed between major storms with gravel being deposited in the river during the same spawning season to replace gravel scoured away by large stormflows.

 

n    Cal‑Am would fund a program to inject gravel into the river downstream of the proposed Carmel River and San Clemente Dams.  During the first years of operation, gravel bedload transport rates would be estimated to develop transport curves at locations near spawning glides.  The curves would be used as guidelines for depositing gravel in the river during winter storms.  Gravel from the stockpiles would be added at several locations, including below the proposed Carmel River Dam (river mile 23.0), at Flavin’s Crossing (river mile 22.0), at Syndicate Camp (river mile 21.5), below San Clemente Dam (river mile 18.1), and at San Clemente Ford (river mile 17.3).

 

Impact D.4.1‑2:  Inundation or Blockage of Rearing Habitat for Age 0+ Steelhead and Yearlings

Construction of the CRDRP would inundate or block a total of 3.4 miles of rearing habitat on the Carmel River and Danish Creek.  Using the Rearing Index developed by Kelley and Dettman (1980), about 1.5 million units (about 12% of rearing habitat) for age 0+ steelhead and 0.8 million units (about 14% of rearing habitat) for yearlings would be lost (Table D-3).  This is considered a significant impact. 

 

Mitigation Measure D.4.1‑2:  Release Flows and Manage Substrate Conditions and Woody Debris.  Cal‑Am should mitigate impacts on rearing habitat by releasing flow from the Carmel River Dam and managing substrate conditions and woody debris in the reach between San Clemente Reservoir and the proposed Carmel River Dam.  Chapter 2 provides a description of the operational rules designed to meet streamflow requirements specified in Tables 2-1 and 2-2.  A substantial improvement in rearing habitat would be gained by meeting the requirements if the existing streambed conditions and woody debris were maintained below the new dam and existing San Clemente Dam.  Programs to manage woody debris and streambed conditions in the reach between San Clemente Reservoir and the new dam are provided in the Mitigation and Monitoring Program, Steelhead Resource Mitigation Plan in the 1994 NLP EIR (MPWMD 1994a).

 

The proposed operation of the CRDRP would increase rearing habitat for age 0+ juveniles by 2.5 million RI units over natural conditions, or by 60% more than the 1.5 million RI units inundated by the proposed project (Table D‑4).  The project would enhance rearing habitat for juvenile steelhead and result in a net beneficial impact that would mitigate for the loss of yearling habitat resulting from inundation and blockage above the CRDRP, provided that adequate woody debris and substrate conditions were maintained in the river channel.  As indicated below, project operation would increase habitat for yearling steelhead from 0.5 million to 1.0 million RI units between the Narrows and San Clemente Dam.  Between San Clemente and Los Padres Dams, the increase in the average late-summer minimum flow from 2.8 cfs to 17.0 cfs would increase rearing habitat for larger juvenile steelhead from 73,000 to 285,000 rearing WUA units, a 290% improvement.  The CRDRP would increase age 0+ rearing habitat by 1.8 million units compared to the no-project condition, or 0.3 million RI units more than the 1.5 million units need to compensate for inundated habitats (Table D‑4).

 

D.4.2  IMPACTS OF CRDRP OPERATION

The pattern of flows resulting from the CRDRP would affect each element of the steelhead life cycle, as described below.  All assessments of operations are compared with the simulated flow regimen for unimpaired conditions (flows that would have been present without human-made facilities or development of groundwater and surface water supplies for beneficial uses).  This assessment accounts for the fact that, even under unimpaired conditions, flows are not always ideal.  In addition, the use of unimpaired flows as a standard is preferable to using historical or existing flows because flows during the last 30 years have not been adequate to support the steelhead resource.  The term “natural condition” as used in this appendix refers to simulated unimpaired conditions.

 

D.4.2.1  Flows for Adult Upstream Migration

Impact D.4.2-1:  Reduced Flows for Adult Upstream Migration

Compared to natural conditions, operation of the CRDRP would substantially reduce opportunities for upstream migration by limiting the duration of attraction flows, shortening the duration of the migration season, and increasing the number of years without attraction flows compared to natural conditions in dry and critically dry years.  This is considered a significant impact.  Project conditions would be better than conditions under the No-Project Alternative except in dry and critically dry years, when conditions would be the same under both conditions.

 

At Cal‑Am’s maximum annual production of 17,641 af, the CRDRP would meet the modified DFG seasonal criteria in 65% of years and achieve a “fair” or better rating with the D. W. Kelley criteria in 51% of the years during January and 72% of the years during February and March (Table D‑5).  (The seasonal and monthly criteria are described in the 1994 NLP EIR.)  Compared to simulated natural flows, CRDRP operation would adversely affect upstream migration by reducing the percentage of dry and critically dry years with flows exceeding the seasonal criteria.  Based on seasonal criteria, performance (in terms of attracting adult steelhead) would be similar to or better than that under no-project conditions.

 

On average, the CRDRP would provide 29 days of attraction flows (the minimum flows, ranging from 75 cfs to 200 cfs depending on year type, that induce steelhead to enter the river from the ocean) and would provide at least 2 weeks of attraction flows during the average dry, below-normal, above-normal, and wet year (Figure D‑11, Table D‑6).  The CRDRP would have fewer attraction events than would occur under natural conditions, with most of the shortages occurring during dry and critically dry years; on average, attraction flows occur on 15 days during dry years and only 2 days during critically dry years, compared to an average of 24 days in dry years and 6 days in critically dry years under natural conditions.  This is considered a significant impact.  A reduction of 4-9 days in a dry or critically dry year is an adverse impact because it limits the number of adult steelhead that can successfully migrate and spawn in the upper reaches of the watershed.  Under these conditions, the rearing habitat upstream of San Clemente Reservoir would be insufficiently seeded with juvenile steelhead.  The resulting lower production of smolts would be inadequate to replace the parent adult population, and therefore adult returns in the following years would decline below self-sustaining levels.

 

On average, the duration of the migration season (when transportation flows are adequate to enable steelhead to travel upstream) would be 54 days, which is slightly shorter than under natural conditions but a week longer than under the No-Project Alternative.  Beneficial impacts would occur in below-normal years, with an average of 6 additional days of transportation flows (Figure D‑12, Table D‑7).  Adverse impacts (e.g., a greater potential for unsuccessful migration) would occur primarily during critically dry years, when the average duration would be reduced by 8 days (Figure D‑12, Table D‑7).  This impact is most often manifested during multiple-year droughts (e.g., 1959-1961 and 1987-1992).

 

In comparison to natural conditions, the performance of the CRDRP in terms of attraction events and transportation flows is acceptable in all but certain dry and all critically dry years, when the project would have a significant impact on attraction and transportation flows.  As stated above, this impact would be most often manifested during multiple-year droughts.  Based on the information provided in Figures D‑11 and D‑12, the CRDRP would improve conditions for fish over no-project conditions except in certain dry and critically dry years, when conditions would be similar.  At a Cal‑Am demand level of 17,641 af, impacts during dry and critically dry years might not be able to be mitigated by additional changes to the operation schedule, although the Interagency Technical Working Group (ITWG) will address this issue as part of the ESA Section 7 consultation.  Therefore, this impact is considered significant.

 

Mitigation Measure D.4.2-1:  Implement Artificial Attraction and Rearing Measures.  In the 1994 NLP EIR, two measures were discussed as mitigation for impacts on adult migration during drought years:

 

n    artificially attracting adult steelhead and transporting them above the Narrows, where flows are sufficient for migration and spawning, and

 

n    rearing a contingent of adult steelhead in a saltwater facility for release into the river if flow conditions are insufficient for attraction and transportation of adults through the lower river. 

 

Although it may be technologically feasible to artificially attract steelhead into the lagoon, that approach may not be feasible during extended droughts because streamflow at the Narrows and between the dams would be insufficient for adult upstream migration.  During 1987-1992, the CRSA operated a successful broodstock program, however.  That program emphasized hatchery production and planting of steelhead fry and yearlings.  Although this program appears to have been successful, DFG does not favor this approach because of the required reliance on hatchery production.  Additional improvement of upstream migration opportunities through changes to the operation schedule are unlikely during extended droughts without jeopardizing the viability of project water supply performance and summer rearing habitat upstream of the Narrows.

 

If DFG and NMFS concur, Cal‑Am may be willing to fund a broodstock program for emergency use during extended droughts, but for this Draft SEIR, additional mitigation measures are not planned.

 

If either of the two proposed measures were implemented, then impacts on upstream migration would be reduced, but full mitigation would be unlikely.  Thus, the impact on upstream migration is considered to be an infrequent, but unavoidable, significant impact.  It is important to note that these unmitigated impacts would only occur during severe drought conditions such as the 1987-1992 period.

 

D.4.2.2  Flows for Steelhead Spawning Habitat

Impact D.4.2-2:  Increased Flows for Steelhead Spawning Habitat

On average, operation of the CRDRP would substantially increase spawning habitat downstream of the dam compared to existing conditions and natural flow conditions.  However, during dry years the flow releases downstream of the dam would compensate for only 86% of the inundated habitats.  Although this represents an adverse impact in these situations, the overall effect on spawning habitat would be beneficial because the use of existing habitat upstream of Los Padres Dam would be improved through changes in passage conditions at the dam, and the spawning habitats in normal and below-normal years would be about three times the amount needed for full compensation.

 

Downstream of San Clemente Dam.  A significant impact on spawning habitat between the Narrows and San Clemente Dam was identified in the 1991 Draft EIR/EIS.  The ITWG investigated whether the operation rules could be changed to mitigate for impacts on spawning habitat.  The ITWG found that it was possible to improve performance by establishing minimum spawning flow requirements at the Narrows during February and March.  Minimum flow requirements have been incorporated into the operations schedule (Table 2-2).  The requirement is 30 cfs in critically dry years, 50 cfs in dry years, and 70 cfs in years with below-normal or better years.  The requirements were developed by calculating the average WUA of spawning habitat during different types of water years under natural flow conditions.

 

In the reach between the Narrows and San Clemente Dam, project operations would reduce average flows at the Narrows by 35 cfs in February and 7 cfs in March.  These flows and the mitigation program for improving substrate conditions would provide an average of 25,800 units of spawning WUA, which is a beneficial effect compared to no-project and natural flow conditions (Table D‑8).

 

Between San Clemente and Los Padres Dams.  Table D‑9 lists the total spawning WUA between San Clemente and Los Padres Dams during selected years of the simulated 39‑year record.  These years were selected because a comparison could be made across all alternatives in February and March.  These years cover a broad spectrum of critically dry, dry, below-normal, and above-normal years but do not include many wet years, during which the CRDRP would have a negligible impact on flow.  Thus, the selected years provide an accurate description of impacts on spawning habitat when the project is able to control flows.

 

During the selected years, CRDRP operations would almost double the average spawning WUA from 9,100 units to 18,100 units (Table D‑9).  This is caused by streamflow reductions during some years, which increase spawning habitat, and by the addition of spawning gravels as part of the proposed spawning habitat mitigation program (see Mitigation Measure D.4.1-1).  For spawning habitat between the dams, reducing the streamflow to within the range of 125-200 cfs results in an increase in spawning habitat (Figure D‑9).  This increase is a result of a greater area of the streambed being covered by water of suitable velocity.

 

Compensation for Inundated Spawning Habitat.  On average, the increase in spawning habitat upstream of the Narrows would be enough to compensate for the loss of habitat inundated by the new reservoir and for operational impacts.  Compared to natural flow conditions, the CRDRP would increase average spawning habitat from 27,900 to 43,900 WUA units, an increase of 16,000 units, which is more than twice the average loss of 6,870 units of inundated spawning habitat.  This is a beneficial effect.  However, during dry years the flow releases downstream of the Carmel River Dam would compensate for about 4,900 WUA, or only 86% of the inundated habitats (Table D‑10).  Although the inundated habitat cannot be replaced during dry years, the overall impact on spawning habitat would be beneficial because the use of existing habitat upstream of Los Padres Dam would be improved through changes in passage conditions at the dam (see Section D.4.1) and the amount of spawning habitat in normal and below-normal years would far exceed the amount needed for compensation.

 

Mitigation Measure D.4.2-2:  Restore Spawning Habitat and Increase Flow Releases.  Mitigation for impacts on spawning habitat requires implementation of measures described in Impact D.4.1-1 and flow releases below Carmel River and San Clemente Dams to meet flow requirements at MPWMD’s streamflow gaging station in Garland Ranch Regional Park at Don Juan Bridge and at the fish barrier dam below the new Carmel River Dam.  No additional measures would be needed, but substrate composition and habitat use should be monitored each year at key spawning glides to ensure the success of the mitigation measures.

 

D.4.2.3  Flows for Juvenile Rearing Habitat

Impact D.4.2-3:  Increased Flows for Juvenile Rearing Habitat

Overall, the summer, fall, and early winter flow releases from the Carmel River Dam would provide beneficial effects for fry and juvenile steelhead by increasing habitat in the Carmel River and would mitigate for inundated habitats (Table D‑4).  Steelhead fry habitat in the reach between the dams would be reduced compared with natural and no-project flows, but this impact would be mitigated by higher flows in the river between the Narrows and San Clemente Dam and by a reduction in the amount of seasonal variation in streamflow below the Narrows.  The project benefits depend on Cal-Am’s ability to implement programs to manage sediment, pass woody debris, and rescue fish in drought years.

 

Near Carmel to the Narrows.  Compared to natural flow conditions, the operation of the CRDRP would reduce from 41% to 26% the percentage of years in which the lower river dries up (Table D‑11).  This is considered a beneficial impact.

 

Narrows to San Clemente Dam.  Compared to no-project conditions and natural flows, the operation of the CRDRP would increase the average minimum summer flow at the Narrows from 3.5 cfs to 8.0 cfs (Figure D‑13).  The increased flow would provide approximately 2.8 million RI units of habitat for age 0+ juveniles in the reach between the Narrows and San Clemente Dam, or approximately a 100% increase in habitat compared to the approximately 1.4 million units with natural flows.  This is considered a beneficial effect (Table D‑12).  CRDRP operations would increase habitat for yearling steelhead from 0.5 million units to 1.0 million units, which also is considered a beneficial impact.

 

Between San Clemente and Los Padres Dams.  The operation of the CRDRP would increase the average minimum late-spring and early-summer flow below the Los Padres Dam from 22.0 cfs to 22.7 cfs (Figure D‑14).  This would reduce habitat for steelhead fry from 269,000 rearing WUA units to 238,000 units, about a 12% reduction (Table D‑13).  This is considered an adverse impact.  This impact could be mitigated by careful operation of reservoir releases to ensure that steelhead fry are not swept downstream during the crucial period following their emergence from the nest as swimup fry.  This impact would also be mitigated by improvement of rearing habitat in the reaches between the Narrows and San Clemente Dam and below the Narrows.

 

Operation of the CRDRP would increase the average minimum late-summer flow below the dam from natural conditions of 2.8 cfs to conditions with the project of 17.0 cfs (Figure D‑15), which would increase rearing habitat for juvenile steelhead from an average 73,000 WUA units to 285,000 WUA units, a 290% increase (Table D‑13).  This is considered a beneficial effect.

 

Sedimentation below Tributaries.  Steelhead rearing habitat is extremely sensitive to small changes in the degree of sedimentation.  The density of juvenile steelhead populations (number of fish per square foot of stream) is inversely related to a measure of sedimentation known as “cobble embeddedness” (the degree to which cobble is embedded in sand) and directly related to the proportion of the stream bottom that is covered by cobbles and boulders.  For example, in Lagunitas Creek, Marin County, an increase in embeddedness from 15% to 50% was associated with a four-fold reduction in steelhead population density (Kelley and Dettman 1980).

 

Three major tributaries are present in the reach between the proposed dam and San Clemente Reservoir: Cachagua, Pine, and San Clemente Creeks.  In recent years, the numbers of new roads, minor land subdivisions, and vineyards have increased in the Cachagua Creek basin.  During the last few years, MPWMD staff members have observed high levels of sediment discharge just upstream of the confluence of these streams with the mainstem of the Carmel River.  The CRDRP would increase the likelihood that tributary sediments would remain in the river below San Clemente Dam for longer periods without flushing flows, which would adversely affect fishery habitat.  This impact would also affect the reach between San Clemente Reservoir and Cachagua Creek.  Although the magnitude of the impact is unknown, it is considered potentially significant because it could counteract benefits resulting from increases in summer streamflow and jeopardize the ability to fully compensate for impacts resulting from inundation of rearing habitat.

 

Woody Debris below CRDRP.  Woody debris is one of the most important habitat components in salmon and steelhead streams (MacDonald et al. 1991).  Biologists have documented important functions of woody debris (MacDonald et al. 1991, Crispin et al. 1993), including the following:

 

n    increasing habitat complexity by providing cover and suitable habitat for juvenile fish over a wide range of flows;

 

n    forming local scour points that create pools and deeper water for older juvenile steelhead;

 

n    forming depositional sites for gravel, which creates spawning habitat for adults; and

 

n    providing storage and retention sites for leaves, twigs, and small woody debris, which provide energy and material to the food chain in streams.

 

Under existing conditions, the transport of floating woody debris in the Carmel River past Los Padres and San Clemente Dams is facilitated by Cal‑Am, which regularly ensures that woody debris that floats into the spillway area is passed downstream.  These activities, as well as the natural, unassisted passage of floating debris through the spillway, maintain passage of woody debris into the river below each dam.  Without mitigation, construction and operation of Carmel River Dam would disrupt the passage of woody debris into the river below the dam site because the duration and frequency of spills would be reduced and much of the woody debris would be retained, become waterlogged, and sink before floating into the spillway area.  Although precise measurement of the reduction in passage of woody debris has not been conducted, a significant impact would result if no means to pass woody debris were implemented.  This is because 75% of total streamflow and an equal percentage of debris emanate from above the existing Los Padres Dam.

 

Mitigation Measure D.4.2-3:  Permit Flow Releases to Meet Flow Requirements and Maintain Existing Juvenile Rearing Habitat.  Mitigation for inundation impacts on rearing habitat would require flow releases from the Carmel River and San Clemente Dams to meet flow requirements at MPWMD’s streamflow gaging stations at the Don Juan Bridge in Garland Ranch Regional Park and the Highway 1 Bridge and a new station located at the fish barrier dam below the Carmel River Dam.  Adequate mitigation for inundation impacts and maintenance of existing juvenile habitat would require implementation of programs to manage sediment conditions below the Carmel River Dam; pass woody debris from the downstream migrant facility, located upstream of the new reservoir, to the river below Carmel River Dam; and rescue and rear juveniles at the Sleepy Hollow Steelhead Rearing Facility, located downstream of San Clemente Dam, when necessary in droughts.

 

With implementation of these programs, the impact on juvenile rearing habitat would be beneficial compared to no-project and natural conditions.  When the project is not able to maintain the flows needed to rear juveniles throughout the entire summer below the Narrows, MPWMD will mitigate impacts by rescuing and rearing juveniles throughout the remainder of the dry season, as is done presently.  This will ensure that impacts on juveniles residing below the Narrows are fully mitigated.  The program would be needed during approximately 26% of years.

 

D.4.2.4  Effects of Reducing Frequency of High Flows

Recent research shows that the abundance and distribution of aquatic insects may be influenced by the occurrence of high streamflows (Wooton et al. 1996).  These authors developed a theoretical model for trophic relationships in a simple foodweb consisting of algae, predator-susceptible herbivores, predators such as steelhead, and certain predator-resistant caddisflies (Dicosmoecus gilvipes).  The trophic model included factors for density-independent mortality (e.g., floods), incident light, conversion efficiencies, and consumption rates.  The authors examined the consequences of reducing flood-related mortality for predator-resistant grazers and found that the energy consumed and converted by predators was reduced.  Most of the ecosystem energy was diverted to the predator-resistant grazers.  This theoretical result was supported by several observations: 

 

n    reductions in the population density of Dicosmoecus following short-term freshets,

n    observed increases in Dicosmoecus during drought years, and

n    the fact that no Dicosmoecus were eaten by potential predators in feeding trials. 

 

To test the accuracy of the trophic model, Wooton et al. experimentally manipulated the abundance of Dicosmoecus and young-of-the-year steelhead within enclosures placed in the Eel River.  In general, the results of the in situ demonstrations confirmed results of the trophic model.  Following these experimental demonstrations, the authors compared data from surveys of benthic fauna in regulated and unregulated streams.  They found higher occurrences of predatory-resistant grazers and lower occurrences of algae and predators in the regulated streams.  This information supports the possibility that the production of aquatic insects that support populations of juvenile steelhead may be dependent on the frequency and amount of high streamflow.

 

As in other coastal streams, juvenile steelhead in the Carmel River are opportunistic predators and feed primarily on invertebrates, which move downstream with the streamflow.  Typically, juvenile fish occupy two types of feeding microhabitats, depending on their size.  Small juvenile (typically young-of-the-year) fish occupy shallow riffle habitats beside or immediately downstream of obstacles (e.g., rocks, logs, small woody debris, submerged vegetation), where high-velocity water supplies drifting insects.  Large juveniles (typically yearlings and older) occupy deeper water in riffles next to obstacles or at the head of pools, downstream of riffles.  These feeding microhabitats afford ready access to invertebrates, which enter the water column from the benthic environment or from riparian vegetation overhanging the edges of the stream. 

 

A study of the food habits of juvenile steelhead in the Carmel River in 1982 documented the relative contribution of food from three sources: drifting insects, terrestrial insects, and benthic invertebrates (Fields 1984).  Approximately 96% of the food consumed by smolts originated from drift and terrestrial sources, as shown in Figure D-16.  The tendency for young-of-the-year to consume drifting insects was even more pronounced, with drift insects constituting more than 99% of the food (Figure D-17).  Although juvenile steelhead feed on drifting insects, much of this food originates from the benthic environment.  Consequently, the proportion of food that is drift species is correlated to the proportion of these species in the benthos (Figure D-18).

 

An adequate food supply depends on maintaining populations of insects that exhibit drifting behavior.  Rader (1997) rated 95 taxa of stream invertebrates on their tendency to drift and developed an index for rating the availability of these taxa as food resources for salmonids.  He compared this index with the percentage contribution of taxa in stomach samples and found definite correlations.  Based on this study, the availability of drifting insects is apparently a key component of energy transfer from lower trophic levels to trout populations.  Predicting that the food supply for juvenile steelhead will be adequate is reasonable if the benthic community is dominated by abundant numbers of drifting insects.

 

As suggested by Wooton et al. (1996), the dominance of the foodweb by drifting insects may be associated with occurrence of frequent high flows, which mobilize coarse sediment and dislodge the benthic fauna, including mobile and sessile species.  If the CRDRP reduces the frequent high flows that cause movement in the streambed, this could shift the composition of the benthic community in favor of species that are resistant to steelhead predation.  To examine whether reductions in frequent flows could affect habitats for aquatic insects, the possibility of changes in mobilization of the streambed were evaluated by conducting an incipient motion analysis in the following six reaches of the Carmel River, which are shown in Figure D-19:

 

n    Pacific Ocean to Schulte Road:  river miles 0.0-6.7

n    Schulte Road to the Narrows:  river miles 6.7-10.1

n    Narrows to Tularcitos Creek:  river miles 10.1-15.8

n    Tularcitos Creek to San Clemente Dam:  river miles 15.8-18.6

n    upstream end of San Clemente Reservoir to Cachagua Creek:  river miles 19.3-23.8

n    Cachagua Creek to Los Padres Dam:  river miles 23.8-24.8

 

Details of this analysis and descriptions of the physical features of each reach are provided in Section C.2.5 of Appendix C of this SEIR and in Dettman and Hampson (in prep.).  The purpose of this analysis was to identify whether changes in the frequent flows would reduce the initial movement of substrate particles.  The initial movement of particles was selected as a characteristic for analysis based on the assumption that short-term movement of particles is sufficient to dislodge and reduce populations of predator-resistant insect species.  This assumption is supported by reductions in Dicosmoecus population density after a brief freshet in northern California during April 1992 (Wooton et al. 1996).

 

As indicated by the incipient particle motion analysis, the frequent high flows (1.5-year return flow) released from the Carmel River Dam would reduce the size of the particles that would be initially mobilized in six reaches of the mainstem below the new dam (Figure D-20).  However, the percentage of the bed mobilized would be substantially reduced in only three of these reaches: the Narrows to Tularcitos Creek (river miles 10.1-15.8), Tularcitos Creek to San Clemente Dam (river miles 15.8-18.6), and Cachagua Creek to the Los Padres and Carmel River Dams (river miles 23.8-24.8) (Figure D-20).  In the remaining reaches, stream power is sufficient to mobilize the bed because it is composed of small particles or the channel geometry is steep or narrow.  The existing level of bed mobilization has created benthic environments that are highly suited to production of drifting insects.  In the following subsections, the assemblage of benthic insects is characterized for the three reaches where CRDRP operations could affect bed mobility, as measured by species richness (number of species), species diversity (Shannon-Weiner Diversity Index [SWDI]), and population density.

 

Cachagua Creek to Carmel River Dam.  Based on 1982 surveys, the diversity of aquatic insect biota in this reach is rich (38 species), highly diverse (SWDI = 3.58), and moderately abundant (insect density = 4,400 individuals per square meter [No./m²]).  More important, the assemblage of insects is dominated by drifting insects, including Chironomid and Simulid flies and Baetid mayflies, which are readily consumed by juvenile steelhead.  Based on the drift rating system proposed by Rader (1997), the drift propensity in this reach is high for 33 (87%) of the insect species (Figure D-21).  The drift propensity is low or negligible for only two species, representing less than 1% of the total number of insects in the benthos (Table D-14).

 

Tularcitos Creek to San Clemente Dam.  The aquatic insect biota in this reach are characterized by lower species richness (average 31 species), lower diversity (average SWDI = 3.06), and low abundance (insect density = 2,265 No./m²).  As in the reach above Cachagua Creek, the assemblage is dominated by drifting insects, with high-rate drifters making up 84% of the species (an average of 24.5 of 29 total species) and about 92% of the organisms (Figure D-22).  Only three species with low or negligible drift propensities were noted, representing less than 1% percent of the number of insects (Figure D-23).

 

Narrows to Tularcitos Creek.  The aquatic insect biota are characterized by lower species richness (averaging 29 species), variable diversity (SWDI ranging from 1.83 to 3.26), and low to moderate abundance of populations (average insect density = 4,115 No./m², ranging from 2,146 to 5,182 No./m²).  As in other reaches, species with low or negligible drift propensities made up no more than 1% of the total number of insects (Figure D-23).

 

Impact D.4.2-4:  Changed Flow Patterns Resulting in Substantial Reductions in Riverbed Mobility in Three Reaches of the Carmel River, Which Could Reduce Food Sources for Steelhead

With operation of the proposed CRDRP, bed mobility in the three affected reaches would be reduced by 18-35% at the 1.5-year return interval flow.  This means that 18-35% less of the riverbed would be mobilized at frequent high-flow intervals.  With less of the bed mobilized, more habitats would be available for case-building caddisflies, which may be resistant to steelhead predation.  Currently, predicting and quantifying precisely how the change in riverbed mobilization would affect populations of drifting insects is not possible, but increases in populations of predator-resistant insects could reduce the numbers of drifting insects.  This could reduce species richness and diversity, leading to lower population densities of drifting species and less food for steelhead.  Thus, this impact is considered potentially significant that must be confirmed by more detailed study.

 

Mitigation Measure D.4.2-4:  Conduct Surveys to Estimate Species Richness, Species Diversity, and Population Densities of Benthic Insects.  As part of Cal-Am’s monitoring and mitigation program, benthic surveys should be conducted at designated reference sites before project construction begins and for the first 20 years of project operation to estimate species richness, species diversity, and population densities of benthic insects.  If the number of species, species diversity, and population density of high-rate drifters remain at preproject (existing) levels, adequate food will be available for juvenile steelhead and no additional mitigation will be required.  If monitoring shows a decline of drifting insects over a 20-year period, Cal-Am should implement a program to mitigate for the change.  Appropriately sized riverbed material should be injected below the Carmel River Dam and the existing San Clemente Dam to increase bed mobility to levels that existed before construction of the new dam.  Currently, the costs of implementing this program are unknown.  These efforts should reduce the potential impact to a less-than-significant level.

 

D.4.2.5  Flows for Fall/Winter Downstream Migration

Impact D.4.2-5:  Improved Flows for Fall/Winter Downstream Migration

Compared to natural flows, the operation of the CRDRP would increase the risk that juvenile steelhead will be stranded in the Carmel River downstream of Robles del Rio.  Compared to the no-project condition, however, the risk of stranding would be substantially reduced.

 

Simulated natural flows would never result in isolation or stranding.  The operation of the CRDRP would substantially reduce the occurrence of this risk compared to no-project conditions.  During the 5 years (13% of years studied) when a risk of stranding would occur, the number of days with high risk would average 22 days per year (Table D‑15).  Overall, this impact is considered significant compared to natural conditions but beneficial compared to existing conditions.

 

With the CRDRP, the trapping and rescue program for fall migrants would be combined with operation of the Sleepy Hollow Steelhead Rearing Facility.  Any juveniles trapped during late fall/early winter would be transported to Sleepy Hollow Steelhead Rearing Facility for holding until flows could be sustained in the lower river.  Following this period, they would be transported back downstream and released at approximately the same location where they were captured.  Cal‑Am will carry out these measures as part of its Steelhead Resource Mitigation Program.

 

Mitigation Measure D.4.2-5:  Permit Flow Releases to Meet Requirements and Continue Trapping and Rescuing Fall Migrants.  Mitigation for potential impacts on fall/winter migrants would require flow releases from the Carmel River and San Clemente Dams to meet flow requirements at MPWMD’s streamflow gaging stations located at Don Juan Bridge in Garland Ranch Regional Park and the Highway 1 Bridge.  Full mitigation for operational impacts would require continued implementation of a program for trapping and rescuing fall migrants, similar to the plan outlined in the 5-year Water Allocation Mitigation Program.  However, unlike the program envisioned in that mitigation program, holding juvenile steelhead should not be required because the incidence of stranding risk with the CRDRP is lower (12% of record with CRDRP versus 87% of record with no-project condition).  Operating costs for the trapping and rescue program would be folded into the operation costs for the Sleepy Hollow facility.  Cal‑Am will implement these measures as part of its Steelhead Resource Mitigation Program.

 

With implementation of this measure, the impact on fall/winter migrants would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level compared to natural conditions and to a beneficial level compared to the no-project condition.

 

D.4.2.6  Flows for Spring Emigration

Impact D.4.2-6:  Maintenance of Flows for Spring Emigration

Compared to natural conditions overall, the CRDRP would maintain similar opportunities for smolt emigration.  It would slightly reduce the percentage of years with poor, critical, or zero emigration rating and reduce the number of years with a risk of stranding.  (Emigration ratings are defined in Table D-16.)  It would adversely affect opportunities for emigration in several critically dry years, however.  The CRDRP would result in substantially fewer years with a risk of stranding compared to the no-project condition, but a longer duration of stranding risk in certain drought years.

 

Compared to natural flows, operation of the CRDRP would maintain similar opportunities for smolt emigration during below-normal, above-normal, and wet years.  It would slightly reduce the percentage of years with poor, critical, or zero emigration ratings from 9% to 8%, but would increase the number of years with zero ratings from 0 to 2 (Table D‑16).  The proposed project would reduce the percentage of years with excellent ratings but would increase the percentage of good and fair years.

 

Compared to natural conditions, the CRDRP would reduce the incidence of smolts being isolated by low flows during April and May, but the severity of risk would be increased once it occurred.  The incidence of risk would decline from 26% to 13% of the record months, but the number of days with risk would increase from an average of 24 to 46 days per year (Table D‑17).  With the CRDRP, the risk to smolts would be high only during certain critical years; no risk would occur in any other year type.  The number of days with high risk in critical years would range from 0 to 61 days per year, or 0 to 100% of the April‑May emigration period.

 

On an average annual basis, the CRDRP would provide more protection against the risk of isolation than would natural or no-project conditions.  This is considered a beneficial effect overall, but adverse impacts would result in certain critically dry years.

 

Mitigation Measure D.4.2-6:  Permit Flow Releases to Meet Requirements and Continue Trapping, Transporting, and Acclimating Spring Emigrants.  Mitigation for potential impacts on spring emigrants would require flow releases from the Carmel River and San Clemente Dams to meet flow requirements at MPWMD’s streamflow gaging stations located at the Don Juan Bridge in Garland Ranch Regional Park and the Highway 1 Bridge.  Full mitigation for operational impacts would require continued implementation of a program for trapping, transporting, and acclimating spring emigrants when flows are insufficient for emigration.  Cal‑Am will implement these measures as part of its Steelhead Resource Mitigation Plan.

 

With implementation of flow requirements and the transport program, the impact on downstream migrants would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level compared to natural conditions and be beneficial compared to the no-project condition.  Some stress to the fish may result from trapping and handling smolts; however, the number of years during which this type of activity is needed would be reduced with the project; therefore, this impact of implementing the mitigation is considered less than significant.

 

D.4.3  IMPACTS ON FISH PASSAGE

Chapter 8 of the 1994 NLP EIR (pages 8-65 to 8-70) contains a description of the fish passage facilities planned for the NLP Dam, which is essentially the same as the Carmel River Dam.  The plan includes new passage facilities to permit upstream and downstream steelhead migration.  The proposed site of the upstream passage facility is approximately 400 feet downstream of the stilling basin for the proposed CRDRP.  The facility would be for collecting, limited holding, and hauling of adult upstream migrants to the reservoir impounded by the new dam.  The facility would consist of a fish barrier structure with a stilling basin, a water intake structure, a short fish ladder with an entrance pool and fish collection pool weir box, the mechanical equipment needed for a trap and hauling operation, and an electrical system to operate the facility. 

 

The proposed site for the downstream passage facility is approximately 1,200 feet upstream of the upper terminus of the new reservoir.  The facility would be for screening, collecting, limited holding, and hauling of adult and juvenile downstream migrants to the river below the new dam.  Equipment at the facility would consist of a radial-gated seasonal dam, primary rotary drum fish screens, bypass channels, secondary fish screens, a fish separator, and holding tanks.  This section describes impacts and mitigation measures of the passage facilities on steelhead.

 

D.4.3.1  Remedial Action Plan—Fish Passage

In consultation with state and federal agencies, Cal‑Am will develop a formal Remedial Action Plan to address problems that could occur during operation of the downstream or upstream passage facilities.  Cal‑Am may wish to contract with DFG or MPWMD to operate the facilities, thus allowing an agency with public trust responsibilities to maximize the effectiveness and maintenance of the facilities.  The most appropriate entity to operate the facility over the long term may be DFG, although Cal‑Am would be the permittee and, as such, would be ultimately responsible for operation of the facility.  DFG operates several mitigation fish facilities on a contractual basis, so a mechanism and precedent exist for the agency’s involvement in fishery mitigation. 

 

The plan would establish performance standards for the facilities and a protocol to address the appropriate actions if performance standards are not being met.  The emphasis would be on establishing a procedure to address problems that could occur with the operation and maintenance of the downstream or upstream passage facilities.  Specific solutions would depend on the nature and extent of the problems that may be observed.  Cal‑Am would set aside a contingency fund for facility improvements as an integral element of the project financing package and would include line items for monitoring facility performance in the annual operations and maintenance budget for the project.

 

If monitoring of fish behavior and measurements of mortality indicate that the facilities are causing survival to decrease, Cal‑Am will attempt to determine the cause and arrive at a solution.  If solving the problem is not technically possible, Cal‑Am will improve performance by the following means, as appropriate:

 

n    Extend the operating season into January and February to increase the number of emigrants that would be trapped and transported.

 

n    Increase the number of rotary drum screens at the site to increase the amount of flow that could be screened effectively, thereby increasing the overall effectiveness of the screening process.

 

n    Construct a passage facility on the upstream face of the reservoir to screen emigrants from reservoir spill and pass them safely downstream through a specially designed, accessory spillway, steep ladder, or flume.

 

n    If experiments indicate that the trapping and transportation phases of the operation are causing substantial mortality, Cal‑Am will consider constructing a flume or pipe to carry downstream emigrants from the fish screens to a steep ladder below the dam.

 

n    Under continuing jurisdiction of the SWRCB, Cal‑Am will consider modifying the reservoir operation schedule to increase streamflow and habitat below the new dam.

n    As a last resort and if required by the California Fish and Game Commission, Cal‑Am would consider constructing a small hatchery to mitigate losses attributable to operation of the facilities.  Cal‑Am, MPWMD, and other interested parties understand that DFG policy discourages the use of hatcheries to mitigate for reservoir construction but does not preclude their use if no other alternative is available.  MPWMD does not favor this option because of the intrinsic values of a wild, natural run of steelhead; the high cost to construct a hatchery to mitigate for the loss of steelhead resource; and the impracticability of operating a hatchery during some years.  However, if passage facilities completely failed, the California Fish and Game Commission (under Sections 5938, 5939, and 5940 of the California Fish and Game Code) may require Cal‑Am to construct a mitigation hatchery.

 

Impact D.4.3.1-1:  Loss of Emigrating Smolts from Operation of the Downstream Fish Facility

Construction and operation of the proposed upstream and downstream migration facilities at the proposed dam would provide good to excellent conditions for adults migrating upstream and for juveniles and adults emigrating downstream from the upper Carmel River to the ocean.  The proposed design and operation of the downstream fish facility, however, would result in the loss of 4-7% of the emigrating smolts.  The significance of this impact compared to existing conditions is unknown, but it is considered a significant impact compared to natural conditions.

 

Passage for Upstream Migrants at the Proposed Carmel River Dam.  Cal‑Am would construct and fund the operation of the proposed facility for upstream migration at the proposed dam as part of the CRDRP.  This facility would provide excellent conditions for collecting and transporting adult steelhead, could substantially reduce the time required for upstream migration, would replace a substandard barrier dam and collection facility with state-of-the art technology, and could significantly improve opportunities for successful upstream migration.  With proper operations, the risk that adult steelhead would be injured in the facility would be minimal.  These changes are considered beneficial compared to existing conditions and a less-than-significant impact compared to natural conditions.

 

Passage for Downstream Migrants at the Proposed Carmel River Dam.  Cal‑Am would construct and fund operation of the proposed facility for downstream migrants upstream of the Carmel River Dam as part of the CRDRP.  Downstream migrants would be screened, collected, and transported without delay past the dam (Table D‑18).  A review of simulated flows indicates that the facility at the head of the Carmel River Dam could effectively screen all April‑May emigrants in below-normal, dry, and critically dry years.  It would operate 61-68% of the time during October-March and 97-99% of the time in April and May in above-normal years.

 

The screening facility is designed to capture emigrants at flows of as much as 450 cfs and to operate 10 months per year.  Because of these design specifications and the lack of passage facilities to carry emigrants safely over the new dam, the emigrants that are not screened would pass into the reservoir.  These emigrants probably would not survive, when and if they passed over the spillway at the new dam.  The estimated losses range from 4% to 7% of total annual emigration (Table D‑19). 

 

The facility would span the entire river width at the reservoir entrance and is expected to capture all juveniles at flows less than 450 cfs.  Juvenile mortality would result when juveniles reached the reservoir past the facility at streamflows greater than 450 cfs or when the facility is not in operation.  If juveniles successfully avoided the facility and reached the reservoir, they would be unable to emigrate safely past the spillway of the new dam. 

 

The loss of smolts at the existing Los Padres Dam was estimated at 24% in 1992.  This estimate was based on a mark-and-capture experiment that determined the survival rate past the existing spillway and plunge pool (Hanna and Dettman 1993).  In 1995, repairs were made to the spillway and plunge pool at the base of the dam.  In relation to the no-project condition, no estimates are available for current losses, so the degree of impact associated with the CRDRP is unknown.  However, compared to natural conditions (absent the existing Los Padres Dam), the loss of 4-7% is considered a significant impact because it would result in a permanent, sustained reduction in the number of adults returning to the base of the new dam.

 

Passage for Downstream Migrants at San Clemente Dam.  With the CRDRP and the no-project condition, downstream migrants at San Clemente Dam would use the existing fish ladder or a new spillway constructed as part of the San Clemente Dam Seismic Retrofit Project.  Under historical conditions, the migration of juvenile steelhead during fall was delayed because San Clemente Reservoir did not remain full throughout the fall/winter period.  With the seismic retrofit, the flashboards will no longer be raised at San Clemente Dam, and the migration of steelhead during fall is no longer expected to be delayed (Table D‑18).  Little or no delay is expected for emigrants migrating downstream in spring (April and May) except during critically dry years, when migration would be interrupted for 15 days under the no-project condition and 10 days with the CRDRP (Table D‑20).  With careful operation of releases from San Clemente Dam or Carmel River Dam and implementation of the following mitigation measure, this impact can be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

 

Mitigation Measure D.4.3.1-1:  Add and/or Extend Seasonal Operation of Screens, and Release Sufficient Volumes of Water from San Clemente Reservoir.  If monitoring indicates that the loss of downstream migrants exceeds 5%, Cal‑Am will add rotary screens and/or extend seasonal operation to increase the effectiveness of the fish screens so that losses are minimal compared to natural conditions.  To solve the problem of spring emigrants at San Clemente Dam, Cal‑Am will release sufficient volumes of water to keep San Clemente Reservoir full at all times, except in the most severe droughts.

 

D.4.3.2  Consequence of Failing to Pass Steelhead Successfully

State and federal agencies have requested information on the consequences of the failure of fish passage facilities, and mitigation would be required for the loss of the run upstream of the passage facilities.

 

Failure of the Carmel River Dam to pass fish would result in the loss of an adult run that has been in the range of 0-861 fish since 1990 and has averaged 32 fish at Los Padres Reservoir.  However, state and federal resource agencies would require Cal‑Am to offset losses based on the “potential” run, rather than the historical run.  Estimates of the potential run are as high as 2,200 adults (Kelley et al. 1987).  Mitigation could involve constructing a hatchery, which would be operated by DFG to maximize preservation of the Carmel River steelhead gene pool.  A hatchery would be considered only as a last resort for the reasons enumerated above (see “Remedial Action Plan”).  NMFS has suggested the possibility of reconfiguring streamflow requirements below the new dam to compensate for the potential loss of all production upstream of the new reservoir (Bybee pers. comm.).  Although compensating for habitats directly inundated or blocked by the CRDRP is possible, compensating for all of the potential habitats lost if the fish passage facilities fail is probably not feasible because too much high-quality habitat is present upstream of the existing Los Padres Reservoir. 

 

D.4.4  PROJECT IMPACTS ON CARMEL RIVER WATER TEMPERATURE

Impact D.4.4-1:  Cooler Summer Water Temperatures Resulting from Increased Summer Streamflow Releases

The CRDRP would have a beneficial impact on summer water temperatures in dry and critically dry years.  With the proposed project, summer streamflow releases would average 17 cfs into the mainstem Carmel River below the Carmel River Dam (Figure D‑17).  Because augmented flows would be about six times greater than under natural conditions and 2.5 times greater than under the no-project condition, water temperature of the release would influence the mainstem for a greater distance downstream of the new dam.

 

Hypolimnetic Volume at Beginning of Summer.  With the CRDRP, an average of about 10,600 af of cool, hypolimnetic water (i.e., the nutrient-rich, oxygen-deficient water at the bottom of the reservoir) would be available for release at the beginning of the dry season.  In 4 years of the 39-year simulated record, no cool water would be available (Table D‑21).  The project would provide more cool water than the no-project condition at the beginning of the dry season, and this is considered a beneficial impact.

 

Hypolimnetic Volume at End of Dry Season.  With the CRDRP, an average of 6,100 af of cool, hypolimnetic water would be available for release at the end of the dry season.  No cool water would be available in 7 years of the historical record, compared to 15 years under no-project conditions (Table D‑22).  This is considered a beneficial impact compared to no-project and natural conditions.

 

Days with Hypolimnetic Releases.  On average, the CRDRP would provide cool water releases throughout the dry season of wet, above-normal, and below-normal water years.  It would maintain cool water releases through 87% of the dry season in dry years and 54% in critically dry years (Table D‑23).  This is considered a beneficial impact compared to the no-project condition, except during critically dry years, and may be beneficial compared to natural conditions during periods of high ambient air temperatures.

 

Mitigation Measure D.4.4-1:  Provide Detailed Operation Rules for Managing Releases.  No mitigation is needed because the conceptual design of the proposed project includes a multilevel intake structure on the outlet works.  Cal‑Am will conduct operation studies and water temperature simulations during the final design phase, however, to provide a detailed set of operation rules for managing releases to conserve cool water during the dry season and provide optimal water temperatures for spawning, incubation, and rearing.  With careful operations, the CRDRP would have a beneficial impact on summer water temperatures in all years.

 

D.4.5  IMPACT ON ADULT STEELHEAD RETURNS TO THE CARMEL RIVER

An assessment of impacts on adult steelhead returns will be conducted for the ESA Section 7 process and will be provided in the Final SEIR for the CRDRP.

 

D.4.6  SUMMARY OF IMPACTS ON THE STEELHEAD SPORT FISHERY

D.4.6.1  DFG Goals for the Sport Fishery

According to D. W. Alley & Associates (1993), DFG’s goal is to restore the annual run of adult steelhead to a level at which more than 2,000 fish reach San Clemente Dam.  With an estimated angling mortality of 40%, this is equivalent to an annual return of about 3,400 adult steelhead.  Based on assessments of rearing habitat in the Carmel River Basin, this is a reasonable goal if existing passage conditions are improved at the new Carmel River Dam and the steelhead population upstream of the new dam is managed specifically for steelhead (Kelley et al. 1987).  Under current angling regulations, summer fishing is allowed upstream of the dam, and this probably has a major influence on production of smolts from the upper basin (Dettman 1993).

 

D. W. Alley & Associates (1993) reported that DFG had intended to reopen the steelhead sport fishery after 2 consecutive years of 1,000+ adults returning to San Clemente Dam.  However, on February 8, 1998, the Carmel River winter steelhead sport fishery was reopened with catch-and-release angling, based on regulations adopted by the California Fish and Game Commission.  The commission’s most recent assessment is that the previous standard for reopening the fishery, dependent on the population size first reaching 1,000+ adults at San Clemente Dam, was unreasonably high.  Section D.2.4 contains a summary of the new sportfishing regulations.

 

D.4.6.2  Sportfishing (Angling) Opportunity

Angling opportunity is the number of fishing days that would be available for anglers on the Carmel River during the winter season.  With the CRDRP, and with angling prohibited at flows less than 150 cfs, about 85% of the fishing days would occur in wet and normal years (Table D‑24).  In general, fewer fishable days would be available with the CRDRP compared to the no-project condition, with the greatest disparity being in below-normal water years.  Using the criterion of flows less than 150 cfs, implementing the CRDRP resulted in 4.2% fewer fishable days during the fishing season (756 days, compared to 788 days under no-project conditions) (Table D‑25).  Using the criterion of flows less than 125 cfs for the 39‑year simulated period, implementing the CRDRP would result in 5.4% fewer fishable days (851 days, compared to 897 days under no-project conditions).  The latter criterion of 150-350 cfs is emphasized in this analysis because steelhead are more vulnerable to angling at intermediate flows, which permit stream wading by anglers.  At higher flows, anglers are restricted to riverbanks because of dangerously high currents, and increased turbidity reduces angling success.  Although the CRDRP would result in fewer fishing days overall, the higher number of fishable days in the range of 150-350 cfs may effectively cause adult steelhead to be more vulnerable to angling than under no-project conditions.

 

Angling Opportunity in Extremely Wet Years.  During extremely wet years, the CRDRP would provide an average of 45.6 fishable days (321 total), compared to 46 days (322 total) under no-project conditions.  In the 150- to 350-cfs range, the CRDRP would provide an average of 20 fishable days (140 total), compared to 17.6 days (123 total) under no-project conditions.  During extremely wet years, there would be no significant difference in vulnerability of steelhead to angling with and without the CRDRP.

 

Angling Opportunity in Wet Years.  During wet years, the CRDRP would provide an average of 35.5 fishable days (142 total), compared to 36.8 days (147 total) under no-project conditions.  In the 150‑ to 350-cfs range, the CRDRP would provide an average of 16 fishable days (64 total), compared to 13.5 days (54 total) under no-project conditions.  During wet years, there would be no significant difference in the vulnerability of steelhead to angling with and without the CRDRP.

 

Angling Opportunity in Above-Normal Years.  During above-normal years, the CRDRP would provide an average of 27.9 fishable days (183 total), compared to 28.9 days (185 total) under no-project conditions.  In the 150‑ to 350-cfs range, the CRDRP would provide an average of 17.7 fishable days (112 total), compared to 16.3 days (106 total) under no-project conditions.  On average, there would be more fishable days in above-normal years than in wet years in the 150- to 350-cfs range.  During above-normal years, there would be no significant difference in the vulnerability of steelhead to angling with and without the CRDRP.

 

Angling Opportunity in Below-Normal Years.  During below-normal years, the CRDRP would provide an average of 12.1 fishable days (97 total), compared to 14.9 days (119 total) under no-project conditions.  In the 150‑ to 350-cfs range, the CRDRP would provide an average of 10.3 fishable days (82 total), compared to 9.9 days (79 total) under no-project conditions.  During below-normal years, there would be 23% fewer fishable days on average with the CRDRP than under no-project conditions, which is a statistically significant difference.  Although this indicates that the CRDRP would adversely affect sportfishing opportunities, it may be considered a beneficial impact on the steelhead population because it reduces the vulnerability of the run to angling.  This is particularly important during below-normal years, when angling would be allowed on at least 90% of days with attraction flows (see attraction days tabulated in Table D‑6) and adults are very vulnerable to angling pressure.

 

Angling Opportunity in Dry Years.  During dry years, the CRDRP would provide an average of 1.8 fishable days (9 total), compared to 2.4 days (12 total) under no-project conditions.  In the 150‑ to 350‑cfs range, the CRDRP and the No-Project Alternative would provide equal angling opportunities (average of 1.8 fishable days and total of 9 days).  During dry years, there would be no significant difference in vulnerability of adult steelhead to angling with and without the CRDRP.

 

Angling Opportunity in Critically Dry Years.  During critically dry years, the CRDRP would provide an average of 0.5 fishable day (4 days total), compared to 0.4 day (3 days total) under no-project conditions.  In the 150‑ to 350‑cfs range, the CRDRP would provide an average of 0.5 fishable day (4 days total), compared to 0.3 day (2 days total).  During critically dry years, there would be no significant difference in vulnerability of adult steelhead to angling with and without the CRDRP.

 

Overall Effect on Angling Vulnerability.  Overall, the increased vulnerability of steelhead adults to angling in the 150- to 350‑cfs range with the CRDRP may be insignificant for the 39‑year period as a whole.  With the CRDRP, there were 411 fishable days simulated in this flow range, of a total of 756 fishable days in the 39‑year period, consisting of 54.4% of the fishable days.  The 411 days were 10% more than the 373 fishable days in that flow range under no-project conditions.  These 411 days were 48.3% of the 851 passable migration days for successful spawning migration (flows >125 cfs) simulated for the period with the CRDRP.  For the CRDRP, the fishable days in the 150- to 350‑cfs range made up 10.1% of the 4,056 total days in the fishing season for the 39-year record.  Without the project, there were 373 fishable days simulated in the 150- to 350‑cfs range, of a total of 788 fishable days, consisting of 47.3% of the fishable days.  These 373 days were 41.6% of the 897 passable migration days simulated for the period without the project.  Under no-project conditions, fishable days in the 150- to 350‑cfs range made up 9.4% of the days in the fishing season.  The 48.3% of the passable migration days on which steelhead would be vulnerable to angling in the 150- to 350‑cfs range during the fishing season with the project does not appear significantly greater than the 41.6% without the project for the overall 39‑year period.

 

The greatest increase in fishing opportunity with the project in the 150- to 350‑cfs streamflow range compared to no-project conditions would occur in above-normal, wet, and extremely wet year classes (Table D‑25), in which the total number of fishable days were 316 with the CRDRP compared to 283 under no-project conditions, an increase of 12%.  However, in these years adult steelhead would have the greatest opportunities to migrate upstream at higher streamflows to escape anglers, indicating that there may be no significant increase in vulnerability with the CRDRP during these years.

 

On the other hand, the vulnerability to angling could be significantly increased in drier years, such as simulated year 1959 (a below-normal year) and 1960 (a dry year), when five additional fishable days would be provided by the CRDRP with the existing >150 cfs minimum flow requirement (Table D‑25).  Therefore, in individual years of the below-normal and dry year classes, the CRDRP may increase the vulnerability of steelhead to angling pressure.

 

Fishing Potential.  “Fishing potential” refers to an index that combines fishing opportunity (number of days) and the strength of the steelhead run (number of returning adult fish).  This index will be provided in the Final SEIR following refinements to CVSIM that are expected due to review under the federal ESA Section 7 process.

 

D.4.7  SUMMARY OF CRDRP IMPACTS ON FISH AND AQUATIC LIFE

D.4.7.1  Habitat Inundation

The CRDRP would inundate or block 12% of spawning habitat and 12-14% of rearing habitat for steelhead in the Carmel River Basin.  Both effects are considered significant impacts.  Impacts on spawning habitat would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level through the spawning habitat restoration program described in the Mitigation and Monitoring Program Plan (Volume II of the 1994 NLP EIR).  Impacts on rearing habitat would be mitigated to a beneficial level by releasing flow from the Carmel River and San Clemente Dams, managing substrate conditions below the dam, and ensuring that woody debris is maintained below the dam.  On average, spawning habitats would increase by 33% and rearing habitats would increase by 11% compared to no-project conditions.

 

D.4.7.2  Operational Impacts on Steelhead Life Cycle

Compared to natural conditions, the flow patterns resulting from the CRDRP would substantially reduce opportunities for upstream migration.  However, in some year types the project would improve condition compared to the No-Project Alternative, which is a beneficial effect.  Additional mitigation measures, such as holding a contingent of spawners at Granite Canyon Marine Laboratory or artificially attracting sea-run adult steelhead, may not be practicable or institutionally feasible.  Thus, if natural conditions are considered the baseline, the mitigated impact is considered significant and potentially unavoidable.  An assessment of impacts on adult steelhead returns will be conducted for the ESA Section 7 process and will be provided in the Final SEIR for the CRDRP.

 

On average, the impact on spawning habitat is considered beneficial compared to simulated natural and no-project conditions.  The operation schedule would fully compensate for inundation impacts during all types of water years except dry years, when only 86% of the inundated habitats could be replaced.  Overall, the mitigated impact is considered beneficial because the use of existing habitat upstream of Los Padres Dam would be increased by improvements in passage conditions at the new dam and substantial increases in habitat would occur during most years.

 

Compared to natural and no-project conditions, the CRDRP would beneficially affect juvenile rearing habitats and spring emigration of smolts; no additional mitigation measures would be required.  Improved flows for fall/winter downstream migration are considered beneficial compared to the existing situation but adverse compared to natural flows.  This dichotomy reflects the degraded situation that presently exists in the Carmel River.  The significant effect compared to natural flows can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level by scheduling flow releases and continuing to implement a trapping program that is part of the Water Allocation Mitigation Program currently administered by MPWMD.

 

D.4.7.3  Flow Frequency and Benthic Invertebrates

Operation of the CRDRP would reduce riverbed mobility by 18-35% in three reaches.  This substrate change could foster insect populations that are more resistant to predation by steelhead, resulting in a potentially significant reduction in species richness and diversity and less food for steelhead.  Additional study is needed to confirm these preliminary conclusions.  Preproject and postproject surveys of benthic invertebrates should be conducted to assess trends.  If monitoring shows a decline in drifting insects, a program to bring in appropriately sized riverbed materials should be implemented to foster species richness and diversity.

 

D.4.7.4  Fish Passage

Compared to existing conditions, the small losses of 4-7% of emigrants with the CRDRP would result in an unknown level of impact.  Compared to natural conditions, however, these losses represent a significant impact because they would result in a permanent reduction in the number of returning adults.  State-of-the-art facilities would replace inadequate facilities at Los Padres Dam, and increased flows with the removal of flashboards at San Clemente Dam may improve passage over San Clemente Dam.  If returns of adults to the new Carmel River Dam do not increase as a result of the project and the problem is related to the design and operation of the downstream passage facility, additional mitigation may be required as described in the Remedial Action Plan, which is a permit condition of the project.

 

D.4.7.5  Water Temperature

The longer duration of cool-water releases would result in beneficial effects to Carmel River water temperature in all years.  With careful operations and the multiple-level outlet, the water temperatures below the new Carmel River Dam would be suitable for all life stages of steelhead.

 

D.4.7.6  Index of Adult Steelhead Returns

An assessment of impacts on adult steelhead returns will be conducted for the ESA Section 7 process and will be provided in the Final SEIR for the CRDRP.  The results may be similar to the description in the 1994 NLP EIR for 24 NLP:

 

The returns of adult steelhead will range from remnant to excellent.  In all years, returns with the alternative are greater than or equal to the No Project.  Returns are rated as good to excellent in thirteen years (40% of the years) for the portion of the population between San Clemente and New Los Padres Dams.  As indexed by returns, the future population should recover following droughts, if fishing mortality is regulated to prevent overharvesting.  There will be periods, during and following droughts, when the returns of adults are reduced to remnant or poor levels.

 

D.4.7.7  Impact on Steelhead Sport Fishery

Approximately 85% of the fishing opportunities will occur during above-normal years.  The average number of fishing days with the CRDRP would be similar to that under no-project conditions except during below-normal years, when there will be about 3 fewer days (a 23% reduction).  An analysis of the fishing potential, which combines a numerical index of the adult run and angling opportunities, will be provided in the Final SEIR.

 

D.5  IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES OF THE NO-PROJECT ALTERNATIVE

 

D.5.1  INUNDATION AND BLOCKAGE OF HABITAT

Impact D.5.1-1:  No Inundation or Blockage of Spawning Habitat

In terms of direct impacts, the No-Project Alternative would not inundate or block any spawning habitat in the Carmel River Basin.  However, because of substandard fish passage facilities at the existing Los Padres Dam, the spawning habitat upstream of the dam would continue to be underused until the facilities are improved.

 

Mitigation Measure D.5.1-1:  No mitigation is required.  However, the habitat losses that would result from the existing diversion at San Clemente Dam could be mitigated by restoring spawning habitat below the existing dams.  If implemented, such a program would result in a beneficial impact compared to existing conditions.  Currently, MPWMD is maintaining spawning habitat below the existing dams as part of a restoration project funded by the California Wildlife Conservation Board (WCB).  MPWMD is under a contractual agreement to maintain the restored habitats for 10 years (1993-2002).

 

Impact D.5.1-2:  No Inundation or Blockage of Rearing Habitat

The No-Project Alternative would not inundate or block rearing habitat in the Carmel River Basin.

 

Mitigation Measure D.5.1-2:  No mitigation is required.  With the No-Project Alternative, MPWMD, DFG, and Cal‑Am would continue to negotiate annual MOAs for the release of streamflow below San Clemente Dam.  No-project operations would provide more rearing habitat than would natural flow conditions.  Thus, the overall impact would be beneficial.

 

With existing substrate conditions, the No-Project Alternative would provide more rearing habitat than would natural flow conditions.  However, based on recent filling of the existing San Clemente Dam with sediment, the streambed downstream of San Clemente Dam is expected to become increasingly embedded with fine sediment.  This increase, combined with lower flow releases because of the filling of Los Padres and San Clemente Dams, would reduce the quality and quantity of rearing habitats compared to natural flow and sediment conditions.  The extent of the reduction is unknown but potentially significant.

 

D.5.2  IMPACTS OF NO-PROJECT ALTERNATIVE OPERATION

The goal of operations under the No-Project Alternative would be similar to that of the CRDRP because Cal‑Am is limited to an equivalent volume of water (17,641 af of annual production) with or without the CRDRP. 

 

The following paragraphs summarize no-project effects on various components of the steelhead life cycle.

 

Impact D.5.2-1:  Flows for Adult Upstream Migration

Compared to natural conditions, the operation of the No-Project Alternative would substantially reduce opportunities for upstream migration by limiting the duration of attraction flows, shortening the duration of the migration season, and increasing the number of years without attraction flows.

 

With Cal‑Am production limited to 17,641 af, the No-Project Alternative would meet the modified DFG criteria (as described in the 1994 NLP EIR, Chapter 8) in 62% of years and would achieve a “fair” or better rating with the D. W. Kelley monthly criteria (as described in the 1994 NLP EIR, Chapter 8) 49% of the time in January, 64% in February, and 59% in March (Table D‑5).  Compared to natural flows, the No-Project Alternative would adversely affect upstream migration by reducing the percentage of years with flows exceeding DFG criteria and reducing opportunities for upstream migration during January, February, and March.

 

On average, the No-Project Alternative would provide 28 days of attraction flows (minimum flows ranging from 75 to 200 cfs) and provide an average minimum of 2 weeks of attraction flows during wet, above-normal, and dry years (Table D‑6).  However, it would provide an average of only 1 day in critically dry years, and in 13% of years no attraction flows would occur.  Compared to natural conditions, the No-Project Alternative would substantially reduce attraction flows, to a degree similar to the CRDRP.

 

On average, the duration of the migration season would be 47 days, which is 8 days less than under natural conditions (Table D‑7).  Most of the impact would occur in below-normal, dry, and critically dry years; the average duration would be reduced by 15 days during below-normal years, 15 days during dry years, and 17 days during critically dry years.  Overall, this is considered a significant impact.

 

Mitigation Measure D.5.2-1:  No mitigation is available that would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.  Thus, this remains a significant unavoidable impact.  A similar finding was made as part of the Water Allocation Program Final EIR certification.  (An emergency program, similar to the broodstock program conducted by the CRSA, could be implemented to shorten the time needed for the population to recover from the effects of severe droughts.)

 

Impact D.5.2-2:  Flows for Steelhead Spawning Habitat

The No-Project Alternative would have no impact on spawning habitat between San Clemente Reservoir and Los Padres Dam.  Operation of the No-Project Alternative would substantially reduce spawning habitat downstream of San Clemente Dam by maintaining high diversions through the Carmel Valley Filter Plant during February and March of below-normal, dry, and critically dry years.

 

Downstream of San Clemente Dam.  The operation of the No-Project Alternative would reduce average flows by 10-11 cfs during February and March.  These flow reductions would provide 18,400 units of spawning WUA, which represents a substantial reduction (11%) compared to natural flow conditions (Table D‑8).

 

Between San Clemente and Los Padres Dams.  Table D‑9 lists the total spawning WUA between San Clemente and Los Padres Dams during selected years of the 90‑year record.  During the selected years, operation of the No-Project Alternative would result in an average of 9,200 units of WUA, nearly equivalent to habitat under natural flow conditions and representing no impact.

 

Mitigation Measure D.5.2-2:  Improve Spawning Habitat.  Operation of the No-Project Alternative would reduce spawning habitat in the river upstream of the Narrows.  It may be possible to improve flows during February and March in below-normal and dry years.  If that is not sufficient, Cal‑Am, MPWMD, or other entities could improve spawning habitat by implementing a program to maintain spawning gravels upstream of the Narrows.  In the absence of a new project, which requires mitigation through permits from SWRCB and the Corps and agreements with DFG, it is unknown whether Cal‑Am or others would commit to implementing such a program.  Because of this uncertainty, this impact remains significant and unavoidable.

 

Impact D.5.2-3:  Increased Flows for Juvenile Rearing Habitat

Compared to natural flow conditions, the No-Project Alternative would increase juvenile steelhead habitats in the reach between San Clemente and Los Padres Dams.  It would not affect habitats for steelhead fry between the dams or between the Narrows and San Clemente Dam.  It would substantially reduce habitat downstream of the Narrows and strand juveniles in the lower river more often than would conditions with natural flows.

 

Near Carmel to the Narrows.  Compared to natural flow conditions, the No-Project Alternative would increase the percentage of years during which the lower river would dry up from 41% to 97% (Table D‑11).  This is a significant impact.

 

Narrows to San Clemente Dam.  Operation of the No-Project Alternative would provide average minimum summer flow of 3.5 cfs at the Narrows, essentially equivalent to natural flow conditions (Figure D‑13).  Although the overall flows are equivalent, flows with the No-Project Alternative would provide 1.49 million RI units of age 0+ juveniles, or a 7% increase compared to the 1.39 million units with natural flows.  The No-Project Alternative would reduce habitat for yearling steelhead from 0.45 to 0.42 million units, or a 7% decline (Table D‑12).  These changes are a less-than-significant impact.

 

Between San Clemente and Los Padres Dams.  Operation of the No-Project Alternative would increase the average minimum late-spring and early-summer flow below Los Padres Reservoir from 22.0 to 22.7 cfs (Figure D‑14).  This flow would increase habitat for steelhead fry from an average of 270,000 WUA units to 280,000 WUA units, a 5% increase, which is a less-than-significant change (Table D‑13).

 

Operation of the No-Project Alternative would increase the average late-summer flow below Los Padres Dam from 2.8 to 6.5 cfs (Figure D‑15), which would increase habitat for juvenile steelhead from an average of 73,000 WUA units to 166,000 WUA units, or by 131% (Table D‑13).  This is a beneficial effect.

 

Mitigation Measure D.5.2-3:  Modify Operations to Improve Summer Flows, and Continue Funding Program to Rescue and Rear Isolated Juveniles.  Cal‑Am will work with MPWMD and DFG to improve summer flows by modifying operations.  If flows are insufficient, MPWMD or Cal‑Am will continue funding the program to rescue and rear juveniles that are isolated downstream of Robles del Rio.  Based on the operation study, this program would be needed in 97% of the 39 simulated years and would operate an average of 6 months per year.

 

Impact D.5.2-4:  Decreased Flows for Fall/Winter Downstream Migration

Compared to natural flows, the No-Project Alternative would substantially increase the risk that juvenile steelhead would be stranded in the Carmel River downstream of Robles del Rio.  During the 34 years when a risk would occur (87% of the years studied), an average of 26 days per year would have high risk (Table D‑15).

 

Mitigation Measure D.5.2-4:  Study the Feasibility of Making Special Releases.  Cal‑Am has contracted with MPWMD to study the feasibility of reducing this risk by making special releases of stored water from Los Padres Dam following the first heavy rain of the year.  This approach appears promising, but if operations cannot be changed and flows remain insufficient, MPWMD will continue the existing program to rescue and transplant migrants during fall months.  Operating costs for the trapping and rescue program will be folded into the operation costs for the SHSRF.

 

Impact D.5.2-5:  Reduced Flows for Spring Emigration

The No-Project Alternative would adversely affect opportunities for smolt emigration by increasing the percentage of years with poor, critical, or zero emigration ratings; reducing the percentage of years with good to excellent emigration ratings; and increasing the occurrence and duration of the risk of isolating smolts in the lower river.

 

Compared to natural flow conditions, the No-Project Alternative would substantially reduce opportunities for smolt emigration in below-normal, dry, and critically dry years.  It would increase the percentage of years with poor, critical, or zero ratings from 5% to 28% and would reduce the percentage of years with good to excellent ratings (Table D‑16).

 

The No-Project Alternative maintains the existing high risk that steelhead smolts would be isolated by low flows during April and May.  Compared to natural conditions, the incidence of risk would increase from 26% to 54% of the record, and the average number of days with risk would increase from 24 to 37 days per year (Table D‑17).  This is considered a significant impact.

 

Mitigation Measure D.5.2-5:  Continue Funding Program to Trap and Transport Smolts.  MPWMD or Cal‑Am will continue funding the existing MPWMD program to trap and transport smolts in some above-normal years and all below-normal, dry, and critically dry years.

 

D.5.3  IMPACTS OF NO-PROJECT ALTERNATIVE ON FISH PASSAGE

Impact D.5.3-1:  Potential to Impede or Delay Fish Passage

The operation of three Cal-Am facilities (Los Padres, San Clemente, and Old Carmel Dams) may have a significant impact on the steelhead population, depending on design and operation of future fish facilities.  Currently, Cal‑Am is planning to construct a seismic retrofit project at the existing San Clemente Dam.  With proper design and operation of new facilities, the seismic retrofit project could improve migration conditions for adults migrating upstream and juveniles and adults migrating downstream.  Refer to the EIR for the Seismic Retrofit Project, when it is issued, for a discussion of impacts resulting from retrofitting San Clemente Dam.  Under existing conditions, the operation of Los Padres Dam substantially delays the downstream passage of juveniles during fall and winter months.

 

Upstream Passage at Los Padres Dam.  With the No-Project Alternative, the existing facilities at Los Padres Dam may be operated to collect and transport adults upstream.  The existing facilities may affect adults through stress caused by delaying or impeding migration, crowding in the small holding pool, netting, and crowding and high temperatures during transport.  The operation of existing facilities is considered a significant impact compared to natural conditions.

 

Downstream Passage at Los Padres Dam.  Juvenile and adult steelhead may continue to emigrate downstream by swimming through the existing reservoir and spillway.  Recent improvements to the existing facilities may have helped to reduce injury and mortality rates of smolts migrating downstream, but the degree of improvement is unknown.  Additional improvements that may be needed would be feasible but costly.  Because of these uncertainties, the impacts associated with existing facilities are unknown but probably avoidable.

 

Operation of the No-Project Alternative would delay fall/winter downstream migration of juveniles past Los Padres Dam an average of 18 days.  This is considered a significant impact compared to natural conditions (Table D‑18).

 

Downstream Passage at San Clemente Dam.  Review of CVSIM output indicates that passage of migrating juvenile steelhead could be delayed during October-March and April-May (Table D‑20).  However, with careful operation, daily operations could probably be modified to maintain San Clemente Reservoir at a full level, thereby providing adequate passage conditions during all but the driest years.  Although existing conditions could be improved, the impacts on downstream passage would remain significant compared to natural conditions.

 

Upstream Passage at Old Carmel Dam.  Old Carmel Dam, located approximately 0.3 mile below San Clemente Dam, was constructed in the 1880s.  Under existing conditions, this dam acts as a partial barrier to upstream migration of adult steelhead.  Within a flow range of approximately 250-800 cfs, the water level in the forebay is 2-5 feet above the tailwater, with most of the flow passing through a narrow chute in the dam.  Water velocity in the chute exceeds the sustained swimming speed of adult steelhead and attracts debris.  Under these conditions, adult steelhead have been observed making repeated unsuccessful attempts to pass through the chute.  The dam could be modified to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level, but past efforts have failed because of concerns about the structural integrity of bridge supports that were added when San Clemente Dam was constructed.  Currently, MPWMD is under contract to Cal‑Am to evaluate and recommend modifications to the dam, but at the present time it is unknown whether modifications will be made.  For this reason, this impact is considered a significant, although probably avoidable, impact.

 

Mitigation Measure D.5.3-1:  Modify Los Padres and Old Carmel Dams to Reduce Injury and Mortality to Fish.  Under the No-Project Alternative, major modifications may be needed to reduce injury and mortality at Los Padres and Old Carmel Dams.  At Los Padres Dam, improvements are not likely to reduce the impact on migrating steelhead, especially adult downstream migrants, to a less-than-significant level.  Additional improvements would not reduce the migration delay at Los Padres Reservoir for downstream juvenile migrants.  Impacts of the San Clemente Retrofit Project on fish passage will be discussed in the EIR for that project.  At San Clemente Dam, operations could be altered to reduce migration delays and eliminate blockage by maintaining reservoir storage at the San Clemente spillway level.

 

This mitigation measure would reduce adverse impacts on migrating steelhead at Los Padres, San Clemente, and Old Carmel Dams.  However, additional improvements at Los Padres Dam and Old Carmel Dam may not be implemented, and the degree of improvement is unknown.  For these reasons, the overall impact is considered significant and unavoidable.

 

D.5.4  IMPACTS OF NO-PROJECT ALTERNATIVE ON CARMEL RIVER WATER TEMPERATURE

Impact D.5.4-1:  Higher Water Temperatures Resulting from Reduced Quantity of Cool Water

The No-Project Alternative could result in higher water temperatures than those under existing conditions because less cool water would be available if San Clemente and Los Padres Reservoirs continued to fill with sediment.  The operation schedule for the No-Project Alternative includes an assumption that Cal-Am would begin maintenance dredging programs at Los Padres and San Clemente Reservoirs, but the implementation of these programs has not been determined.  Unless action is taken in the near future, San Clemente Reservoir would fill with sediment within the next 5-10 years.  The sedimentation rate at Los Padres Reservoir is about 20 af/yr, and it would be filled in about 40 years.  If Cal-Am does not institute maintenance dredging or some other means to maintain existing reservoir storage capacity, the impacts identified in the following paragraphs would be accentuated.

 

On average, the No-Project Alternative would provide 640 af of cool water at the beginning of the summer (Table D‑21).  The No-Project Alternative would provide 195 af of cool water at the end of the dry season, and the river would run out of cool water in 15 years of the 39-year simulated record (Table D‑22).  Under the No-Project Alternative, the river would run out of cool water during all but the wettest years and would do so sooner in dry and critically dry years (Table D‑23).  This is considered a significant impact.

 

Mitigation Measure D.5.4-1:  Investigate the Possibility of Implementing an Aggressive Dredging Program.  The No-Project Alternative does not include any facilities or measures to control water temperature in the Carmel River.  Impacts would probably be similar to, but more detrimental than, those under existing conditions unless an aggressive dredging program that extends beyond maintenance levels were implemented by Cal‑Am.  Such as program may be technically feasible but costly.

 

D.5.5  IMPACT OF NO-PROJECT ALTERNATIVE ON ADULT STEELHEAD RETURNS

An assessment of impacts on adult steelhead returns will be conducted for the ESA Section 7 process and will be provided in the Final SEIR for the CRDRP.  The results may be similar to the following impact statement from the 1994 NLP EIR on New Los Padres Project:

 

With the No Project, the return of adult steelhead would range from remnant to good. During 58% of the simulated years, the returns ranged from remnant to poor in the reach between San Clemente and Los Padres Dams, while in the reach below San Clemente the returns were remnant to poor during 55% of the years (Figure 8-16). Remnant returns were caused by insufficient flows for upstream migration of adult steelhead in 1961, 1976, 1977, 1989, 1990, and 1994.  Poor returns were caused by poor or critical flow conditions during 12 springs (1960, 1961, 1966, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1976, 1977, 1987, 1988, 1989, and 1990) and by critically low juvenile populations that were associated with poor returns of 3- and 4-year-old fish or with critical flows for adult upstream migration.  Returns were never rated as excellent with the No Project.  This was due to a combination of insufficient habitat for spawning in the reach between the dams and by low flows in the reach below San Clemente Dam.  These results indicate returns of adult steelhead will continue to be limited by insufficient flows for upstream migration of adults, juvenile rearing habitat, insufficient flows for downstream emigration of smolts and by a lack of gravel in spawning habitat between San Clemente Reservoir and Los Padres Dam.

 

D.5.6  IMPACT OF NO-PROJECT ALTERNATIVE ON THE STEELHEAD SPORT FISHERY

D.5.6.1  Sportfishing Opportunities

 

With angling prohibited at flows less than 150 cfs, about 83% of the fishing opportunities under the No-Project Alternative would occur in wet and above-normal years (Table D‑24).  Although this is similar to effects of the proposed project, about 3 fewer days of angling opportunity would be available in below-normal years under the No-Project Alternative (Table D‑25). 

 

D.5.6.2  Fishing Potential

An assessment of impacts on adult steelhead returns will be conducted for the ESA Section 7 process and will be provided in the Final SEIR for the CRDRP.

 

D.5.7  FLOW PATTERN EFFECTS ON BENTHIC INVERTEBRATES

With the No-Project Alternative, the frequency of high flows would be similar to existing conditions and would not result in changes to the composition of aquatic insects.  Algal and insect production would be similar to existing conditions, if sediment is contained in San Clemente and Los Padres Reservoirs.  However, if dredging did not occur or if sediment were allowed to pass over the dams in an uncontrolled manner, the concentrations of sediment on the streambed would increase.  This would lead to reduced aquatic insect diversity, reduced insect production, fewer drifting insects, and less food for juvenile steelhead.

 

D.5.8  SUMMARY OF NO-PROJECT IMPACTS ON STEELHEAD

D.5.8.1  Habitat Inundation

No spawning or rearing habitat would be inundated under the No-Project Alternative.  The net effect would be beneficial, except for altered flow patterns that would result from this alternative.

 

D.5.8.2  Operational Impacts on Steelhead Life Cycle

Compared to natural conditions, the No-Project Alternative would result in significant impacts on several facets of the steelhead life cycle, including upstream migration, spawning, the risk of stranding juveniles during summer, fall/winter downstream migration, and spring smolt emigration.  All of these impacts could be reduced to a less-than-significant level with implementation of the Water Allocation Mitigation Program described previously, with one exception:  The impact on upstream migration would be a significant unavoidable impact because streamflow under the No-Project Alternative would be insufficient to meet upstream migration requirements in the lower river during dry and critically dry years.  Mitigating this impact to a less-than-significant level would require intensive rescue, rearing, and transport activities in the lower Carmel River.  Because No-Project Alternative operations do not include augmentation of streamflow in the lower river, it may be impossible to avoid intensive rescue efforts similar to those required under existing conditions.

 

D.5.8.3  Fish Passage and Water Temperature

The No-Project Alternative operation would adversely affect fish passage compared to natural conditions.  Conditions would be similar to or improved compared to the existing situation but may still produce migration delays because of a lack of flow and inadequate facilities at Los Padres Dam.  All adverse impacts could be mitigated with improvements to facilities, but probably not to a less-than-significant level.

 

The No-Project Alternative would result in higher temperatures than existing conditions because less cool water would be available after Los Padres and San Clemente Reservoirs filled with additional sediment.

 

D.5.8.4  Index of Adult Steelhead Returns

An assessment of impacts on adult steelhead returns will be conducted for the ESA Section 7 process and will be provided in the Final SEIR for the CRDRP.  The results may be similar to the summary provided in the 1994 NLP EIR on New Los Padres Dam:

 

With the No Project the returns of adult steelhead will range from remnant to good.  In over 50% of the years the returns were rated as remnant or poor.  In all years, returns with the No Project will be less than or equal to the Project and may never be excellent.  The differences indicate that adult returns will be significantly lower with the No Project.

 

. . . With the No Project future populations may recover following droughts, but the recovery period will probably be longer and the population will not recover to as high a level, compared to the project.

 

D.5.8.5  Impact on Steelhead Sport Fishery

About 83% of the fishing opportunities would occur during above-normal years under the No-Project Alternative.  Compared to the CRDRP, the average number of fishing days with the No-Project Alternative would be lower.  A comparison of overall fishing potential between the CRDRP and the No-Project Alternative will be provided for the final SEIR.

 

D.6  CRDRP CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

 

Construction impacts of the CRDRP are the same as those described in the 1994 NLP EIR for the 24,000-af NLP project.  Refer to Section 8.4 of the 1994 NLP EIR for a discussion of potential impacts and the measures that Cal‑Am would take to mitigate those impacts.  State and federal permits for the reservoir project specify additional measures to avoid or minimize impacts during construction.

 

Impact D.6-1:  Damage to Habitat, Impedance of Migration, Increased Sedimentation, and Potential for Catastrophic Erosion

Construction activities for the CRDRP could adversely affect steelhead migration and damage habitat as a result of sedimentation.

 

The construction of temporary diversion works and the base of the new dam could adversely affect the migration of adult steelhead from January through mid‑May.  During their upstream migration, adults may not be able to negotiate the diversion tunnel when water velocity exceeds 5-6 feet per second during storm events.

 

Construction activities associated with the temporary diversion works, the base of the new dam, removal of vegetation in the inundation zone, new roads, and borrow areas would increase the transport and deposition of fine sediment in the mainstem of the Carmel River downstream of the construction zone.  If left unmitigated, the sediment would damage habitat for most aquatic species in the river.

 

Despite the mitigation measures instituted to prevent damage by the normal increase in sediment transport, there is a risk that catastrophic levels of erosion could occur following extremely high flows associated with unusual storms.  Whether such a storm event would occur during the construction phase cannot be predicted.  These impacts are considered significant.

 

Mitigation Measure D.6-1:  Implement Measures to Avoid Interfering with Migration, Operate Sediment Traps, and Obtain Section 401 Certification.  To mitigate for construction impacts of the CRDRP, MPWMD will implement the following:

 

(a)        Construct and operate the upstream and downstream migration facilities to avoid interfering with the migration of adult and juvenile steelhead while the dam is being constructed.

 

(b)        Construct and operate temporary sediment traps in the Carmel River and other measures specified in the Section 401 certification by the RWQCB to avoid the impacts of soil erosion, transport of sand and silt, and sedimentation of habitat downstream of the project area.

 

(c)        Carry out Section 401 certification requirements to avoid impacts, and establish an emergency fund of $250,000 to cover the cost of cleaning up accidental discharges of sediment of other materials that impair spawning and rearing habitat.

 

These actions would reduce the potential impact to a less-than-significant level.

 

Table of Contents

 

APPENDIX D.  FISH AND AQUATIC LIFE............................................................................. D-1

D.1  INTRODUCTION................................................................................................... D-1

D.2  SETTING................................................................................................................. D-2

D.2.1  AQUATIC RESOURCES OF THE CARMEL RIVER...................... D-2

D.2.2  EXISTING FISH RESOURCES........................................................ D-2

D.2.3  LISTING STATUS OF STEELHEAD............................................... D-3

D.2.4  CALIFORNIA STEELHEAD MANAGEMENT DECISIONS IN RELATION TO NMFS JURISDICTION AND RECOVERY OF THE CARMEL RIVER STEELHEAD POPULATION................................................................................. D-5

D.2.5  FEDERAL REGULATORY PROCESSES ASSOCIATED WITH PERMITTING OF THE PROPOSED CARMEL RIVER DAM UNDER THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT   D-7

D.2.6  STEELHEAD LIFE CYCLE.............................................................. D-8

D.2.7  STATUS OF STEELHEAD IN THE CARMEL RIVER..................... D-9

D.2.8  FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH THE HISTORICAL DECLINE OF STEELHEAD     D-12

D.2.9  EXISTING MITIGATION PROGRAMS........................................ D-13

D.2.10  EXISTING AND PLANNED FISH PASSAGE FACILITIES....... D-14

D.3  HABITAT NEEDS, SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA, AND STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE D-17

D.3.1  FLOWS FOR SPAWNING ADULTS............................................. D-17

D.3.2  INDEX OF ADULT STEELHEAD RETURNS................................ D-19

D.3.3  STEELHEAD FISHERY IN THE LOWER CARMEL RIVER......... D-20

D.4  IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES OF THE CRDRP........................... D-22

D.4.1  INUNDATION AND BLOCKAGE OF HABITAT........................ D-23

D.4.2  IMPACTS OF CRDRP OPERATION ............................................ D-25

D.4.3  IMPACTS ON FISH PASSAGE .................................................... D-36

D.4.4  PROJECT IMPACTS ON CARMEL RIVER WATER TEMPERATURE            D-40

D.4.5  IMPACT ON ADULT STEELHEAD RETURNS TO THE CARMEL RIVER      D-41

D.4.6  SUMMARY OF IMPACTS ON THE STEELHEAD SPORT FISHERY D-41

D.4.7  SUMMARY OF CRDRP IMPACTS ON FISH AND AQUATIC LIFE D-43

D.5  IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES OF THE NO-PROJECT ALTERNATIVE         D-46

D.5.1  INUNDATION AND BLOCKAGE OF HABITAT ....................... D-46

D.5.2  IMPACTS OF NO-PROJECT ALTERNATIVE OPERATION...... D-46

D.5.3  IMPACTS OF NO-PROJECT ALTERNATIVE ON FISH PASSAGE D-50

D.5.4  IMPACTS OF NO-PROJECT ALTERNATIVE ON CARMEL RIVER WATER TEMPERATURE............................................................................ D-51

D.5.5  IMPACT OF NO-PROJECT ALTERNATIVE ON ADULT STEELHEAD RETURNS   D-52

D.5.6  IMPACT OF NO-PROJECT ALTERNATIVE ON THE STEELHEAD SPORT FISHERY........................................................................................................ D-52

D.5.7  FLOW PATTERN EFFECTS ON BENTHIC INVERTEBRATES.. D-53

D.5.8  SUMMARY OF NO-PROJECT IMPACTS ON STEELHEAD...... D-53

D.6  CRDRP CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES......... D-54

 

 

 

List of Acronyms

 

supplemental EIR (SEIR) (D-1)

Carmel River Dam and Reservoir Project (CRDRP) (D-1)

Endangered Species Act (ESA) (D-1)

California-American Water Company (Cal-Am)  (D-1)

acre-feet per year (af/yr) (D-1)

the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) (D-2)

MPWMD (D-2)

 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (D-3)

 (ESUs)  (D-3)

cubic feet per second (cfs) (D-5)

USGS  (D-5)

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps (D-7)

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (D-7)

(Dettman and Kelley 1986). (D-8)

Rearing Index (RI (D-9)

memorandum of agreement (MOA) (D-9)

Carmel River Steelhead Association (CRSA) (D-11)

MOA (D-14)

California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR)  (D-16)

Instream Flow Incremental Methodology (IFIM) (D-18)

weighted usable area (WUA) (D-18)

24,000-af New Los Padres Dam (referred to as 24 NLP) (D-23)

RI (D-25)

natural c (D-25)

Interagency Technical Working Group (ITWG) (D-26)

ITWG (D-27)

 California Wildlife Conservation Board (WCB (D-46)

 spawning WUA (D-48)

 

List of Citations

 

Monterey Peninsula Water Management District [MPWMD] 1994a) (D-1)

(MPWMD 1994a) (D-1)

(Fields 1984). (D-2)

California Department of Fish and Game 1986, Snider 1983) (D-3)

California Department of Fish and Game 1986 (D-3)

D. W. Alley & Associates 1993. (D-5)

 (McEwan pers. comm. (D-5)

(McEwan pers. comm. (D-5)

Mobley pers. comm. (D-5)

g (D-6)

Mobley pers. comm. (D-6)

Snider 1983 (D-7)

Kelley et al. 1987 (D-7)

Mobley pers. comm.). (D-7)

Dettman 1986 (D-10)

 (Snider 1983 (D-10)

(Kelley et al. 1987 (D-10)

Snider 1983 (D-10)

D. W. Alley & Associates 1998a (D-11)

D. W. Alley & Associates 1998b (D-12)

D. W. Alley & Associates 1998c (D-12)

Dettman 1991 (D-12)

Dettman 1991). (D-13)

 EIR (adopted in November 1990) (D-13)

MPWMD 1990b) (D-13)

MPWMD 1996c (D-13)

Shapovalov and Taft 1954 (D-14)

Dettman and Kelley 1986) (D-14)

Hanna and Dettman 1993) (D-15)

Gray pers. comm. (D-16)

(Nakaji 1980, Dettman and Kelley 1986 (D-18)

Bovee (1982 (D-18)

Alley, 1990; 1992) (D-18)

D. W. Alley & Associates 1986.) (D-18)

D. W. Alley & Associates 1998 (D-18)

Alley et al. 1990 (D-19)

(D. W. Alley & Associates 1998.) (D-19)

D. W. Alley & Associates 1998. (D-19)

D. W. Alley & Associates 1992). (D-21)

Kelley and Dettman (1980) (D-24)

MPWMD 1994a (D-24)

Kelley and Dettman 1980). (D-30)

MacDonald et al. 1991 (D-30)

MacDonald et al. 1991 (D-30)

Wooton et al. 1996 (D-31)

Fields 1984 (D-32)

Wooton et al. (1996), (D-32)

Section C.2.5 of Appendix C (D-33)

Dettman and Hampson (in prep.) (D-33)

Wooton et al. 1996 (D-33)

Rader (1997) (D-33)

Hanna and Dettman 1993 (D-39)

(Kelley et al. 1987) (D-39)

Bybee pers. comm. (D-40)

 D. W. Alley & Associates (1993) (D-41)

Kelley et al. 1987) (D-41)

Dettman 1993 (D-41)

D. W. Alley & Associates (1993)  (D-41)

 

List of Tables

 

Table D-1 (D-17)

 Table 2-3 in Chapter 2 of this SEIR. (D-22)

(Table D-2).   (D-23)

Table D-3 (D-24)

Tables 2-1 and 2-2 (D-24)

 (Table D-4 (D-25)

(Table D-4) (D-25)

(Table D-5) (D-25)

Table D-6). (D-26)

Table D-7 (D-26)

Table D-7 (D-26)

Table 2-2).  (D-27)

Table D-8). (D-28)

Table D-9 li (D-28)

(Table D-9) (D-28)

(Table D-10) (D-28)

(Table D-4 (D-29)

Table D-11 (D-29)

(Table D-12).   (D-29)

(Table D-13 (D-29)

Table D-13 (D-29)

Table D-14 (D-33)

(Table D-15) (D-34)

Table D-16). (D-35)

Table D-17) (D-35)

(Table D-18) (D-38)

Table D-19) (D-38)

Table D-18).  (D-39)

Table D-20) (D-39)

Table D-21) (D-40)

(Table D-22) (D-40)

Table D-23).  (D-40)

Table D-24 (D-41)

Table D-25). (D-41)

Table D-6) (D-42)

Table D-25), (D-43)

Table D-25 (D-43)

Table D-5 (D-47)

Table D-6) (D-47)

Table D-7). (D-47)

Table D-8). (D-47)

Table D-9  (D-48)

(Table D-11) (D-48)

Table D-12 (D-48)

Table D-13). (D-48)

(Table D-13).   (D-48)

(Table D-15). (D-49)

(Table D-16). (D-49)

(Table D-17) (D-49)

 (Table D-18). (D-50)

(Table D-20) (D-50)

Table D-21) (D-51)

Table D-22). (D-51)

(Table D-23 (D-51)

Table D-24). (D-52)

(Table D-25).   (D-52)

 

List of Figures

 

Figure D-1) (D-8)

 Figure D-2 (D-8)

Figure D-3 (D-8)

(Figure D-4) (D-10)

(Figure D-4) (D-10)

 (Figure D-4 (D-11)

(Figure D-5) (D-11)

Figure D-1, (D-17)

 Figure D-6 (D-18)

(Figure D-7 (D-18)

Figure D-7 (D-19)

(Figure D-8, (D-19)

n Figure D-9 (D-19)

Figure D-10) (D-20)

Figure D-10 (D-20)

(Figure D-11 (D-26)

(Figure D-12 (D-26)

Figures D-11 and D-12 (D-26)

Figure D-9 (D-28)

Figure D-13 (D-29)

Figure D-14) (D-29)

s (Figure D-15) (D-29)

Figure D-16 (D-32)

Figure D-17 (D-32)

Figure D-19 (D-32)

Figure D-20 (D-33)

Figure D-20 (D-33)

Figure D-21 (D-33)

Figure D-22 (D-33)

Figure D-23 (D-33)

Figure D-23 (D-34)

(Figure D-17) (D-40)

(Figure D-13). (D-48)

Figure D-14 (D-48)

Figure D-15) (D-48)

(Figure 8-16) (D-52)

 

 

List of Miscellaneous Stuff

 

dam site (D-30)

RWQCB (D-55)

 

Index

FISH RESOURCES..................................................................................................................... D-2

LISTING STATUS OF STEELHEAD......................................................................................... D-3

Evolutionarily Significant Units........................................................................................................ D-3

 STEELHEAD ............................................................................................................................. D-8

STEELHEAD............................................................................................................................... D-9

HISTORICAL DECLINE OF STEELHEAD............................................................................. D-12

Water Allocation Program........................................................................................................... D-13

FISH PASSAGE FACILITIES................................................................................................... D-14

Artificial Attraction and Rearing Measures.................................................................................... D-26